Category: United Kingdom

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

Forty four years ago, on this day, April 27, 1979, the “Green Party” (then known as the Ecology Party”) had its first TV broadcast ahead of 1979 General Election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that we had just been through the “winter of discontent”, because Jim Callaghan had not called an election for December 1978, thinking that things would improve. They didn’t. Thatcher was going to win this election quite handily. The Ecology Party was new – it had been founded in 1973, first known as People. 

More information here – https://green-history.uk/elections/general/1979

What I think we can learn from this

The Green Party has a longer history than folks might think. It’s been trying to fight the good fight with limited success, thanks in part to the first-past-the-post system in the United Kingdom, they lack proportional representation as per Germany. 

What happened next

The Ecology Party became the Green Party, the Green Party finally got an MP, the redoubtable Caroline Lucas.

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 Sea level rise United Kingdom

April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its cred

Thirty four years ago, on this day, April 11, 1989, the flash-in-the-pan UK environment group “Ark” released a report about potential sea level rise that tanked its credibility

1989 Ark Sea-level rise report, “by 2050″…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Ark, launched in December 1988, was trying to outflank the existing outfits like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. It needed big claims to grab attention… Ooops.

What I think we can learn from this

It is hard to join a “cartel” and big big claims may grab attention, but they can also come with a big big downside.

What happened next

Ark crashed and sank, within months.

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

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

 April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died.

Ten years ago, on this day, April 8, 2013, Margaret Thatcher died. There were, inevitably, a large number of misguided encomia about her “role” in climate advocacy.  See for example this. 

Well ,two things

  1. Thatcher was clearly aware of climate change as a possible threat as early as June 1979, because she was trying to wedge environmentalists on the question of nuclear power.
  2. Her chief scientific advisor John Ashworth tried to alert her and she responded with incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”

See my letter in Financial Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Thatcher’s legacy was and is heavily fought over. In her memoirs she complained that the greenhouse issue had been captured by socialists.  Which comes as a surprise to the actual socialists, but there you have it…

What I think we can learn from this

Two things. First, the dynamics of credit claiming (see Jan 1st 1988 post) with Big Brother’s benevolence being retconned

“She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.)”

Second – Those who know better having to keep schtum to maintain access and influence  e.g. Tickell, John Ashworth.

What happened next

Shocking vandalism of the statue of her. Repeatedly.

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

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1980, UK civil servant Crispin Tickell had a stonking article in the Times.  The conclusion to it (spoilers!”) is below.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Tickell had become aware of the climate issue in a serious way while on a sabbatical year at Harvard in the mid-1970s, and wrote a book on the subject. He had, as a civil servant, tried to get the G7 interested (there had been some mention in Tokyo in 1979, and the upcoming one in Venice had C02 on the agenda), but it wasn’t until the mid-80s that he was able to get any particular traction with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

This particular article in the Times was in response to a February 12th 1980 report in the Times (link) about the first UK government report – “Climatic Change’, which had been grudgingly released the day before.

What I think we can learn from this

There were smart people who knew about this, and who tried to get leaders to take it seriously. That they failed is on the leaders, not them.  Chief Scientific Advisor John Ashworth had tried to brief Margaret Thatcher. She said, with incredulity “you want me to worry about the weather?”

What happened next

Tickell kept beavering away (he had another article, in August of 1982 in the Times). Thatcher would only admit that maybe she should worry about the weather 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
United Kingdom

April 5, 1971-  a UK scientist explains “pollution in context”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, April 5, 1971, a UK scientist gave an overview of “pollution in context to an assembled audience of the great and the good (and the mediocre and middling)

POLLUTION IN CONTEXT by  MARTIN IV. HOLDGATE , PhD Director of the Central Unit of Environmental Pollution , Department of the Environment,* delivered on Monday 5th April 1971 Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. 119, No. 5180 (JULY 1971), pp. 529-542

Published by: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137075

 1. Naturalness One broad classification can be based on ‘naturalness’. Some substances that can be ‘pollutants’ occur naturally, and are widely dispersed in the world. Some are essential to life. Carbon dioxide is a good example: it is the foundation of photosynthesis by which green plants using solar energy create sugars. Without CO2 in the air, life as we know it could not exist on this planet. And much CO2 enters the air naturally through the respiration of living things and organic decay. Since 1890, man, burning fossil fuels (which are themselves a residue of undecomposed organic carbon that escaped conversion to CO2 long ago) has raised the CO2 level of the atmosphere from around 290 to 320 parts per million but in that same period the natural input has certainly greatly exceeded the artificial

(Holdgate, 1971: 530)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Everyone was talking about pollution – air, water, noise, you name it. Doomwatch was on the tellie, and the European Year of Conservation had just finished, with the big UN conference in Stockholm just over a year away.

What I think we can learn from this

Again, none of this is a secret.  “We” “knew.”  And then pushed it out of our minds, and then it had to be pushed back in. Then was pushed out again.

This has a name – the Issue Attention Cycle, as per Downs in 1972. But Robert Heilbroner had predicted this would be the case as early as April 1970…

What happened next

The attention died down, as people got bored/used to things, and then other (economic) problems came along.

Martin Holdgate, who is still alive, had a storied career. He was Chief Biologist to the British Antarctic Survey, then research director of the Nature Conservancy Council and, for eighteen years, Chief Scientist and head of research at the Department of the Environment.[1] Subsequently, he was Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.”

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...