Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 1970, the Ministry of (for) Transport told some other civil servants tasked with looking at pollution “nothing to see here”.
The National Archives – AB 48 dash 940
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was a mad rush among the civil service to “support” the drafting and publication of the very first Environment White Paper
Feb 13 1970 the NonNuclear Committee had asked Roberts to talk to Ministry of Environment (see AB 48/940 jpg 67)
What I think we can learn from this is that civil servants go native, and are looking to support whatever industry they are supposed to be “regulating.”
What happened next
Car fumes as a problem for “the greenhouse effect” were getting attention within a couple of years (see Alistair Aird’s The Automotive Nightmare). They were in the frame in 1988. And here we are, the fat end of 40 years later, still in thrall to cars (oh, and EVs? They’re not the panacea some would have you believe…)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the British state was having one of its periodic fiscal crises (though the crisis is now perhaps more permanent!), Anyway they put Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic heating and called it a climate initiative. And this is brilliant, because it raises revenue and it smears the green cause as it were. It’s like the salting the earth. It’s very, very clever politics (terrible policy and governance, but clever politics).
What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re evil doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
What happened next
There was resistance to this, but it also made life harder for talking about actual green taxes.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was artists want to feel Relevant, while still being Artistic.
What I think we can learn from this. Artists, like almost everyone else, have been late and largely empty-handed to the party. Human, all too human.
What happened next. The opera ain’t over, but you can hear the fat lady in the wings, doing her warm ups.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
On this day, March 12, 1984, conservative MP for Carshalton Nigel Forman, had this to say…
March 12 1984 – I shall add a word about the more remote problems, which are just as important. Are the Government prepared to take an international initiative of an appropriate kind to limit the use of chlorofluorocarbons, which may deplete the stratospheric ozone? Are the Government prepared to pay more attention to the possible dangers of the “greenhouse effect” on the globe as a consequence of the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Nobody knows about these matters for certain, but one knows for sure that the more investigation that is done in good time, the more we shall be able to minimise any risks that may ensue. Since the greatest contribution to the “greenhouse effect” comes from the burning of fossil fuels, does that not have important implications for our energy policies and those of other countries, since we are not the largest burners of fossil fuels?
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in October 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States had released a report called “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (spoiler, no, no we cant). This had received some press coverage in the UK, and publications like Nature and New Scientist were covering the issue too.
What we learn Backbencher politicians were alert to the issue, while those “At The Top” were studiously looking elsewhere…
What happened next
Forman’s intellect and independence clearly got in the way, but eventually, to quote from Wikipedia
“The omission of Nigel Forman, from successive ministerial reshuffles over the past few years has surprised many at Westminster when several apparently less talented politicians have secured top posts. But after 16 years in the Commons, he has become an under-secretary at the education department”[8]
He resigned from that post in late 1992, for reasons never disclosed (someone had a dirt file on him? Who knows) and he lost his seat to a Lib Dem in the 1997 landslide. He died in 2017, having had an academic and consultancy after-life.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the BBC was making all of these documentaries about environmental issues and whether we were taking them seriously enough or too seriously. And this is another one of those.
March 1971 is possibly “peak Ehrlich” and peak environment. Everyone knew the Stockholm conference was coming. There was a new Department of the Environment. Super departments have been created, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, etc.
And here we are.
What I think we can learn from this
The TV shows that we think will “wake up the masses” have been made again and again and again and again. And again.
What happened next
Ehrlich’s predictions of the inescapable famine did not come to pass, and this has definitely hurt the green cause, if you want to call it that.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that with the Global Financial Crisis in full swing, Peter Mandelson recently returned from time as a European Commissioner and bringing back a new-found love of industrial policy launched the first “low carbon industrial strategy with the all singing, all dancing Copenhagen climate conference coming up in 10 months. And of course, the Climate Change Act passed into law only two months previously. So this needs to be seen in the context of UK/EU/global efforts.
What I think we can learn from this is that “industrial policy” as an okay thing goes back further than we thought – I mean, it was a standard Keynesian tool. However, after the post-stagflation triumph of the monetarists/neoliberals, it was career suicide in the 80s and 90s and first half of the noughties to say it, because you would be met with “beer and sandwiches at number 10” as an insult and apparently argument-winningpoint.
What happened next
Well, Gordon Brown’s premiership was at this point, already clearly a dead duck. There was an election in 2010 and to the shame of the Liberal Democrats, hungry for limousines and red boxes, they enabled the Tories (but then Nick Clegg is a Tory on everything except Europe). And although portions of the green rhetoric were kept, it was adios to industrial policy in any meaningful sense.
The low carbon industrial policy went south, but then came back and back and back again, and a new one is going to be launched in June (already pushed back from March).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 2012,
On 22 February 2012, Richard Lindzen gave a talk to invited guests in a rented room in the Palace of Westminster. Note that contrary to some reports about the seminar, it was not presented to UK Parliament. Any member of the UK legislature can rent one of the many Palace of Westminster rooms for private purposes; that is what happened in this instance.
Lindzen’s presentation, the slides of which can be viewed here and video can be seen here, appeared very similar to presentations given by Christopher Monckton. In fact, Lindzen’s talk contained many of the same climate myths we recently debunked from Monckton, which frankly does not reflect well on Lindzen. The slides and presentation are almost identical to Lindzen’s testimony to the US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010, which in turn was almost identical to a presentation he gave at a Heartland Institute conference 6 months earlier. In fact, Lindzen did not even update some of his graphs with data beyond mid-2010 for his UK presentation.
Lindzen’s presentation contained so many misrepresentations that it would be too time consuming to address them all; however, we will address most of them here, including the base on which Lindzen built his house of misinformation cards.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was tthat there was a very small number of very determined Conservative MPs and grandees who did not nod through the 2008 Climate Change Act. The had said from the get go that it was unnecessary and or unaffordable and or impossible. Tey did what these people always do, which is get a “prestigious” scientist to come along and tell them that they were right. Lindzen has a history of being, frankly, wrong.
What I think we can learn from this
You hold a meeting in the House of Commons, you put out a press release. It encourages your side. It might get some press coverage. It might cause some people to think that there is still a debate about the existence of climate change and the severity of it. Bish, Bosh, job done.
What happened next is that the anti Climate Change Act people kept going, and finally, in 2023 the elite consensus around the need to do something (a lot) about climate change fractured when Rishi Sunak thought that he could cling to power when he and his underlings totally misinterpreted a by election result in London. Hilarity did not ensue.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
See also
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.
On this day 44 years ago, (February 19, 1981) two newspapers (the Shepton Mallet Journal and the Central Somerset Gazette) reported on a meeting of the Ecology Party (now known as the Green Party). The topic? Carbon dioxide build-up and its implications.
IN THE time it takes to read this sentence, 3,000 more tons of carbon dioxide will have been released into the atmosphere.
This was just one of the astonishing statistics quoted by Mr. Fred Clarke. guest speaker at a meeting of Wells Constituency Ecology Party at the Good Earth Cafe, Wells..
He showed that pollution was more than a mere nuisance; it was a threat to the natural systems on which we depended for survival.
He demonstrated how most pollution was caused by our everyday actions rather than Torrey Canyon-like disasters. and suggested practical ways to avoid pollution. [continues].
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the previous year the UK government had decided not to keep close tabs on carbon dioxide build-up (there were some scientists urging closer engagement). But the question of carbon dioxide build-up was well understood in environmental circles.
What we learn is that the Ecology Party was doing this sort of thing a lot. They knew what was coming.What happened next was that the scientific certainty that there was Serious Trouble Ahead grew, and in 1988 Margaret Thatcher was finally, nine years after she had first been briefed on the topic and had dismissed it, forced to acknowledge its existence.
On this day, February 11th, in 1970, Prince Charles attended a film premiere in London, as part of the opening of the European Conservation Year.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that from early 1969 everyone had been banging on about their ‘green’ (not the word back then – ‘ecological’ was more in vogue) credentials. Here are Shell Mex and BP in an early effort at would later become called “greenwashing”
What we learn is that talk is cheap
What happened next – by 1973 Ecology was yesterday’s fad. It has come back several times, with new names and new soothing blandishments about technology or harmony or whatever. But we’re all toast.
Twenty years ago, on this day, February 1st, 2005,
… an international conference called “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases”[17] examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously, this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.[18]
The conference took place under the United Kingdom’s presidency of the G8, with the participation of around 200 ‘internationally renowned’ scientists from 30 countries. It was chaired by Dennis Tirpak and hosted by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, from 1 February to 3 February.[19]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2025 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Tony Blair, neck deep in the Iraq War and his special bromance with George W. Bush was very keen that the G7 in Gleneagles that year not talk about said war. So there was the Make Poverty History, bullshit. (And by bullshit, I don’t mean the sincere efforts by the NGOs and individuals, I mean UK Government.)
And there was also the climate agenda, so the academic conference at Exeter University must be seen in the context of avoiding talking about Iraq. The conference was held over three days, lots of fine words, including words about carbon capture and storage. It’s not so clear to me that anyone talked about how this was already a 20 year old agenda, if you put the starting gun at Villach..
What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been talking about avoiding dangerous climate change, and we haven’t. And now we are “coping” with dangerous climate change – that would have to be the title Or “bracing for the impact of the unavoided and now unavoidable existential threat climate change.” I don’t know what you would call it.
What happened next: More people died in the Iraq War of choice. Blair finally went in whenever it was 2007. And no one ever was held to account for what they did.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
