Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 29th, 2007, a nuclear power plant goes kaboom, but in an okay way.
Calder Hall, the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, is demolished in a controlled explosion
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that nuclear power was gonna signal a renaissance for British industry, global industry. It had been a very expensive nightmare, but had given us supply chains for nuclear weapons and the technology and the workforce to keep those going. So that’s the most important thing; keeping the UK seat on the Security Council as a nuclear power.
What do we learn? Is that all good things come to an end and so does Calder Hall. Compare the end of Concorde in 2003…
What happened next? Well, this was 2007. This was in the midst of yet another attempt to go nuclear. By this time Blair had been successfully lobbied. And here we go, planning to spend yet more money on nuclear energy and it’s not going to work.
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-seven years ago, on this day, September 28th, 1977, the Met Office’s John Mason covers himself in glory yet again…
In one of the earliest indications of Cabinet-level interest in climate change, Hunt took the opportunity to quiz Mason on climate issues during his visit to the Meteorological Office in September 1977. Over the course of the visit, Mason made his views on CO2 climate change, as well as his exasperation with ‘‘alarmist United States views’’ clear.54 Whilst Hunt agreed that the voices coming out of the United States were unduly scaremongering, still he insisted that the Meteorological Office devote more attention and resources to climate questions and directed Mason to coordinate with the Central Policy Review Staff—orders Mason could not ignore.55
Source: Martin-Nielsen “Computing the Climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US National Academy of Sciences had just released its two year report on Energy and Climate. It’s not clear whether Mason had seen a copy yet, probably not. But he had read press clippings, no doubt, and Mason was continuing his failure to engage with CO2 as a problem, something that he had been doing at least since 1967. Possibly earlier.
What we learn is that important, influential scientists within the British establishment were arrogant and complacent (this will come as a big shock to you). And that this arrogance and complacency had monumental consequences.
What happened next Mason continued to be a dick. And he was especially a dick. At the First World Climate Conference in Geneva in February of 1979.
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.
Three hundred sixty four years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1661,
“Whilst Evelyn is most celebrated for his journals documenting the plague and the Great Fire of London, Fumifugium has been widely recognised as one of the first rational, reasoned and scientific accounts of pollution (Jenner, 1995; Sinclair, 1973). It was a campaigning pamphlet that was presented to King Charles II on 13th September 1661 soon after the King’s coronation in April of that year”
(Atkins & McBride: 1267-8)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 270ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that London was becoming unbearably polluted. My goodness, how times change! Everyone was using filthy sea coal, as it was called, for heating their houses and so forth. And here was an air pollution rant delivered to the king. This was of course just after Cromwell had died and the king had come back.
What we learn here Is that “please do something mighty majesty” style activism has a long history. We’re still doing it today when we’re tugging at the sleeve of regulatory agencies, even though they’ve been captured, or parties, even though they’ve been captured, and even corporations, even though they’re capitalists and raptors.
What happened next? London’s air quality magically improved. And no, it didn’t. And then there’s a whole stream of Apocalypse literature in the late 19th century, about the London fogs just getting worse and worse. And then finally in 1952, thanks to a temperature inversion a whole lot of people died in a prolonged smog event. You can either say it was 4000, which was the estimate at the time, but later estimates say 11000. And that opened the door to a new Clean Air Act (1956) There had been many before. And despite the best efforts of the Conservative government and Macmillan’s “Macmillan manoeuvre.” The Clean Air Act had some teeth and some impact and drove policy innovation and a certain amount of technological innovation. And at least the visible quality of London became less shit. Whether the invisible (2.5ppms) got much better, is another interesting question.
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
Atkins, J. * McBride, K. 2021 “Fumifugium: Or the inconvenience of the Aer and Smoake of London Dissipated”: emancipatory social accounting in 17th century London. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 35 No. 5, 20 pp. 1262-1286
Sixty six years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1957, The Times runs a short piece – “Melting the Polar Ice Caps: Scientists Study Carbon Dioxide Threat” based on discussions at the International Geodesy conference in Toronto
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway. And so there were these sorts of international conferences happening. The geodesy people had been going for quite a while. And it was at this one there were calls for urgent study of CO2. But that’s been largely forgotten.
What happened next is after the International Geophysical Year finished, the interest in carbon dioxide as a problem kind of died down a bit. And it wouldn’t be until the mid 60s that it started to come up 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.
Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1972,
A Finite Earth BBC Radio 3
First broadcast: Sat 2nd Sep 1972, 21:55 on BBC Radio 3
Professor Dennis Meadows , Dartmouth University, USA, co-author of The Limits to Growth in discussion with Professor Wilfred Beckerman , University College, London, member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. about the concept of using a computerised world model to determine the limits to continued economic growth.
The publication of The Limits to Growth has stimulated renewed controversy In the doomsday debate. Professor Beckerman attacks the assumptions of the report and challenges its conclusions.
Chaired by Michael Peacock
Producer Michael BRIGHT – (see also review of this by David Wade the following week in The Times)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Limits to Growth report had come out before this, as had the Blueprint for Survival. Since then the Stockholm Conference on the Environment had happened. Everyone was saying, thinking about limits to growth, agreeing, disagreeing, and it was fair fodder for radio programmes where you could have various talking heads. And this is one where Wilfred Beckerman got a chance to talk. He was an economist and he was on the Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution at the time. He was up against Dennis Meadows, one of the LtG authors/.
What we learn is that radio was not all radio gaga, and it was having one of its finest hours. nd the debates that we’re still having in 2024 were being had, then round and round in circles we go where it stops, nobody knows (well, the collapse of western “civ”, obvs).
What happened next. The sorts of programmes and series kept being produced. Middle-class people kept stroking their chins while accepting promotions and ever greater comfort, believing that the system was fair, was delivering for them, because it was – without thinking about the deeper underlying costs in the long term. There was always such a short-term price to pay. If you go up against “the system” (man).
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 four years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1970,
The BBC and the newspapers reported on the latest report of the Alkali Inspectorate, which pours scorn on… worries about carbon dioxide build-up.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The Context was that the Alkali Inspectorate was feeling under fire, and thought it would lash out at carbon dioxide buildup which had been noted in public since 1966 with the Barry Commoner Science and Survival book, which featured in the January 1967 BBC science programme Challenge.
And by 1969 Kenneth Mellanby was giving talks in Coventry about the problem. Later in the year the FT was saying that it was a venerable idea. You know, it was “out there” by the late 1960s – it was out there on the radio and on television, Frank Fraser Darling’s Reith lectures, etc.
What we learn is this was the first pushback by the British state. Epic ignorance on their part, still interesting and amusing.
What happened next? The Alkaline Inspector came under more attention for its cosy relationship with industry. F.W. Ireland didn’t last much longer in post, and the Alkali Inspectorate was eventually absorbed within the Environment Agency. And the emissions kept climbing, of course.
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 two years ago, on this day, August 15th, 1952,
On August 15, 1952, one of the worst flash floods ever to have occurred in Britain swept through the Devon village of Lynmouth. Thirty five people died as a torrent of 90m tons of water and thousands of tons of rock poured off saturated Exmoor and into the village destroying homes, bridges, shops and hotels.
The disaster was officially termed “the hand of God” but new evidence from previously classified government files suggests that a team of international scientists working with the RAF was experimenting with artificial rainmaking in southern Britain in the same week and could possibly be implicated. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Americans and the British and presumably the Soviets – who knows – had been thinking about weather modification/making it rain. And the RAF possibly got a little too enthusiastic here. Who knows? Well, they do. But they keep the files under lock and key.
What we learn is that if you go around, interfering in incredibly complex systems, weird shit can happen. We have learned that on a micro level and a macro level? We poked the beast, as scientist Wally Broecker, and it’s waking up.
What happened next? There were prolonged efforts to get the military to tell the truth. Good luck with that. And I think there were bids for compensation. Good luck with that.
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 five years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1979, a Cabinet Office wonk hopes that a vague research effort
“would provide an answer to the environmental and ecological lobby by showing that the Government was taking seriously the possibility of irreversible long-term changes in the climate, particularly those which might conceivably be brought about by man’s intervention,’’ as an internal letter explained;”
letter from N.B.W. Thompson to Mr. Mountfield, 7 Aug 1979, KEW, Ref. I.02375, CAB 184/56
Agar, 2015
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was now an Ecology party. And there were groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Conservation Society. Other outfits campaigning about clean air and not building more airports and so forth. Green Alliance had started. There was an identifiable environment lobby, and the senior civil servants were thinking about how it could be placated perhaps with the release of this interdepartmental report on climatic change, which had been completed in early 1979.
What we learn is that civil servants think about the politics of it all and how to please their so-called masters. And that by the late 70s, environment was an issue.
What happened next, the “Climatic Change” report, was released in February 1980. received a small amount of desultory press because it was a desultory document by and large, partly because it just wasn’t taking on board what the Americans were saying. (I think you can pin it on the Met Office’s John Mason if you like.)
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 four years ago, on this day, July 28th, 1990 UK science writer John Gribbin nails the problem.
AT WHAT POINT will politicians take real action to curb the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? A summary of the situation runs as follows: ‘Some blinkered optimists argue that until the case against carbon dioxide is proven, it is pointless to take any action to curb it. But since the only proof will be when the rains start to fail in North America and there is no spare grain to rush to famine regions, this hardly seems sensible.’
Gribbin, J. 1990. Talking Point: Why caution is wrong on global warming. New Scientist, 127 28 July, p. 18.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Gribbin had been writing about climate systems as a trained physicist and science journalist for a good 15 years in New Scientist and so forth. He’d written various books and was well qualified to understand what the IPCC was saying in its various reports. By this time Working Group 1 had already reported and the synthesis report was due to happen.
There were by now outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, and World Coal Association trying to play denialist minimalizing games, and Gribbin was speaking out against taking their shit seriously.
What we learn is that by 1990, it was extremely obvious both that the world was going to warm and that denialists – for reasons of their own – would deny. The siren sounds of denial were to be warned against.
What happened next. Look around you. Who won? Who lost?
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 four years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1970, a Tory MP talks climate…
The signs are very clear for all to see, and confirmation of these signs appears regularly in the newspapers. I will give only a few examples. It is said that jet aircraft landing and taking off in New York deposit 36 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. This has a “greenhouse” effect because it allows the sun’s rays to come down but prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere. …
However, if this goes on, it is thought that by the end of the century the temperature of the earth could be raised by two degrees Centigrade, and this would begin to melt the ice caps. Water generated by this melting process could, they say, be sufficient in mass to flood many cities. But all is not lost. We are pumping so much grit into the air that the sun’s rays are not able to get through, and they are deflected back into the atmosphere. The ice-cap thus is catching up with us.
Carol Mather on 21 July in Parliament Conservative MP for Esher
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that this was the European Conservation Year. The Swedes had successfully convinced the UN to hold an environment conference in 1972. In the UK the Wilson government had released an Environment White Paper, the first ever, which had made very minor mention of the potential problem of CO2 buildup. And there was also a Department of Environment on its way. So also, crucially, the environment was a bipartisan issue at this point, and in fact, the sides were competing.
What we learn is that when the environment first burst onto the scene, as an issue, this is crucial before anyone suggested oxen get gored. regulations and banning would be required. There was bipartisanship – shallow bipartisanship but bipartisan nonetheless.
What happened next? In September 1970 The UK Department of Environment opened for business with Peter Walker as its Secretary of State. He did a pretty good job, all things considered though. That’s in the context of course, not really grappling with the core issues, but who was it that was, outside of the “lunatic fringe,” who were, of course, right…
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.
