Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 26th 1970 Harold Wilson held out a green olive branch…. As per the Tory MP Christopher Chataway, speaking in the House of Commons on 3 Feb 1970.
In New York on Monday [26 January 1970] of last week, the Prime Minister said:
“The British people today offer you, the American people, a new special relationship.”
As the Prime Minister went on, a no doubt grateful American people learned that the new special relationship was to help them with, among other things, the problems of pollution; in his words, “the problems of pollution of the air we breathe”. I have no evidence whether or not the great majority of Americans were over-impressed by this offer of the Prime Minister, but they would surely have been less impressed had he mentioned that the highly successful clean air policy which his Government had inherited was even then being brought to a grinding halt.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that both major political parties, Conservative and Labour had discovered the environment issue. In 1969, Wilson had used the word environment in his speech to Labour Party Congress, in Blackpool in September of ‘69, and had set up a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and a white paper.
Chataway was a then rising star, he’d been an athlete and a television presenter, and he was landing blows against Wilson.
What we learn is that by 1970, there was a competitive consensus. The parties were competing to gain kudos for their green credentials.
What happened next, Wilson lost the June 1970 election. A Department of Environment was still set up as a super Department under Peter Walker. And onward the caravan went to the Stockholm Environment conference.
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.
As everyone with a hint of scientific training knows by now, the world is facing a troublesome present and uncertain future due to the changes in the global climate caused by man-made activity, and specifically the greenhouse effect. It is an interesting – and important – question to ask what warnings were made by scientists over the past few decades. This brief investigation sheds some light by looking at the articles on climate change issues published in a Welsh-language scientific journal.
The Welsh scientific journal Y Gwyddonydd (‘The Scientist’) was launched in 1963, and its genesis reflects the challenges that faced the Welsh language at that time. The percentage recorded as speaking Welsh in the 1961 census had fallen to 26%, which acted as a spur to the campaign to secure official rights for the language and to increase its use in education. Establishing a journal to present scientific matters through the medium of Welsh was a statement that the language should be part of the modern world, and not ghettoised as a medium only suitable for literary, antiquarian or theological discussions.
The journal sought to introduce current scientific developments and arguments to the Welsh-speaking audience and so it is a fair assumption that it was responsible for the first discussions in Welsh of topics that are now all too familiar. Thus in 1985 there are two sizeable articles investigating ‘glaw asid’ (acid rain), whereas the first reference to the ‘haenen osôn’ (ozone layer) can be found the following year.
The phrase ‘effaith tŷ gwydr’ (greenhouse effect) appears for the first time in Y Gwyddonydd in the edition of December 1972, in a report which considered the possible effects upon the climate from man-made pollution.
Would the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity lead to a rise in the world’s temperature, or would the increased number of particles in the atmosphere reflect the sun’s rays back into space, leading to global cooling? At the time the answer was unclear, and the ‘effaith tŷ gwydr’ is referred to as a theory. One unknown variable to be thrown into the equation was the expected rise in supersonic aircraft, pouring SO2 and water vapour into the upper atmosphere, the effect of which could not be predicted.
It appears that the next treatment of this topic in Y Gwyddonydd was in December 1981, where John Gribbin’s recent article in the New Scientist was discussed.
He had postulated that the enhanced greenhouse effect due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to a rise of 2 to 3 °C by 2025, according to the best available computer models. The report goes on to consider the effects of this upon the world’s food production, and hints at the geo-political turmoil that would follow. The conclusion is that time is against us.
The text of a speech by Eirwen Gwynn is printed in the next issue, in which she warns of the possible dire effect upon the climate of continuing to burn fossil fuels. (Interestingly, having been keen on nuclear power back in the first issue of Y Gwyddonydd back in 1963, by 1982 she declared that atomic energy was not the answer).
The next instance of a discussion of the greenhouse effect appears in late 1988, in an article which has in its title the phrase ‘Hinsawdd Newydd’ (‘A New Climate’) – the phrase used today, ‘Newid Hinsawdd’ (Climate Change) is not one that appears in the discussions at that time. The first evidence I have found of a break-through into the Welsh broadcast media happened at the same time, with a Radio Cymru programme focussing upon the ramifications of the greenhouse effect in November 1988.
In 1990, Y Gwyddonydd published an in-depth explanation of the phenomenon by a physicist from Aberystwyth University.
From then on there is a stream of articles in the journal considering the likely effects of global warming upon the planet, and which are explicit in their warning of the dangers.
In late 1991, for example, the headline of an article adapted the words from an ancient Welsh poem to warn ‘Truan o Dynged a Dyngwyd i Ddynoliaeth’ – ‘Wretched is the fate that will befall mankind’.
One can also find more Welsh-language radio and television programmes that seek to explain the dangers.
Thus the evidence here is unambiguous. In the Welsh public sphere, the dangers of global warming were understood and discussed by the early 1990s at the latest. The scientific predictions made were broadly accurate. As we approach 2025 we can see that the prediction made in 1981 of a rise of 2-3 °C was overly pessimistic, but that the disruption that even 1.5 °C will cause will be enormous. The warning was made about 42 years ago that time was running out to stop the catastrophe, and it was widely disseminated. The follow-up question of why warnings by scientists were not taken seriously by decision-makers is beyond the scope of this brief article, but is one that needs to be asked.
Dr Gethin Matthewsis a senior lecturer in the Department of History, Heritage and Classics at Swansea University. His PhD research was in the history of the Welsh in the Gold Rushes, but for a decade and more he has been researching the impact of the First World War upon Wales. He is currently working on a book for the University of Wales Press, Visions of War, which will examine how WW1 was seen and imagined in Wales.When he manages to escape the trenches, he intends to investigate how climate change discourse has developed in Wales over the past sixty years.
Fifty seven years ago, on this day, January 24th, 1967,
Such a forecast was certainly disquieting. Upon reviewing the document, Graham Sutton, inaugural chairman of Britain’s recently established Natural Environment Research Council, stressed that “by no means” should the report be “dismissed as ‘science fiction,’” though he conceded that “one cannot yet tell if the decline in temperature is part of an old old story of natural fluctuations or is something triggered off or enhanced by pollution.”13
13. Graham Sutton, letter to Victor Rothschild, 24 Jan. 1967, box 76, part 3, Archive Collection of Professor James Lovelock.
Leah Aronowsky, 2021
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Graham Sutton, former Met Office boss, was head of the newly established Natural Environment Research Council and probably wanted to have a relative lid on such seemingly outlandish claims. And you see the sorts of claims of responsible men to damp and things down but fairplay to Sutton he didn’t do that.
By now, the BBC had already broadcast Challenge, in January of 1967…
But then what did Sutton do? What did NERC do? It’s a good question.
What we can learn. There were conversations going on among scientific elites about this.
What happened next the following year, July 1968. Lord Kennett made what’s so far the earliest mention of the greenhouse effect by an elected politician (or at least a minister in an elected government!). Then in 1970, in August, it blew up publicly. 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.
References
Aronowsky, L. (2021). Gas guzzling Gaia, or: a prehistory of climate change denialism. Critical Inquiry, 47(2), 306-327
2014 years ago, on this day, January 20th, 2014, John Gummer calls some green extremists close to trotskyists” in a Guardian interview,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that environmentalists, especially with Paris coming up and the coalition government having “cut the green crap” were getting more outspoken about the need for serious action. And Gummer was pushing back against this.
What we can learn is that establishment greens like Deben, and so forth, have a problem when the physics and the reality start to show that their incrementalist measures haven’t worked, won’t work can’t work. They need to lash out at someone; they’re not going to lash out at themselves, they’re not going to lash out against capitalism or question further industrialization and economic growth, because there are psychological and career consequences for doing that. So they have to lash out at someone and lashing out at so-called green Trotskyists. is risk free and feels good. So they do it. The cost is of course, that they create a caricature, a straw man or woman – green straw, which is not healthy, and everyone’s screwed.
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.
Sixty years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1964, Nature published an article about the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) meeting in September 1963, at which Peter Ritchie-Calder (yes, him again!) had spoken about CO2 build-up,
“Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 4Q-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by 1963 people like Ritchie Calder were speaking publicly about CO2 buildup. It was no secret among the scientific elite in the United Kingdom. And well. You know, Nature was covering it. This is probably before John Maddox came along as editor.
What we learn is that there’s an entire history of admissions about CO2 build up. It’s not a secret, it’s not considered outlandish. It’s just one of those things. This is also two years after Mariner had gone to Venus and captured a lot of information.
What happened next? It would be 1967 before the CO2 issue really received a boost with the BBC programme Challenge and so forth.
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 Labour Climate and Environment Forum (LCEF) launched on Tuesday [2023 01 10] in parliament and is now signing up MPs. The group argues “that tackling the climate and environment emergency is an issue of social justice and economic prosperity that should sit comfortably at the heart of the movement as a core Labour value.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 422 ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context? They say opposition is easy. All you have to do is denounce the complacency, incompetence and greed of the government (and governments are all always, especially after a couple of terms complacent, greedy, and incompetent). But actually, things like this Labour Climate and Environment Forum present a headache for Keir Starmer, who needs to stop voters bleeding away to the left, while also holding on to that mythical beast, middle England. And so this presents a series of presentational challenges.
He doesn’t have control over what bodies do and do not get set up. At least not yet. So the activists keep trying to raise Starmer’s ambition, but Starmer is trying to play a dead head sorry, dead bat to everything. How this all plays out during an election campaign in the immediate aftermath remains to be seen.
Meanwhile Starmer is flying kites about watering down the 28 billion a year pledge (managing expectations?).
What happened next? Well watch the space. No new publications from the LCEF since October, despite COP28 and so forth. Are they all busy waiting for the May 2024 election? Or have the thumbscrews been applied?
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 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422 ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bush had been doing sweet FA. And he had had the British scientist Robert Watson removed as chair of the IPCC – it’s hard to play Athens to their Sparta when they won’t even give you a bow….
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had been making the right noises about climate change but doing sweet FA, it was obvious that there was failure baked into the Kyoto process, which many at this point time were thinking was just dead. And that UNFCCC might be dead. And therefore emissions reductions were dead. China was galloping forward with its emissions, the US was not cutting it. And therefore, of course, you’re gonna speak out of school and hope for technofixes.
What we learn is that chief scientific advisors can, on occasion, be troublesome priests. They tend to denounce someone over the water or across the border, rather than their own bosses. And when they are fed up with their own bosses, well, it’s more likely that they’ll quit and keep tight lips. For example, the Australian CSA Penny Sackett in February 2011.
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.
Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world.
What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet.
What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that.
What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues.
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 280ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures.
What have ye done, starts by talking of the high hopes of the Royal Society. Well, about them –
The nobility and intelligentsia, however, occasionally became critical and even constructive. John Eveelyn, a noted busybody and do-gooder and one of the founding members of the Royal Society, wrote a pamphlet in 1661, which was ordered to be published by Charles II, “Furnigofiuim, or the Inconvenience [page break] of Air and Smoke of London Dissipated; together with Some Remedies Humbly Proposed.”
In 1686, Justel presented before the Philosophical Society “An account of an Engine that Consumes Smoke.” The suggestions made were lively and imaginative rather than practicable, but it is worthy pointing out that Justel’s smoke-consuming monster embodies a concept that has recently been emphasized by Professor Fritz Zwicky of Cal Tech.
(Carr, 1965: 34-5)
The context was that Samuel Johnson was having to knock out these sorts of essays with stunning regularity. I’ve not read a lot of Johnson but I think I have read all the essays in a collection that confirm this man was a stone-cold genius. Probably quite unpleasant, but stone cold genius.
What I think we can learn from this
well if you take what Johnson says to heart and manage your expectations of changing the world downwards, maybe if we had all done that we wouldn’t be in this mess.
[Biographical note – I don’t know where I first encountered mention of it but I think it was in when I was living in Bristol in 1996 or 7 because I remember borrowing a copy from the Bristol City Council library; I think it was in store and here we are.]
What happened next
Johnson appeared disguised as the late Robbie Coltrane in an episode of Blackadder the Third and it was freaking hilarious.
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
Carr, D. (1965) The Breath of Life. New York WW. Norton & Company
Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 19, 1988, celebrities get on board an Ark, for a star-studded launch…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was this exuberant ex-Greenpeace director (who had been a Daily Mirror hack) and had written in the early 70s about environmental depletion. He had gotten some money to put together a big manifesto. They had celebrities on board and it was going to be all-singing all-dancing. There were going to be little Arks, it was going to combine the business end, the social movement end the celebrity end – all singing all dancing all of the time.
And it did not come to pass
What I think we can learn from this
People get high on their own supply. People get drunk thinking that what needs to happen will therefore happen because it needs to happen. But that’s circular and it doesn’t reflect reality. But then reality is no fun.
What happened next
By July 1989 Ark had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.
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..
