Category: United Kingdom

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.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Five years ago, on this day, November 17, 2018, the new sexy climate group “Extinction Rebellion” occupied five bridges in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 408.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Extinction Rebellion was dreamed up in 2018 by Gail Bradbrook, and Roger Hallam and others. People did some stickering and fly posting. They announced a “declaration of rebellion” in Parliament Square at the end of October, and this was their next big media stunt. 

And how many of those 1000s of people are now sitting in front of their televisions, blaming themselves for not having the tenacity to stay with it? 

[To do – get someone who was there on the day in London, to give them memories of the day, and ideally, something that they wrote at the time.]

What I think we can learn from this

It’s not their fault. It was a toxic environment, the chaotic process, but we don’t know how to do social movement organisations. We just cut straight to the March on Washington in 1963, and people are giving “I Have a Dream” speeches, not understanding all that went for the so called star system. 

What happened next

XR held two “rebellions” in 2019. The second was a damp-ish squib, and then came the pandemic. They’ve never really been able to re-heat the souffle, and at least in Manchester, the local groups tanked.

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 16, 2021 – Chancellor cuddles up to oil bosses, of course.

Two years ago, on this day, November 16, 2021, a UK politician mouthed the right climate pieties at COP26, then told the oil companies “keep drilling, baby.”

Gosden, E. (2022) Kwarteng courted oil bosses after Cop26; Energy secretary encouraged North Sea drilling. The Times, January 3, p.23 – (Kwarteng schmoozed on Nov 16)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly416ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Glasgow climate COP had happened. Apparently 1.5 was still alive. The British state was happy enough with its performance and now back to business as usual. The Energy and Climate Secretary of State Bay was back to palling around with oil companies and letting them do further drilling in the North Sea.

What I think we can learn from this

that the ink does not need to be dry on some precious “hold hands sing Kumbaya” announcement of climate good intentions before politicians will go back to doing what they do in the interests of capital accumulation and their own post-political career and comfort.

What happened next

Kwasi Kwarteng delivered a mildly consequential mini budget in October of 2022, five minutes before Liz Truss threw him under the bus in a futile effort to save her own skin.

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 13, 1963 –  Ritchie Calder warns of trouble ahead because of carbon dioxide…

On this day, 60 years ago, November 13, 1963, the peace campaigner, journalist and science communicator (including as first editor of New Scientist)  Ritchie Calder gave a clear warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide, at a meeting of the Town and Country Planning Association  in London.

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 Ritchie-Calder had been aware of the issue – at the latest – by early 1954, when he wrote about the issue for a national newspaper. By 1963, the first meeting entirely devoted to carbon dioxide build-up had already taken place in Washington DC. Calder was almost certainly aware of this…

What we can learn.  

We knew. We knew. We knew.

What happened next

Five years and two weeks later, Ritchie-Calder again referenced carbon dioxide build-up, in his “Hell on Earth” Presidential Address to the Conservation Society.

Seriously, long before Stockholm, long before Thatcher, we knew…

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…

The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=2713

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.

This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak. 

What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.

What I think we can learn from this

Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.

What happened next

Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).

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
Australia Denial United Kingdom

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Ten years ago, on this day, November 8, 2013, John Howard gave a speech at the Global Warming “Policy” “Foundation” with the title “One Religion is Enough“

and 

Same day – Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines.

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 John Howard had been booted out as Prime Minister, and even MP, partly because he’d been such a terrible dickhead on climate, as befits old white conservative men. 

The other context is that some “charity” called the Global Warming Policy Foundation had been set up and were holding annual lectures. So it seemed like a good idea to get little Johnny on.

It’s an interesting title, isn’t it, “one religion is enough”? Well, if we’re only going to have one religion, my vote is a for either a particularly humane form of Buddhism, or Fuck it, let’s just go to paganism. Let’s get rid of the bearded sky gods. And especially when the bearded sky gods have been whittled down to one, because that seems to have caused no end of trouble. Or, if not caused, it been a useful adjunct to keeping that particular shit show on the road…

Aaand breathe….

What I think we can learn from this is that anti-reflexive organisations are good at gaming the media, they knew that this would get outrage and clicks. Makes them feel like they exist. 

What happened next

Well, the weather vane, Tony Abbott also gave a speech at the GWPF, and it’ll be interesting to see if the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds Scott Morrison too much of a reputational risk to them.

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 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

Fifty four years ago, on this day, November 5, 1969, Jestyn Phillips, a member of the House of Lords said the following – 

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS My Lords, can my noble friend say whether he and British Railways have taken account of the fact that what were abnormal temperatures last summer may not be abnormal if we continue to discharge carbon dioxide into the air by the burning of various fossil carbons, so increasing the greenhouse effect?

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1969/nov/05/railways-use-of-continuous-welded-rail

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that it was clear that some members of the Lords were paying attention to what was being written in newspapers, magazines (including the Listener in April 1969). And the idea of the greenhouse effect was out there and of concern by 1969, including in the Financial Times and so forth. 

What I think we can learn from this

By November 1969, “even” politicians were talking about it, drawing (possibly fallacious) connections.

What happened next

In January 1970 a TV programme “And On the Eighth Day”, directed by Richard Broad, appeared.

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
Agnotology Denial United Kingdom

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 3, 1990, the normally sane Financial Times published a brain fart of an article

Thomas, David (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory. Financial Times 3 November

There were claims that the IPCC organisers had deliberately excluded strong dissenters, such as Richard Lindzen, Hugh Elsaesser and Fred Singer, from participating in the IPCC. One unnamed scientist went so far as to claim that the supporters of the greenhouse theory ‘behave like Hitler’ by conspiring to prevent critics from publishing their conclusions in leading scientific journals (quoted in Thomas, 1990.)

Paterson, M (1996) Page 45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report had been delivered two months earlier. Since then, there had been fierce contestation of it. And this article in the FT was part of the push back ahead of the second World Climate Conference in Geneva and the imminent start of the climate negotiations. So the FT was wanting to cater to its various members, readers, some of whom would want to doubt awkward physical realities.

Eleven months earlier, Forbes had run a similar piece of nonsense (Link).

What I think we can learn from this

I am not suggesting that the Global Climate Coalition or the British Coal board phoned up the editor of the FT and ordered him to order an underling to write this. That’s not how power works. That’s not how the world usually works, 99.99 times out of 100. 

What happened next

The FT stopped being quite so fucking useless on climate change. It’s currently quite good (especially when they publish my letters).

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.