Category: United Kingdom

Categories
International processes Japan United Kingdom

June 29, 1979 – Thatcher uses carbon dioxide build-up to shill for nuclear power

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

The Guardian holds a climate summit. We. Are. Saved. June 15, 2009.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 15, 2009, the Grauniad tried to get everyone together in a room at a climate summit “Moving from awareness to action in tough economic times”

Sponsored by Shell. 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.

Categories
Activism Education United Kingdom

June 14, 1973 – Education for the Future? Meh.

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

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

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

May 25, 1990 – Thatcher opens Hadley Centre

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.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

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.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

May 15, 2010 – another pointless overnight vigil.

Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 15, 2010, activists displayed their virtue.

2010 Overnight climate vigil in London

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the UK climate “movement.” for want of a better word, had basically collapsed with the failure of Copenhagen because all the eggs had been put in the “let’s have a big march in London in December” basket; the so-called “Wave”. Climate Camp had been neutered as a Radical Space and everything was turning to shit; and this was before the revelation of all the undercover cops.

What I think we can learn from this

The collapse of morale and organisational capacity in the aftermath of some big international defeat is entirely predictable and was in fact predicted with regards to Copenhagen. These vigils remind me of the animals huddling together singing “Beasts of England” after they have witnessed the latest atrocity organised by the pigs – I’m talking about Animal Farm.

If we are to take citizen action seriously we should expect and even demand that organisers of groups warn members that everything is going is likely to turn to s*** and help them get ready for it. But as if. They’re hope-mongers, and that’s what they monger…

What happened next

The UK climate movement entered a long-term period of confusion.

Anti-fracking campaigns became the centre of attention, but the broader strategic remit was lost.

In 2018 the issue returned with the coming of the social movement organisation XR but by 2022 it was gone 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
United Kingdom

May 13, 1991 – UK Energy minister fanboys nuclear as climate solution. Obvs.

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 13, 1991, a UK 

“Britain’s last Secretary of State for Energy wrote in May 1991 that ‘the environment has to be a priority in shaping global resources plans’ and expressed official support for nuclear power as an insurance policy against global warming, also pleading for higher prices for fossil fuels”

Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 184)- citing Wakeham, J. 1991. Nurturing a greener policy for world energy. The  Times, 13 May. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  the United Kingdom was trying to paint itself as environmentally responsible both domestically and internationally, and also being a big fan of nuclear. So, nothing has changed.

What I think we can learn from this

The political games keep getting played. The players change often. The rules change slowly. Ultimately the game Remains the Same the losers future generations, other species.

What happened next

UK policy making on climate and energy remained pretty disconnected until the 2003 Energy White Paper and even then things have been seriously contested and a classic mess since then. The opportunities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy have been mostly missed, thanks to an ongoing obsession with nuclear power and generalised animosity towards the measures you would need to take to tackle climate change. This is hardly a surprise.

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

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Four years ago, on this day, May 2, 2019,  The UK Committee on Climate Change released its report on the  UK becoming net zero by 2050

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that once the UK had signed up to the Paris Agreement, which it had ratified in late 2016, it was pretty clear that the existing target of an 80% reduction by 2050 on a 1990 baseline was not going to be adequate as the UK contribution to keeping temperatures below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, the target would need revisiting. The logical outfit to do that revisiting was, of course, the Committee on Climate Change. It did the work and released it in 2019, by which time a bunch of MPs – including Conservatives who had campaigned for Brexit – were pushing for a 2050 net zero target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Big, “round number” promises can have serious institutional consequences if there’s enough momentum underneath them. So, the 1988 Toronto target was a big round number target, but it didn’t have institutional momentum behind it. There wasn’t enough intellectual and political heft, whereas the Paris Target of 2015 was different, and has been more consequential politically. Not I hasten to add, in terms of real life reduction in emissions, but you can’t have everything 

What happened next

And so it came to pass in the final days of the Theresa May administration, the 2008 Climate Change Act was amended to raise the target. This has had serious implications for the attention paid to sectors of the economy, especially industry, which had previously thought they could be in that 20% that could be emitting in the year 2050.

Lots of reports and activity about “Net Zero by 2050”. We shall see…

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.