Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

June 7, 2006 – TUC fanboys CCS

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 7th,  2006, the Trades Union Council was fanboying ‘carbon capture and storage’ because it would help create ‘Clean Coal Britain’.

www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/framework-clean-coal-britain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that carbon capture and storage had been dreamt up as a potential techno fix solution for carbon dioxide build up in the mid 70s by an Italian physicist called Cesar Marchetti, and a certain amount of speculative work had been done in the late 70s and again in the early 90s, but the costs were prohibitive, and the technological challenges, shall we say, significant. The specific context is that after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and finally its ratification, it became clear that technological fixes were going to be the favoured rhetorical device, if not literal device, of political and economic elites. And so you’d had things like the carbon sequestration Leadership Forum, which was just another international talking shop with a logo and press conferences. Meanwhile, in the UK, support for CCS was coalescing. 

The specific context was that the Trades Union Council and especially the miners unions and friends of miners desperately trying to interest politicians. This is under Blair, still in the mindset that carbon capture and storage can ensure that domestic coal mining can continue, and the burning of coal for electricity can continue. 

What I think we can learn is this:  there are all sorts of constituencies for a technology, and that technologies bat about for a long time before they become quote plausible, unquote or implausible, but still implemented. 

What happened next: Well, the lobbying effort worked in that in late 2007 the first CCS competition was announced by Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, at an event in London, hosted by the WWF. That competition fell apart. Another competition was launched with confidence that lessons had been learned, and then at the last minute, in 2015 Treasurer George Osborne pulled the plug ; not because he was an opponent of CCS, he just didn’t think it was important, and he wanted to be able to boast about having put more bobbies on the beat. It was that banal. And then a third competition was launched in 2018 or ‘19 or whenever. And you can read all about it in my first and last book.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

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).

Also on this day: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

June 7, 1990 – Tasman Institute and a Nature letter about weathering

Categories
United Kingdom

May 30, 1980 – Report of the Climate Impact Investigations working group…

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 30th, 1980, a subgroup of civil servants is looking at climate impacts (nb this is more broad than carbon dioxide build-up, which was not, in the eyes of many, the only show in town).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s the Met Office had found it had to work harder to monopolise (or control) the debates on climate impacts for the UK.

The specific context was that by this time it was clear that the Thatcher government was supremely uninterested in questions of preparations for increased climate extremes.

What I think we can learn from this is that after you lose a battle (as the pro-action forces had in 1979-80) there is a refractory period…

What happened next. 

The issue was there in the undergrowth, growing, but did not ‘break through’ until 1988.

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: 

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York

May 30, 1996 – Denialist goons smear scientist

 May 30, 1996 – Minerals Council investment pays off, again…

May 30, 2007 – Kevin Rudd pledges to ratify Kyoto, set emissions target and create an ETS

Categories
United Kingdom

May 26, 1859 – Tyndall submits a paper

One hundred sixty seven years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1859, a paper by the Anglo-Irish scientist, John Tyndall, landed on someone’s desk at the Royal Society…

“Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.” By John Tyndall, Ph.D., F.R.S. &c. Received May 26, 1859 Royal Soc 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that this is the 19th century. Science is going gangbusters.

The specific context was that  you have an Anglo Irish scientist who may or may have not lifted work from Eunice Foote. We’ll never know. 

It’s not clear to me that he did, because she didn’t complain, and her allies didn’t complain, and other people who will have read her work at the time didn’t say, hey, “Tyndall’s nicking stuff.” That last point is not a slam dunk argument, of course, because you wouldn’t accuse an esteemed scientist of plagiarism or filching work, because it would not be gentlemanly, especially if he’s only if he’s pinching it from someone who is, after all, only a woman. 

What I think we can learn from this. Oh, here we are, with the CO2 levels

What happened next. Tyndall died in 1893, accidentally killed by his wife just before Svante Arrhenius did his calculations, which took him a year, and produced his famous article about “carbonic acid.”

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: 

May 26, 1978 – “Advisory Group on Climate” meeting

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target – All Our Yesterdays

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

Categories
IPCC United Kingdom

May 21, 1990 – Houghton presents to Thatcher’s cabinet

Thirty six years ago today,

 Demonstrating her continuing interest in climate change, Margaret Thatcher invited John Houghton to present the scientific findings of IPCC(1990) to her Cabinet on 21 May 1990.

Folland et al 2004

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that again, the British government had been warned repeatedly about climate change. New Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in 1979 had responded to her Chief Scientific Advisor, “what you want me to worry about the weather?” And there had been other attempts to get her on board. Finally, in 1988 for domestic political reasons, she pivoted and gave her speech at the Royal Society. This set the ball in motion. 

The specific context was that in April of 1989 Thatcher had held a one day seminar for her cabinet on what to do about the greenhouse effect. I think Houghton was there. A lot of other people were too. In November of ‘89 she’d given a talk at the United Nations General Assembly, and here she was as the IPCC First Assessment report was released, asking the head of the Met Office, (I think he’d retired from that post by then, but had become the chair of IPCC Working Group 1, I want to say) to give a presentation to her cabinet.

What I think we can learn from this is that the problem was not lack of information. The problem was the stupidity, greed, etc, of various politicians, but also the social and electoral systems that allowed them to be stupid and greedy and societal systems as well. 

What happened next. Thatcher continued to manage the climate issue with nice speeches, but she never picked up the green gauntlet, either literal or metaphorical. And you see this pattern again and again. “Oh, look, we’ve had the top scientist in to speak to us. Therefore, give us a break.” And it’s rubbish. But liberals are happy to fall for it.

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: 

May 21, 1971 – Marvin Gaye asks “What’s Going On?”

May 21, 1990 – “The Big Heat” documentary – All Our Yesterdays

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”

May 21, 2024 – the Pope warns again

Categories
United Kingdom

May 18, 1972 – Wayland Kennet holds forth

Fifty four years ago, on this day, May 18th, 1972, Wayland Kennet (the greenest of Labour types) holds forth on ‘ecology’,

“All ears are ringing with the eschatological buccinae of Ehrlich, Commoner, Meadows et al.”

Since you ask,, a buccina was “A brass instrument that was used in the ancient Roman army, [1] similar to the cornu. An aeneator who blew a buccina was called a “buccinator” or “bucinator”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Kennet had been switched on for a while, and had been an effective minister in the Housing and Local Government department, which is where ‘environment’ ‘sat’ before the coming of the Department of Environment. Kennet also, pretty much single-handedly, wrote the first Environment White Paper, in May 1970.

The specific context was that the Stockholm conference was coming. Ehrlich and Commoner had visited the UK repeatedly and the Limits to Growth people had released their report. The Stockholm conference was impending. Buccinae, as Kennet says…

What I think we can learn from this. There was a moment of alarm, half a century ago.  There might have been time to act. It certainly WAS the time to act. But, well, oh well…

What happened next.  These spasms last three years or so. That’s about as much reality as anyone wants to face.  Then, in 1973, thanks to war in the Middle East, oil prices went through the roof and the environment stuff was shunted aside….  Oh how times change.

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: 

May 18, 1953 – Newsweek covers climate change. Yes, 1953.

May 18, 1967 – NA Leslie at Institute of Petroleum, citing Barry Commoner on C02 build up – All Our Yesterdays

May 18, 1976 – US congress begins hearings on #climate

May 18, 2006- Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

May 18, 2011- Malcolm Turnbull disses “direct action” on Lateline 

Categories
United Kingdom

May 17, 1990 – pain and anguish to save the planet

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 17th, 1990,

‘We will have to make it clear to our electorate how much pain and anguish they will have to suffer in order to save the planet’, said David Trippier, UK Environment Minister

(quoted in the Guardian, 17 May 1990).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the British government had been warned repeatedly about carbon dioxide build up and done nothing. And here we have a specific example. The British government is figuring out what to do about setting reduction targets and what it would do in the case of a climate treaty which is looking more and more likely. And so the British Minister wants to highlight the costs and to try and dampen down enthusiasm for action by talking about the so-called pain and anguish of acting. He doesn’t talk, of course, about the pain and anguish for other species or for future generations, because they’re not going to help him get re-elected. And that’s the distant future, far off countries of which we know little. 

The specific context was that everyone was jockeying ahead of upcoming climate negotiations.

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change was the mother of all collective action problems, and we – unsurprisingly – flunked it epically.

What happened next.  The British government continued to do very little substantive on climate change, (though, ironically, more than many countries), and here we are. 

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: 

May 17, 1968 – “Some prophets of darkness warn of polar icecaps melting…”

May 17, 1969 – Ritchie Calder gives a speech

May 17, 1972 – New York Times reports carbon dioxide build-up worries…

May 17, 1979 – Martin Holdgate’s A Perspective on Environmental Pollution” published – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

May 9, 1989 – the Brits want a global climate pact. The US? Not so much…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989, Crispin Tickell tried to move things along. 

Boston Globe, May 10 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tickell was a career diplomat. In 1975 he had done a sabbatical at Harvard University and wrote his thesis on Climatic Change and International Affairs. He could see what carbon dioxide build-up would do to geopolitics. He tried repeatedly to get Margaret Thatcher to be concerned about the question. Eventually, in 1988 he succeeded.

The specific context was that in the second half of 1988 the problem had become an issue. Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Society in late September 1988 that was, in effect, the starting gun for international diplomacy. The administration of George H.W. Bush, however, was dragging its heels.

What I think we can learn from this. There was a chance to fix this – or if not actually fix it, then manage it. To buy us extra time. Instead we went lead head and lead foot off the cliff. Oh well.

What happened next. The US threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries was in the text of the Climate Treaty. This threat worked, the targets and timetables weren’t in, and we have spent the last 34 years trying to get them in. 

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: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

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

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

May 8, 1971 – FOE does/doesn’t bottle it.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 8th, 

But it was rather by luck than design that FoE’s first action, the return of bottles to Cadbury-Schweppes’ offices on Saturday 8 May 1971, achieved phenomenal publicity and launched FoE onto the public’s attention. As Weston remarked “The bottle dump event was really a media coup for FOE. That style of political activity had not been seen in Britain before and was, until then more associated with the American system of pressure group politics” (Weston 1989: 35).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that concern about pollution, resources running out, overpopulation, etc, were all growing steadily in the late 1960s helped by the Torrey Canyon oil tanker disaster, and then the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Earthrise photo, etc, various pollution incidents.

The specific context was that in the UK, the main environment group at that time was the Conservation Society, but it was small-c conservative, and didn’t want to do eye-catching stunts. Therefore there was an ecological niche for other actors. And here we see Friends of the Earth doing a brilliant publicity stunt, leaving lots of empty bottles that would otherwise go to landfill en masse outside Downing Street. Very visual, very obvious. 

What I think we can learn from this is there is a time when these sorts of stunts will work. You have to look at what’s happening within the broader social system.

What happened next. These stunts have diminishing returns. “Hippies protest,” @man bites dog”, but as late as 2006 loads of coal were being dumped outside Downing Street by Greenpeace.

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: 

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound. – All Our Yesterdays

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2008 – Carbon Rationing Scrapped

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
United Kingdom

May 3, 1979 – Nature editorialised on “costs and benefits of carbon dioxide”

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1979

Costs and benefits of carbon dioxide. Nature 279, 1 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/279001a0

Bondi, H. David Davies’ editorship ends. Nature 283, 1 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1038/283001b0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Nature magazine had been reporting on CO2 build up, or at least mentioning it in passing, since 1964, and had editorialised that it was a ‘scare’ in 1971 under the editorship of John Maddox. 

The specific context was that from the mid-70s onwards, there was a build up of awareness internationally, especially in Europe and the United States, about CO2 as a pollutant. And in April, as alluded to in the editorial itself, there had been a four day workshop on CO2 build up and societal impacts in Annapolis, Maryland. Among the British attendees were Crispin Tickell, who at that point was a consigliere for British European Commissioner Roy Jenkins, and Tom Wigley, who was head of the Climatic Research Unit.

And this is exactly the same time that obviously Margaret Thatcher is coming to office, and the report by the Interdepartmental Group on Climatology is working its way through the system. There’s no mention of the Nature editorial in the files I’ve seen National Archives, which does not, of course, mean that it was not discussed. It simply means that there isn’t a surviving minute of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is 

That intelligent people from the mid-late 70s were well aware of the CO2 build-up issue.

That our Lords and masters didn’t pay any attention and that they simply sought advice from the people who were going to tell them the things they wanted to hear

Or maybe they had the misfortune to go to the wrong advice-givers and would it have been different if they’d gone to CRU? I don’t know. We’ll never know. We can’t know history doesn’t provide those experimental points. 

What happened next. Nature fell back under the editorship of John Maddox, and in 1988 he was still at his bullshit games of publishing editorials about “jumping the gun” and getting chided by Wally Broecker this time. 

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: 

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

May 3, 2024 – Friends of the Earth and Client Earth win a court case

Categories
technosalvationism United Kingdom

April 30, 1986 – “Industry: Caring for the Environment”

Forty years ago today, there’s another of those well-catered greenwash events…

INDUSTRY: CARING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

HRH, JOHN DAVIDSON, ANTHONY BIDDLE, BRUCE FALKINGHAM, JEREMY QUICKENDEN, PATRICK WEATHERILT, WILLIAM WILKINSON, BRIAN LETCHFORD, NICOLA LYON, JONATHAN FRANKLIN, JOHN HINCH, MARTIN HOLDGATE, MICHAEL SPURR, GEOFFREY LARMINIE, RICHARD LINDSELL, ANTHONY CLEAVER and WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE 30 April 1986

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the environment concerns had never really completely gone away after the early 1970s. Industry had created various astroturf and greenwashing initiatives at an international level, things like the WICEM that had been meeting in, I think, Versailles, I want to say, in 1984.

 The specific context was that the ozone hole had been discovered. Amazon rainforest, deforestation, oil spills, fairly regular industrial accidents and disasters and so industry was always wanting to claim that it was a responsible corporate citizen, blah, blah, blah,

What I think we can learn from this is that you will always find politicians, especially on the right, but also centrists, which is pretty much everyone these days, are willing to play along with that, because that’s who donates the campaign funds, and that’s who provides the non-executive directorships once the party or the electorate finally tire of you. 

What happened next:  The greenwash really kicked into gear from sort of 1990 onwards. We need to think of greenwash and denial as two cheeks of the same arse.

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 30, 2007 – Rudd hires Garnaut – All Our Yesterdays

April 30, 1985 – New York Times reports C02 not the only greenhouse problem

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants