Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

April 28, 1987 – meeting between NERC and DOE 

On this day 39 years ago April 28th, 1987, 

In a 1987 meeting between UK climate scientists organised by DoE and NERC, it was considered “crucial that the UK supports truly global and multi-disciplinary approaches to studying the climate system. Clearly, the potential local impacts of any suggested climate change are of paramount importance to the UK but we must guard against any suggestion that climate-change issues can in general be studied from a parochial regional viewpoint. Regional studies should be conducted with proper regard being paid to results stemming from a global approach.”

Rapporteurs’ draft notes, ‘Man-made Climate Change: Planning the UK Research Strategy’, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, 28–29 April 1987. Provided to the authors by David Carson.

Citation for published version (APA): Mahony, M., & Hulme, M. (2016). Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92. MINERVA, 54(4), 445-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9302-0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that after the Villach conference, and with the Met Office making more and more of a noise, it became obvious that sooner or later, carbon dioxide build-up would hit the policy agendas, and these sorts of meetings were presumably happening through ‘86-87.

The specific context was that the Conservatives had put carbon dioxide build-up in their manifesto for the 1987 election, and things were beginning to move. A bit.

What I think we can learn from this is that before Thatcher did her u-turn, responsible people were beginning to think about what the state response should be.

What happened next: In September 1988 Thatcher gave her pivotal speech at the Royal Society, and then it was on for young and old…

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.

Also on this day:

April 28, 1975- Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” story.

April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

April 28, 1997 – John Howard says Australia should not have signed climate treaty (UNFCCC) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

April 25, 1989 – Tony Blair, eco-warrior

On this day Thirty seven years ago, April 25,  

Yesterday [April 25, 1989] Mr Tony Blair, Labour’s energy spokesman, went on the attack with a letter to the Prime Minister, challenging what he termed the “miserable record” of Mr Cecil Parkinson, the Energy Secretary, on energy conservation. 

Hunt, J. 1989. Greenhouse Effect Warms Tempers. Financial Times, April 26, Pg. 10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that UK politicians had been aware of the climate issue for (at least) ten years by now. The smart ones, that is. So, quite a small minority.

The specific context was that in September 1988 Margaret Thatcher had conducted one of her u-turns and declared carbon dioxide build-up a problem worth turning into an issue. People had tried to take her at her word, and she had revealed herself to be what she always was.

Anyway, on the day April 25, 1989, she had held a full-day seminar, with various technical experts from ETSU etc, briefing her and her Cabinet colleagues (including several who couldn’t be bothered to stay awake – literally).

What I think we can learn from this is that Blair was trying to get an attack line out there for journalists who were writing about Thatcher’s seminar, so they could quote him for “balance.”

What happened next:  Blair?  Don’t know. Faded into obscurity. Or so about a million Iraqis would have wished…

See also

May 9, 1989- Tony Blair says market forces can’t fix the greenhouse effect…

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

April 24, 2006 – CCS is gonna save us (again) (meeting of the parliamentary and scientific committee)

On this day, 20 years ago,  

OUR ENERGY FUTURES FOR SECURE AND SUSTAINABLE POWER: FROM CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, MICROGENERATION, TIDAL, WIND AND NUCLEAR

MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON MONDAY 24TH APRIL 2006- Science in Parliament newsletter

scienceinparliament.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/sip63-3.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that CCS had been talked about briefly in the late 1970s, and a bit more in the early 1990s, but nobody took it seriously because, you know, behaviour change and carbon trading was all that was needed.

The specific context was that from the early 2000s it was obvious that behaviour change and carbon trading were grotesquely inadequate. Ooh, let’s pull “CCS” out of the garbage can (Cohen’s garbage can).

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want an idea to grab a minister’s attention, get the policy wonks on board (they’ll influence the civil servants) and also the minister’s colleagues (loved or loathed) in parliament.  

What happened next:  CCS got more support. A “competition” was announced in late 2007. Fell over. Was picked up, dusted off and started again. Kneecapped with the body thrown in a dumpster in 2015.  Resurrected again between 2016 and 2018.  And is currently having enormous sums of public money thrown at it.  Somebody should write a book.

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

April 10, 1979 – National Coal Board top scientist versus 19th century physics

On this day, 47 years ago,   Joseph Gibson, chief scientist at the National Coal Board, was keen to dampen concern and examination of coal’s global environmental impacts. With palpable glee he wrote a letter on April 10 1979 to the Chairman (Brian Flowers) and the board members.      

“I promised to let Board members have a copy of the IEA report on the greenhouse effect…. The only firm fact so far is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. It is concluded that there is no evidence of a rise in global temperature due to this concentration increase at present.” He then goes on to quote from the work, by Irene Smith – “There is little evidence to support either a complacent or an alarmist attitude…”

(Gibson, J. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect. April 10 TNA COAL 30/414)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the National Coal Board had been explicitly aware of carbon dioxide build up since (at the latest) 1972, and was looking for an excuse not to have to do much. And in Irene Smith’s work, they were able to cherry pick what they wanted. 

The specific context was that Gibson was surely aware that in other parts of the British state apparatus an “Interdepartmental Group on Climatology” was about to present a report.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who are comfortable in their own way of thinking find it hard to take new threats seriously until they are staring them in the face. 

What happened next:  The National Coal Board hired some people to do some work on the carbon dioxide work. This was good stuff, but it all kind of didn’t contribute in the way that it could have, not because those people were less than stellar, but simply because the Thatcher governments had other fish to fry. And Thatcher had made it clear herself that she wasn’t going to “worry about the weather”.  

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.

Also on this day: 

April 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt) – All Our Yesterdays

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Australia Renewable energy United Kingdom

April 1, 2002 – Renewables policies in UK and Australia

On this day, April 1,  

UK  Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.

and 

2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)

The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.

The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change.  In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.

What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).

What happened next:  Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.  

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 30, 1988 – Greenpeace protests acid rain 

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 30th, 1988.  

By ED LION LONDON — Tens of thousands of morning commuters watched two Greenpeace members Wednesday scale the 170-foot-high Nelson’s Column in London’s famed Trafalgar Square and perch atop it for three hours to protest acid rain.

Seven Greenpeace members — including the two climbers and five others who had helped them from the ground — were arrested


March 30, 1988 Seven arrested in protest against acid rain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that acid rain had been a sore point for the UK, especially because the Scandinavians – the Norwegians and the Swedes especially – were complaining that sulphur dioxide from the coal fired power stations of the UK’s Central Electricity Generating Board were causing acid rain to damage Swedish ecosystems, and the Thatcher government was extremely hostile to all action on this.

The specific context was that there had been the European Year of the Environment. Greenpeace was riding high. 1988 was one of those years that where a decade happens in a month sort of thing, on climate but more generally on environmental concerns.

What I think we can learn from this is that they weren’t able to get the same level of concern going about carbon dioxide, because it is so central to everything that we do and hard to imagine replacing. 

What happened next  Well, the acid rain issue largely went away because the amount of coal being burned decreased for various reasons. The coal had slightly less sulphur in It, etc. The eco-concern fizzled out by 1992. Everyone was exhausted of staring into the abyss, and those few who had tried to get arms of the state to respond were simply exhausted and demoralised.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – economist Nick Stern in Australia

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Media United Kingdom

March 20, 2000 – snow joke –  Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”…

On this day 25 years ago, March 20, 2000 a gift to the denialists was given,

 Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the relationship between media and scientists has been one of “frenemies” for decades, far beyond climate science.

The specific context was that climate change was now steady “background noise”, and there was a flare up in coverage thanks to the Bush administration preparing to pull out of Kyoto.

What we learn? Well, here’s a journo from the same paper.

Steve Connor: Don’t believe the hype over climate headlines | The Independent | The Independent

Headlines are meant to draw people into a story and have to conform to quite rigid restrictions on space in the printed medium – where this headline first appeared. They are meant to be accurate, but they can never do full justice to the nuances of reporting. This is even more true when it comes to the more complex nuances of science. The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, which the it stated clearly.

A more accurate headline would be something like: “Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn’t necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever.” Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.

What happened next


Various denialist sites kept the receipts.

The End of Snow, 13 Years On – The American Interest

Stripped of context – Readfearn in Guardian

White lies: Daily Telegraph’s excitement over bumper snow season skates over facts | Graham Readfearn | The Guardian

Readfearn in DeSmog

Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For “Alarmists” To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers – DeSmog

Also on this day

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc  

Categories
United Kingdom

March 19, 1989 – “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger”

On this day, thirty seven years ago “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger” 

GEOFFREY LEAN Environment Correspondent

The Observer  March 19, 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning since the mid-late 1970s that there was serious trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the climate issue had exploded in September 1988 thanks in part to Margaret Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society. In response, green groups had thrown down what they called the “Green Gauntlet,” 20 policy proposals; Thatcher had basically blanked it. And now we see this report that ministers delay plans to curb climate danger

 What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy to say something is an issue and get plaudits, but then when people say, what are you going to do about it, it begins to get awkward, doesn’t it? The management of the climate issue as a political problem, rather than a civilizational one, kicked in because it is the perfect super-wicked problem in terms of distributed responsibility, uncertainty, long term effects, etc, and the problem of free riders, all the rest of it. 

What happened next  Well, in the UK, there was Thatcher’s 1989 Cabinet meeting in April. Then the UNFCCC process kicked in. And so on.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom Upcoming events

Upcoming event – March 26th – “Carbon Capture or Carbon Fiction? Science, Policy, and the UK’s Methane Blind Spot”

Next Thursday – March 26th – at 6.15pm, Dr Andrew Boswell is giving a talk at the Royal Society of Chemistry on “Carbon Capture or Carbon Fiction? Science, Policy, and the UK’s Methane Blind Spot“. 

The talk will be livestreamed.  It would be good to see you in

If you live in the London area (the talk is at Burlington House, central London). 

Details on how to book both are at https://www.rsc.org/events/detail/82590/carbon-capture-or-carbon-fiction-science-policy-and-the-uk-s-methane-blind-spot

The talk will introduce new material from Boswell’s work on the UK policy framing of Carbon Capture, supporting the call from campaigners for an evidenced based review of UK (and global) CCS policy. 

Please forward on to colleagues who may be interested. 

See also –

Interview with Andrew Boswell – “When I found the double-counting error, I thought, ‘no, they can’t really be doing that.'” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 17, 2013 – Daily Mail idiot makes idiotic climate claims 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2013,

In the four-page version published in the Mail on Sunday on 17 March, he calls climate science the “Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to expose his errors. 

https://storage.googleapis.com/gpuk-archive/blog/climate/mail-fake-cover.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Daily Mail has been mostly but not entirely, hostile to the idea of carbon dioxide build up. There was this article from 1979 based on a book, World without Trees.

But on the whole, the Daily Mail mostly has derided hippies and anti-capitalists and grant grubbing-scientists. Every so often, they’ll run a story or an editorial to show that they’re somehow “balanced”, but they’re not really fooling anyone

The specific context was that their journalist, if you want to call him that, David Rose, was a reliable repeater of the latest denialist memes and talking points and bullshit to come out of the United States. (and, self-confessedly at the time of the Iraq war, security services disinformation). And so it came to pass here, in 2013 after the Copenhagen failure and ahead of David Cameron saying “cut the green crap.”

In 2013, Media Matters named Rose’s publication, the Daily Mail “2013 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” for its stirring up of “faux controversies about climate science.” In 2014, Greenpeace made an official release noting that David Rose is “not a credible source.”12 13

David Rose – DeSmog

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a conveyor belt of ass-hollering, where denial, half truths and outright lies get washed into newspapers, and then some of it ends up in people’s heads. I am not proposing a hypodermic model;  it is more of an air mist than a hypodermic. 

What happened next The Mail has kept on being awful on climate, alongside the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, as per Carbon Brief.

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North