On this day in 1988, the editor of Nature, John Maddox kept going with his general harrumphing and ignorance of what the science was actually saying, with his “jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial. It drew responses from scientists Kenneth Hare and Kenneth Mellanby
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Maddox had been being aggressively wrong about climate change for a long time (1971 – on ABC television, for instance. And earlier.).
What I think we can learn from this
Old white men who have been in jobs a long time paint themselves into a corner and can’t find ways to back down gracefully, by saying the simple words “I was wrong.”
What happened next
Hare and Mellanby replied in Nature a couple of weeks later.
Also – for fans of obscure Meatloaf…
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 3, 1986, there was a House of Lords debate on “the atmosphere and fuel use”
Lord Campbell of Croy was an interesting chap – “After being defeated by Winnie Ewing of the Scottish National Party at the February 1974 general election, Campbell was made a life peer as Baron Campbell of Croy, of Croy in the County of Nairn on 9 January 1975.[4] He became Chairman of the Scottish Board in 1976, and was Vice President of the Advisory Committee on Pollution at Sea from 1976 to 1984.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Villach conference in September 1985 had created a real sense of urgency among climate scientists, and in the US, a small number of senators were trying to get the issue higher up the agenda. In April 1986 the catastrophe at the Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine had put the question of transboundary pollution on the map, and put a question mark over nuclear….
What I think we can learn from this
Nuclear always causes a glow in a certain kind of heart…
What happened next
Two years later, everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect, even Thatcher.
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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 30, 2010, DECC Minister, Gregory Barker, stated that the Government was committed to 5 GW of CCS by 2020 in a debate on 30 June 2010:
“… the coalition Government are committed to carbon capture and storage, which will be a major plank in our efforts to decarbonise our energy supply by 2030; we are committed to the generation of 5 GW of CCS by 2020. We see the potential of CCS, not just for our domestic use and as part of our plan to decarbonise the economy, but as a huge potential export industry for the UK in which we can not only capture new markets for British jobs, but help the world in striving to decarbonise the global economy.42”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the new coalition government was making the right noises after the previous Brown government had established a CCS competition in 2007.
What I think we can learn from this is that the promises around CCS have been persistent. The delivery, not so much.
What happened next
The first competition was abandoned. A new competition set up in 2012 was unilaterally abandoned in 2015 and there has been a long slow process of getting CCS going again since then.
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..
Forty four years ago, on this day, June 29, 1979, at the G7 meeting in Tokyo, new UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a radio interview to journalist Bob Friend where she explicitly mentioned the greenhouse effect, in order to defend/extend nuclear (this during G7 meeting in Tokyo).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that an interdepartmental committee set up by the Labour government was in process of delivering its findings. The Thatcher government wanted to bury it. Meanwhile Thatcher was a big fan of new nuclear… Thatcher had been briefed about the reality of climate change by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth and according to an interview with him she responded with incredulity and the statement ‘you want me to worry about the weather?’
What I think we can learn from this
Thatcher knew about the greenhouse effect and was willing to use it as a wedge issue against anti-nuclear greens.
What happened next
The G7 communique name-checked climate change, which then largely disappeared from these sorts of meetings for ten years. It would be 1988 before she started talking sense possibly after Crispin Tickell finally got through to her.
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 389.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that every man and their dog were talking about climate change – had been since the second half of 2006. And now the Copenhagen Climate Summit was going to be the icing on the cake. So of course, a quote left of centre, but actually centrist newspaper has to bring together the bien-peasants (sic) and business to show that it is a responsible corporate citizen. And there is lots of talk about technology and social change and expectations. Because there are reputations to be burnished and logs to be rolled and mutual back-scratching of various intensity. And how else do you know if you’re alive, unless you’re on one of these platforms being obediently listened to?
What I think we can learn from this
What we learn is that the cycle goes on, and that everyone has their stable place in the emotacycle and the corporate emotacycle. But no one asks question “Gee, what have we been doing wrong?”
What happened next
Copenhagen was predictable and predicted catastrophe. But everyone keeps on same day.
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.
Fifty years ago, on this day, June 14, 1973, the UK based “Conservation Society” tried to lay out what would be needed for, you know, a future…
It begins with the prescient words – “We are in the presence of another climacteric more dramatic than any the human race has yet experienced.”
Yep.
June 14 1973 The Conservation Society launches “Education for our Future” Fairhall, J. (1973) Preparing young for crisis. The Guardian, June 14, p.6.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Everyone was running around talking about survival and education. And what that would look like. There had been a seminar in 1972 in London, and this Conservation Society effort probably drew on that.
What I think we can learn from this
We’ve been talking about the skills that we would need to educate the young for 50 years that’s included lots of nice words like holistic and environmental and ecological and we have not done it for the most part.
What happened next
Obviously we did not educate ourselves for a new society. If we had, projects like this would not even exist.
The Conservation Society wound up in 1987, ironically just before the next big wave
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 eight years ago, on this day, June 9, 1955, the finest brains (sic) in the UK met to chew on atmospheric research. Didn’t spot the elephant in the room (it was small, to be fair!)
It is appropriate, in view of the forthcoming intensification of atmospheric research during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58, to examine the present state of research in such a subject as radiative balance in the atmosphere, and a one-day discussion meeting on this subject was held in London at the Royal Society on June 9. In such a short period it was clearly out of the question to attempt any comprehensive survey, and attention was concentrated instead on subjects in which research is being actively pursued.
Nature 1 October 1955
Meteorological Magazine
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the International Geophysical Year was coming. There had already been a bunch of articles in the media speculating on carbon dioxide buildup. And having three years after the London smog, and the year before the Clean Air Act was passed, the quality of air was still very high on the agenda as it should be, as it still really needs to be.
What I think we can learn from this
Carbon Dioxide build up was NOT on the agenda. Not because these people were stupid, complacent, careless or anything else. Just wasn’t on their radar yet. Not enough evidence etc built up. Only Callendar, some newspaper articles and comments by Plass.
What happened next
The International Geophysical Year happened next…
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.
Thirty nine years ago, on this day, June 7, 1984, Crispin Tickell kept plugging away…
In 1984, back at the UK Foreign Office as Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, he was instrumental in attracting the attention of the UK DoE and developed countries to the subject. He traces official British interest in climate change to the 1984 G7 Summit in London. As British permanent representative to the United Nations, a position he still held when first advising Mrs Thatcher, and as policy adviser to research bodies in the USA, Sir Crispin was able to stress the politics of fear, as well as diplomatic opportunities arising from the climate change issue in many national and international fora.2
Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 176-7)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Tickell had been switched on to the climate problem, in 1975-76. He’d written a book, he’d tried to get it up the g7 agenda in the late 1970s. There had been a push back against this, I think. So in 1980-3, the G7 just didn’t really talk about environment, because there was a new Cold War to worry about etc. But Tickell kept going, as problem brokers are wont to do, and was able to apparently reframe the issue.
What I think we can learn from this
There are always individuals within the system, working with patience and skill to get leaders on board. It requires a certain kind of person. I am not that kind of person.
What happened next
Four years later, Tickell was finally able to convince Thatcher to take climate change seriously, at least rhetorically. She could have taken the initiative when John Ashworth had advised her in 1979/1980. 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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, May 25, 1990, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher opened a UK climate research facility.
“The task of analysing global warming was vested in a group of 170 scientists. The group, chaired by the Met Office’s Dr Houghton, came under the umbrella of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). It published a 22-page ‘policymakers summary’ on May 25, the day on which Thatcher confirmed her belief in global warming and announced a British target for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.” This quote probably comes from here – Thomas, D. (1990) The cracks in the greenhouse theory: David Thomas analyses the scientific basis for global warming and finds that the truth is not as clear-cut as many pundits insist
Financial Times, 3 November
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UK state had been wanting to paint itself as a responsible global citizen on climate, perhaps to make up for the acid rain fiasco. And so money had been announced that the Met Office would create a Centre for the Study of global climate issues, there’d be a computer, etc, etc. And Margaret Thatcher two years into her fourth term was happy to open it, because she was still talking up her green credentials.
What I think we can learn from this
Politicians really like to open things and especially sciency things because they get a real reflected halo. Further, scientific study is almost always a good way of being able to defer awkward decisions or cloak them in the justification, so that you don’t lose as much political capital.
See also Bob Hawke just before the 1990 federal election. Everyone loves to hug a scientist until that scientist opens their mouth.
What happened next
The Hadley Centre did what the Hadley Centre does. Thatcher was toast by the end of the year, shortly after – oh the irony – the Second World Climate 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.
Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial
“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”
(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)
“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”
He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue.
What I think we can learn from this
Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much.
What happened next
And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look.
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.
