Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

Thirty one years ago, on this day, December 14, 1992, UK Department for Environment releases “Climate Change: our national programme on C02 emissions.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420.4ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had succeeded in weakening the climate treaty which the UK was clearly going to ratify. Meanwhile the “Our Common Inheritance” White Paper, published in 1990, meant that there had to be a national programme.

What I think we can learn from this is that promises of action are followed by promises that implementation will happen. Implementation plans are drawn up but then often nothing gets done…

What happened next

Nothing got done. There was a cola white paper. There was talk of carbon taxes and carbon pricing but really would be the early 2000s before any substantive climate action happened in the UK because emissions went down thanks to the switch from coal to gas and ongoing deindustrialisation of the UK.

And so while the numbers are going down, there’s no pressure to actually try to do anything.

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..

Categories
United Kingdom

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

Fifty years ago, on this day, December 13, 1973, in the UK,

 Prime Minister Edward Heath announced a 3-day working week to ration electricity use. Parliament was recalled on January 9th 1974 to hear that a new Department of Energy was being set up to co-ordinate the government’s response. However, the crisis brought down the government the following month. The incoming Labour government, under Harold Wilson, settled the miners dispute, and the new Energy Secretary, Eric Varley, ended the 3-day week on March 7th 1974.

Mallaburn & Nick Eyre (2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that those troublesome miners had the defenceless and innocent government by the throat. Meanwhile the Arab oil embargo meant that oil prices were going through the roof. In an absence of secure supply what do you do to reduce demand?

What I think we can learn from this 

is that the year 1973 was pretty eventful for energy. And energy efficiency is still not a thing. And we are radically unprepared for the future.

What happened next

Heath went to the electorate in February 1974 asking “who runs Britain?” And the answer came “not you chum, not you.”

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..

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels United Kingdom

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Forty four years ago, on this day, December 11, 1979, there was a conference at the Royal Geographical Society on what might happen if we kept burning more coal. And gosh, climate change even got a mention. How farsighted of them

  • CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF UTILIZING MORE COAL, HELD AT THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, ON 11-12 DECEMBER 1979

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in February – the UK’s John Mason had helped reduce momentum for increased activity on carbon dioxide build-up. In October 1978 an interdepartmental committee on climate change had been set up (by now its report was done, but its release was not certain – languishing in limbo (it would see daylight on February 11 1980).

There had also been an IEA report…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew, but we went ahead anyway, because, you know, maybe 19th century physics isn’t real…

See also speech to uranium institute.

What happened next

Coal kept getting dug up.

Mason changed his tune in 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..

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists United Kingdom

December 6, 2005 – CCS is our only hope, says Chief Scientist….

On this day 18 years ago (December 5, 2005), UK Chief Scientific Advisor David King said CCS or bust…

“Mankind’s only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change is burying CO2 emissions underground, says the UK’s chief scientist. Sir David King told the BBC carbon capture and storage technology was the only way forward as China and India would inevitably burn their cheap coal. This would be disastrous unless they were persuaded to put CO2 from power stations into porous rocks, he said. It is thought carbon capture and storage would add 10-15% to fuel bills. The process is currently being developed by an international consortium of energy firms. It involves removing carbon dioxide from emissions by one of three scientific methods. The carbon dioxide is then pumped at pressure into porous rocks, where it is expected to stay for 1,000 years or more. By then it is anticipated that carbon-free energy sources will have been developed. Professor King has often spoken of his deep concerns about climate change and has warned of a catastrophe if we keep emitting carbon at current levels. By 2030, China’s CO2 emissions from coal use alone are expected to have doubled. found it via –

Anon. (2005) Scientist hopes for CO2 storage. BBC, December 6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4501964.stm

References

PS Found this via Bowman J. & Juliette Addison (2008) Carbon capture and storage – “the only hope for mankind?”: an update, Law and Financial Markets Review, 2:6, 516-52

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

December 1, 2008 – Climate Change Committee fanboys carbon capture

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 1, 2008, the first report of the brand-spanking new “Committee on Climate Change” was released. It fanboys CCS.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Committee on Climate Change, which had been formally established by the Climate Change Act, but must have been appointing people, paying people, and generally being underway. This is its first report about reducing carbon emissions. And predictably enough since it’s the middle of the first competition on CCS there is a big fanboy section about carbon capture and storage. 

What I think we can learn from this is that CCS is very “logical” within our system, that there is mitigation deterrence to worry about, and that actual saving of carbon dioxide has not happened yet at any meaningful scale. And whether it will be remains to be seen. My money would be on “No”.

The Committee on Climate Change or the Climate Change Committee, as it wants to be called, has continued to produce really useful work ever since, though some (waves at Kevin Anderson) think it should have done much more holding-feet-to-the-fire…

What happened next

The CCS competition collapsed in 2011. Was replaced with another in 2012. It had the plug pulled in 2015. And here we are again.

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..

Categories
Uncategorized United Kingdom

November 26, 2008 – Climate Change Act becomes law

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 26, 2008, the UK Climate Change Act got royal assent.

The UK now had a Committee on Climate Change, carbon budgets and a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the issue of climate had been moving steadily up the political agenda (with climate and energy policy becoming entwined in the period 2000 to 2009). In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had recommended a 60% emissions reduction target by 2050. As public agitation (Climate Camp, Campaign Against Climate Change, Transitions Towns etc) got going, the NGO Friends of the Earth led a civil society charge for a Climate Change Bill. Though they shared the credit with the broader “Stop Climate Chaos” coalition, it was really their victory. At this time there was bipartisan support for action, because opposition leader David Cameron had been using environmental issues to detoxify the Tory brand.

What I think we can learn from this

You can have all the bipartisanship you like. It won’t last, and unless you have social movements and civil society monitoring the promises and putting pressure on the decision makers to make it happen, ‘business as usual’ will re-assert itself.

What happened next

David Cameron became Prime Minister, thanks to the connivance of the Liberal Democrats. And then within a couple of years it was ‘cut the green crap’…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong?

Categories
Carbon Pricing United Kingdom

November 25, 1993 – House of Commons briefing on carbon taxes

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 25, 1993, the UK House of Commons library did a briefing on a particular climate policy possibility – carbon taxes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp93-106/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1989, at the beginning of the Greenhouse Effect wave of concern, the World Bank had said we need carbon taxes to reduce fossil fuel use and to use the money to subsidise the development of renewables. That had not been a goer in the UK. In 1993 there had been an attempt to justify an increase on VAT on energy bills as somehow a green measure written about this previously – it was a cynical attempt to poison the well, making it harder for proponents to get traction.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons library did what the House of Commons library does, it pulled together really useful data in a briefing that can be used by MPs, policy wonks, etc. God bless the House of Commons library basically. 

What I think we can learn from this

You should always stop there first. You shouldn’t take what they say as gospel of course, – you shouldn’t take what anyone says is gospel. They will miss stuff, they will misinterpret stuff, because they’re human. But on the whole really, really useful stuff.

What happened next

In 1995, Crispin Tickell and others tried to get environmental measures into the budget, but by this time John Major was a busted flush, facing rebellion within his party. And the whole thing went nowhere for several years.

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.

Categories
Cultural responses United Kingdom

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

Sixty years years ago, on this day, November 23, 1963, the BBC science fiction programme Doctor Who sixty years ago

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the BBC wanted to make an “educational” show, with some humans from the present visiting earth’s past and the audience being informed about x, y and z. No bug-eyed monsters. From the earliest days Doctor Who was concerned with environment – in the second story about the Daleks, we learned that there has been a nuclear war, the atmosphere is poisoned and they will all die of radiation if they’re not careful. In the second season there’s a thinly veiled warning about DDT (Planet of the Giants). Throughout the show, long before “The Green Death” and “Invasion of the Dinosaurs” environmental concerns were getting a look in.

What I think we can learn from this

Someone should write an article about this. Only to have it knocked about by sadistic reviewers in love with their anonymous power.

What happened next

Doctor Who kept going and going and going, for better or worse, and has become deeply embedded in institutionalised in the “symbolic reservoir.”

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister David Cameron

Ten years ago, on this day, November 21, 2013, a report is published in The Guardian that then UK Prime Minister Dave Cameron (and now Foreign Secretary) had told his civil servants to “cut the green crap.”

21 Nov 2013 Guardian reports on “Cut the Green Crap”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that seven years previously David Cameron had been all “hug a husky” while using the environment to detoxify the Tory brand (how’s that working out for you?). Once in government, he had been forced by the Liberal Democrats to make some moves on climate. But he was head of a party that, on the whole, does not accept the science, does not understand the depth of the problem we face. And so because they wanted to save money, they decided to “cut the green crap.”. 

What I think we can learn from this

It’s a banal point, but if you take politicians at face value, and you don’t understand that they know what you want to hear, and they’re incentivized – especially when in opposition – to say it to you, then you will be … one word is disappointed. Another word is shafted. The only way you’re going to get good results or less terrible results is by holding the feet of politicians to the fire. But to do that, you need a variety of mechanisms. It can’t just be sending off a check to Friends of the Peace or Green Earth or whatever. You also need to be part of granular, resilient radical, social movement organisations. But the problem there is that these organisations do not exist and if they are started they usually quickly flame out or become tribute bands to themselves mindlessly performing zombie rituals, which made them feel good at the outset.

I may have digressed.

What happened next

The “green crap” was cut. Fracking was promoted. Nuclear had yet more money thrown at it. Then May and Johnson made nice sounding statements. Then Truss wasn’t around long enough to swing the axe, but Sunak….

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 18, 1953 – Macmillan tells the truth about committees

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 18, 1953 Harold Macmillan, who would go on to be British Prime Minister, told the truth about the function of (most) committees set up by politicians.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The London Smog of 1952 had killed 4000 people. Even though most of these were The Old and The Sick, still the cry went up, “something must be done.” So the Beaver committee (chaired by Sir Hugh Beaver) was set up…

https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/clean-air-act-1956

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game. But sometimes, thanks to external factors and pushing, committees’ recommendations do actually get implemented and matter…

What happened next

The Beaver Report made a series of recommendations, and as if by magic, the 1956 Clean Air Act.

Macmillan became Prime Minister in 1957, after Anthony Eden suffered a little local difficulty over the Suez Canal.

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.