Fifty six years ago, on this day, September 18th, 1970,
A branch of the “United Nations Association” is holding a meeting about pollution.
“The increase in the use of combustible fuels has led to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last century. By 2000 AD the increase could be 25 per cent. The consequences of so much CO2 in the atmosphere upon world weather and climate are uncertain, but could eventually be catastrophic, claim some reports.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that from 1968-69 around the world environment concerns were growing. The UK had had the Torrey Canyon in ‘67. In late 1969 Frank Fraser Darling’s Reith lectures had set a cat cat amongst the pigeons (see telegraph report and economist editorial).
Thespecificcontext was, with a new Department (of the Environment) being formed, we see an United Nations Association organising a talk, and yes, on the agenda is carbon dioxide build-up.
What I think we can learn from this is that people have known about this problem, and people have urged politicians to take action and urged society to take action and it has not worked, it did not work
What happened next we have trapped so much heat and poured stored up so many consequences for ourselves the Fafocene is just beginning.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971,
“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, [UK Chief Scientific Advisor Alan] Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.(117)
Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that it was obvious that there were significant environmental and economic challenges around not just energy provision, but well, everything.
Thespecificcontext was that the British state knew about the impending Limits to Growth report, and the chief scientist, Alan Cottrell, was interested. There had been a leak in the Observer already about the limits report, so this is in the context of mandarins and technocrats trying to figure out if these tools will be helpful to them.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Limits to Growth report was influential before it was even published, and then derided as Malthus with a computer, because apparently human ingenuity will conquer all.
What happened next The chief scientific adviser after Cottrell, or the one after the one after Cottrell, was John Ashton, and he did raise the climate issue, but unfortunately the political leaders were simply not interested, and it waited until 1988 before the climate problem became an issue.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixty years ago, on this day, September 8, 1966, the Guardian reports on the latest meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science….
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 321ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that from the early 1950s the theory of carbon dioxide build-up had gained traction (its modern revival had begun in 1938, thanks to Guy Callendar)
This was not the first time the issue had been raised at a British Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Peter Ritchie-Calder had already spoken about carbon dioxide build-up as a problem – in 1963.
What I think we can learn from this- people in the UK were aware of the problem by the mid 1960s, which is a bit earlier than I’d really realised when I started this project.
What happened next – John Houghton worked on a variety of things (his biography is very good) and finally, in 1982-3 became head of the Met Office, taking over from John Mason.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Forty three years ago, on this day, August 29th, 1983, a gardening correspondent points to carbon dioxide build-up in his Daily Telegraph column…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was was that newspapers had been reporting on the potential danger of carbon dioxide build up for decades, by this point there was quite a lot of activity in the 1980s, before Hansen’s pivotal 1988 testimony.
Thespecificcontext: Here we see someone who is interested in gardening, and therefore the seasons, and when spring arrives, and how long summer is, and how hot it is, etc acknowledging the existence of the greenhouse effect and the potential dangers.
What I think we can learn from this is that by the early 1980s the greenhouse effect was being acknowledged broadly. It was not particularly controversial.
What happened next finally in 1988 the scientific problem became a political issue. However, we failed to act in a sane or self-preservation style, and have now condemned ourselves, future generations, and most of the other species on this planet to unimaginable pain and suffering. Homo “sapiens” my extraordinarily fat arse.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fifty years ago today, on August 28th 1976, someone writes some sense in the (pre-Murdoch) Times.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 331ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the Times had been reporting on carbon dioxide build up. The first big example I’ve been able to find is around the 1957 IUGG conference. They published a letter the following year from someone called Peter Ball. And The Times had, like all the other newspapers in the late 60s, early 70s, run series on various forms of pollution.
Thespecificcontext was that there was a drought going on in the UK, and a heat wave. The Times had already reported on an earlier World Meteorological Organisation statement about carbon dioxide in the world getting hotter. And here we see the fact, the intriguing fact that Crispin Tickell’s document that he’d written while at Harvard on a sabbatical was circulating in Whitehall, and there was some effort – ultimately unsuccessful – to get policy makers interested in climate.
What I think we can learn from this is that 50 years ago the British state was beginning to think about this stuff. See also John Agar’s paper.
What happened next there was a push to get carbon dioxide discussed. That push was led by people like John Ashton, the chief scientific advisor, who was working within the CPRS. And this led to the climatic change report of 1980 or published in early 1980 but Thatcher and her fellow numbskulls decided that they were not interested, and so the whole issue kind of went back into the undergrowth and it was only revived after much more work by Tickle and other nations getting into it.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixty eight years ago, on this day, August 28th, 1959,
Fuel fumes trap heat
“Another factor, increasing the heat and the humidity is the development of what is called carbon dioxide pollution of the atmosphere.
Years of burning coal, oil and other fuels have added considerably to this pollution – it has increased by 15 p.c. in our atmosphere in the past 50 years – and its effect is to “trap” the heat from the sun’s rays and heat radiated from the ground.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that from 1953 discussion about carbon dioxide build up had been happening in newspapers and scientific meetings. This had been triggered by Gilbert Plass in 1953. He had been building on the work of Tyndall, Arrhenius and Calendar (the work of Eunice Foote was unknown at this time).
Thespecificcontext was that there had been some very hot summers and a Met Office head of research, Veryard was intermittently being asked for his opinion about long-term trends. Veryard had already talked on the BBC about this issue and carbon dioxide build up.
What I think we can learn from this is that the Daily Mail was reporting on this stuff and not losing its mind, but it would eventually, of course, lose its mind.
What happened next. Veryard would go on to write more, and then it appears he moved over to the World Meteorological Organisation.
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Forty five years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1981,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was UK newspapers had been reporting on climate change intermittently since really the late 1960s/early 70s, and the Telegraph, which leaned right, had even had done a puff piece with German meteorologist Herman Flohn around the First World Climate Conference. The Telegraph wasn’t completely batshit at this point.
Thespecificcontext was that a study had appeared in Science magazine by James Hansen et al about CO2 build up, and the Telegraph was diligently reporting it.
What I think we can learn from this is that we shouldn’t judge today’s terrible so-called newspapers, as the metric of what they always were. They have been hollowed out, they have been demented. They were, they were right wing, but serious. You could still learn something from them, I suppose. You still can at the margins if you try really hard. Who’s got the time, though?
What happened next is that Hansen was punished by the Reagan administration, which took away a grant that had already been disbursed, meaning people lost their jobs, people who had relocated to take jobs. Hansen persisted, of course, and famously gave his testimony in 1988 that it was “time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect was here.” (Well, that wasn’t in his testimony, that was in his comments to journalists afterwards.) The Telegraph began a long, slow, painful slide into utter crass idiocy, not even a shadow of its former self.
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
I’m writing this as rain delays my departure for town. It is some of the first rain in months, and welcome.
Summer will end, and when it does, Prime Minister Andy Burnham will – I suspect – give the approval to one or both of the oil and gas projects that the extractors are currently salivating over.
It will be wrapped up in all sorts of casuistry, all sorts of presentational gimmicks (see my speculations on those – and the responses – here).
I could be wrong, the man may surprise me. We shall see.
Let’s assume he doesn’t. To me, then, the question is what is the real, the fundamental difference, on climate change, between him and Richard Tice of Reform, who recently said we should basically lie back and enjoy it?
What’s the difference? Anyone?
Richard TiceAndy Burnham
Sure, Burnham will look suitably sad, and perhaps even hug a few people whose homes have burned to the ground. He may loot the aid budget further to do some band-aid stuff in constituencies where some of his favourite MPs are vulnerable to a Green Surge.
But step back, think slightly longer term, bigger burning picture – what will the difference between him and Tice actually be?
Who knows, maybe this post will age like a glass of milk in a heatwave. Or maybe it’s the Burnham bounce that is the glass of milk…
“Speaking to BBC Radio 5Live on Friday [15th August], he suggested approving the two plans could help “speed up the energy transition”.
Although he did not name the sites, Burnham said: “We won’t be able to stop using oil and gas for some time, that’s just a fact. The question is whether we can accelerate use of it so that we pay for the transition, and one thing helps the other… whether that extraction can be the bridge to the clean energy future we need, and bring it forward. It’s about a pragmatic approach to both of those.””
When (1) Prime Minister Burnham gives the approval to one (or both) of Rosebank and Jackdaw, his team will do its best to manage perceptions, and anger. The announcement itself will presumably be sandwiched between two ‘nice’ and ‘cuddly’ announcements. Probably one to do with animal welfare (something about maximum temperatures for battery farms, with maybe price controls on what vets can charge for pet care? idk – spitballing here), the other to do with heating bills and insulation. All this will be phrased as “sensible”, “pragmatic” “achievable” etc.
My guess is that the announcement itself will come at Labour Party conference, so additional pressure can be placed on any MPs who might otherwise be more tempted to run their mouths. This is slightly dependent on temperatures, of course – Burnham doesn’t want to be announcing these project approvals during another heatwave. Burnham will make sure that when he makes the announcement he is flanked by a couple of photogenic young apprentices (ideally women of colour) who will be getting Job and Training on one of those projects.
What will happen next?
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh will be endlessly scrutinised for any gritting of teeth during their support for this ‘difficult but ultimately sensible’ decision.
We will be flooded with the pundit class telling us how important to be “adult”, to “understand how politics works” etc. Much as they did when Peter Mandelson was announced as UK ambassador to the US.
The Telegraph and the Heil will have several full-page articles about how reality is impinging on Burnham, but while Miliband is around, there is still Peril.
The business lobbies pushing for this will I suspect be relatively low-key, not wanting to draw too much attention to their power. The gloating can be done behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the riff-raff.
The Climate Change Committee will put out some schrodinger’s cat of an announcement, carefully crafted so it can be read in any way that is useful to government, opposition etc.
The Chief Scientific Advisor will be unavailable for comment – either on holiday or being held at a secret location until the heat dies down a bit.
There will be denunciatory press releases and stunts (a “die-in” or three?) by a fairly broad coalition of green groups and groupuscules. Perhaps some Grim Reapers, “outside the Treasury, carrying empty harvest baskets and hessian sacks marked “WHEAT – FAILED”, “POTATOES – FAILED” and “CROPS – FAILED”, against a backdrop of drought-scorched crops.” (as per Edie, 2026).
The fact that Saint Andy was happy to get some nice publicity when signing the Fossil-Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty with Massive Attack and an academic will be dredged up (On June 5, 2025, since you ask)
The Compass outfit, which claims to bring red and green together, will once again be revealed as, well, pointless.
Green Party membership will get a noticeable bump, as people realise that they have met the new boss and he is the same spineless meat-puppet as the old boss, only with “better comms.”
The Conservatives and Reform will not punch the bruise too hard, I think. Ms Badenoch will release some screed – “We congratulate him for finally facing down the eco-loons who most days run his party”.
Reform will say that this is not enough, however, the Government should also be outlawing onshore wind and solar.
And the rest of us? We will take the blow with that same hollow-eyed, hollow-stomached sense of fear, despair and powerless that we’ve been coping with (or not coping with) for years or decades.
Once again we will learn that “pragmatic” means cowardice. As per the words of a brave anti-Nazi German called Manfred (2)
“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!”“Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”
(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)
And, somewhere, a tool-maker’s son will have some kind of wry smile…
But if the Labour party wanted naked pragmatism, frankly it could have stuck with Keir Starmer. It looks to Andy Burnham for something more: the courage to face up to difficult questions but also the political skills to sell difficult answers, and the emotional intelligence to manage the fallout. As this unnaturally hot summer fades into what may be an equally unnaturally wet autumn, we’ll soon know whether he can actually deliver.
Well, “if” – I hope he surprises me, obviously, but it would be a surprise.
Manfred had got out before the war. In 1944 he had volunteered to be parachuted behind German lines in a soldier’s uniform with the aim of gathering whatever intelligence he could, get captured by advancing Allied soldiers, and then spill the beans. The Gestapo etc knew about this – it was fantastically dangerous.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 2001,
Fifty ideas for actions on climate change
In May and June 2001, the Rising Tide Climate Chaos Tour visited 12 cities in Britain. Some 300 people came to the Tour. In the last session of each gig people broke into small groups and brainstormed ideas for action. This is a list taken from their ideas.
This list proves that no one can argue that there’s nothing we can do about climate change. Our only problem now is choosing what to do- and when has that ever been an excuse for not doing anything?!
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that a bunch of mostly UK, but not exclusively climate activists had been trying to get people concerned about climate change, they had been there at the first COP in Berlin, and they had especially been there at the sixth COP at The Hague in the Netherlands, in those innocent pre 911 days when it was possible, given lax security to in fact storm the stage, (compare with XR storming the stage with Burnham in early 2019). And rising tide was trying to build a movement, and they failed, not through lack of effort or intelligence, but just it didn’t quite work out for them, and here we see they had plenty of ideals.
The specific context was here they (and I was not among them) desperately trying to get enough people involved/interested in 200.
What I think we can learn from this is issue entrepreneurs have to be smart, persistent, and above all lucky, And part of the luck is the times suiting you and the times seem to suit fascist idiots like John Howard (Australian Prime Minister 1996-2007) more than they do the good people of Rising Tide, and so it goes,
What happened next some people from within Rising Tide were instrumental in the Camp for Climate Action from 2006 onwards.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
