Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Australia Denial United Kingdom

November 9, 1991 – Australian TV station SBS shows demented ‘”Greenhouse Conspiracy” ‘documentary’

On this day, November 9 in 1991, the Australian TV station  SBS shows ‘The Greenhouse Conspiracy’, a deluded documentary throwing shade on basic science, which had been broadcast in the UK on 12th August 1990.

The Institute of Public Affairs had bought and tried to get the ABC to show (see John Stone letter to Australian, 3 December 1990)

“This particular [program] concluded greenhouse was the product of a coalition of self-interested-researchers hungry for funds, politicians looking for a cause, journalists eager for a story.”

Cribb, J. 1991. The Greenhouse Conspiracy Effect. The Weekend Australian, 7-8 Dec, p.28

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The Australian denialists were desperately flinging whatever mud they could. This was part of it all.

Why this matters. 

The lack of action on climate is not an accident. It is not TOTALLY the fault of “those evil guys over there” – there is inertia and stupidity in human systems, sure – but the guys who tried to stop anything getting done have names, and should be at the Hague…

What happened next?

Australian governments decided vague promises (of technology, trading, hopium) were an adequate response to the threat.  Civil society never managed to get its act together. The end (literally).

Other batshit crazy “documentaries” also got made – the last one that had any real traction was “The Great Global Warming Swindle” in 2007.

Categories
United Kingdom

November 4, 1991 – UK Government launches first of many blame-shifting publicity campaigns on #climate

On this day, November 4 in 1991,  the UK Government launched a £10m campaign  “Helping the earth begins at home”.

The usual guilt-tripping about energy efficiency (with no support for renters or people on low-income).

Quickly forgotten, but a good example of how little actual joined up thinking there is.

There’s a good article by Steve Hinchcliffe (1996) “Helping the earth begins at home The social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities”, Global Environmental Change Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 53-62

To be clear, OF COURSE we need behaviour change, but not if those are going to kick bigger decisions about overall demand reduction, fuel-switching, removing fossil fuel subsidies into the long grass….

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Climate change (then called “the Greenhouse Effect” or “global warming” had burst onto the public scene in 1988. Everyone was making pledges, scratching their heads, clutching their pearls, wringing their hands. And the Thatcher government wanted to be able to play a game of pin the blame on the donkey…

Why this matters. 

Blame-shifting has been going on a long time. And the same technique keeps getting re-used, again and again and again. Why change a winning game?

What happened next?

The campaign went nowhere, but got dusted off, rebranded and reused for the next few decades, until the collapse of human civilisation.

Categories
Economics of mitigation United Kingdom

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publshed.

On this day, October 30 in 2006 the Stern Review was published. This had been commissioned by Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom “Chancellor of the Exchequer” (Treasurer) a year previously (see this blog post).

Nick Stern, a World Bank economist who could hardly be accused of being a swivel-eyed Luddite, argued that 

“This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 379.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

We knew. And we knew there was a “business case” for saving life on earth (the very words are bizarre, aren’t they?)

What happened next?

Oh, arguments about the “discount rate” (i.e. Stern was too optimistic)

A variety of “mini-Stern” reports, and for a while everyone using the language. Then nothing.

Fun fact – when Stern visited Australia, Prime Minister John Howard basically dismissed him as “English.”

Categories
UNFCCC United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

On this day, October 27, 1990, the British Magazine the Economist had a cover story about “global warming” and international agreements.

In a cover story, The Economist (“Warm world, cool heads,” 27 Oct. 1990, p. 13) observes that “No country seriously contemplates Toronto levels of self-restraint.” Thus pressures for emission standards come from several European nations that want to hold CO2 emissions steady by the year 2000.

(Ungar, 1992.)

In late June 1988 a conference – of scientists and NGO types had come up with a call for a 20% cut in emissions by 2005 for rich countries. Various nations – including Australia – had by the time of the Economist story – come up with some versions of a pledge, usually with all sorts of get out clauses.

The Economist’s story came out just before the Second World Climate Conference, which was attended by political leaders (including Margaret Thatcher), and was the starting gun for the international process that led to the UNFCCC. Which had various (aspirational) targets – none of which went beyond stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 (which nations did not do, obvs).

What happened next?

Thirty years of pledges and promises, as emissions soared.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

On this day, October 25 in 2000, councils (local governments) in England signed up to one of the many meaningless declarations. Ten years earlier it had been Friends of the Earth’s charter. Twenty years on it would be “climate emergency” declarations. All tosh.

“Although not part of the central government programme, in local government, over 300 councils have signed up to the Nottingham Declaration, launched on 25 October 2000, committing them to work towards reducing emissions”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 367.18ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The UK had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions were still edging down (but coal would come roaring back into the energy mix soon). Various councils had done more or less on climate, but with the coming of renewed interest in “regionalisation” and regional economies, now was a good time to, er, promise the earth.

Why this matters. 

Remember the many broken promises. Be skeptical about the next ones.

What happened next?

Not much, of course. They ‘renewed the pledge, not that anyone believed them. Blah blah.

Now it is all “climate emergency declarations” 

Categories
United Kingdom

October 14, 1974 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor is warned about carbon dioxide build-up.

On this day, October 14 in 1974, a UK Cabinet Office civil servant tells his boss about this climate change issue, after having been told about it by German Professor Hermann Flohn.

“The first example I have found of this route is in 1974. Dr P.T. Warren, a Cabinet Office civil servant, reported a conversation to Dr Robert Press [Robert Press], who was the acting chief scientific adviser between April 1974 and 1976. Warren had been at a meeting examining the forces shaping Europe over the next 30 years (Lord Kennet’s Europe plus Thirty project[Europe Plus 30]). There, he had spoken with Professor Hermann Flohn, a respectable climatologist from Bonn and one of the leading researchers into anthropogenic climate change. Flohn clearly impressed on Warren the necessity of taking the subject seriously. 

Warren told Press: 

“His organization has now achieved a ‘reasonable’ model for world climate and this leads to some very worrying predictions when data are fed in on the present output of CO2 into the atmosphere. As I understood him, and I should add that he is no over-zealous enthusiast of the doom-watch school but fully aware of all the limits to modelling, the dangers of premature judgements etc, there is a real likelihood that by the year 2100 the polar ice-caps will disappear if the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere continued at its present rate.”   

TNA CAB 164/1379. Warren to Press, 14 October 1974   

Agar 2015

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327.28ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – in the aftermath of the 1972 Stockholm conference, more work was afoot about climate modelling (the July-August workshop in Wijk had just happened).

The very hot European summer had led to a certain amount of media speculation as well…

Btw – Flohn, who pops up a lot,  was a total mensch on all this – a really important briefer of people, including Olaf Palme. He died in 1997, and deserves more recognition than he has had.

Why this matters. 

UK Government awareness of climate change did not begin in 1988

What happened next?

Press’s successor as Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Ashworth, kept going on the climate issue. Eventually, in 1980, he briefed Margaret Thatcher who was apparently incredulous and said “you want me to worry about the weather?”

Categories
United Kingdom

October 10, 1977 – famous scientist Solly Zuckerman writes to top UK Civil Servant, warning about climate change

On this day, October 10 in 1977, the former Chief Scientific Adviser for the United Kingdom, Solly Zuckerman wrote to the Cabinet Secretary (Sir John Hunt) about global warming, having been sensitised to the issue by an IIASA presentation.

Zuckerman  ‘This was the first time that I had heard anyone take so serious a view of this particular issue’. TNA CAB 184/567. Zuckerman to Hunt, 10 October 1977.

Solly Zuckerman

Source – Jon Agar’s 2015 article. “Future forecast – changeable and probably getting worse”: the UK Government’s Early Response to Anthropogenic Climate Change

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331.28ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By the mid-late 1970s, the carbon dioxide issue was becoming more prominent. Organisations like IIASA were holding workshops, publishing articles. On IIASA, check out “Scientific Cooperation as a Bridge Across the Cold War Divide The Case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis” by ALAN McDONALD

Why this matters. 

“We” “knew”

What happened next?

They tried to warn the new Prime Minister, one Margaret Thatcher. She dismissed them with “you want me to worry about the weather.”

Categories
United Kingdom

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, October 8 in 1959, an article appeared in New Scientist (then a pretty new publication)  by Dr M.A. Matthews, employed by Shell. It cast doubt on idea of carbon dioxide increase having any effect on climate

1959 Shell “The Earth’s Carbon Cycle” Article

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 313.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm – but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – The International Geophysical Year had focussed on many things, including the atmosphere. Academic articles were beginning to appear looking at carbon dioxide build-up.  Already through the 1950s various scientists had begun to speculate…

Categories
United Kingdom

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

On this day, October 5 in 2006 Greenpeace took the Blair Government to court over its incredibly shoddy and shonky “consultation” on energy.

See Guardian article here – “Greenpeace sues over Energy Review.” 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 379.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – the 2003 Energy White Paper had put nuclear on the backfoot, instead focussing on renewables, energy efficiency and so forth. The nuclear lobby did not take this lying down, and by 2005 Blair was making pro-nuclear speeches. The Blair government then wanted to ram through pro-nuclear policies, but needed to be seen to have ‘consulted’, so did a terrible process. That is what Greenpeace sued over (successfully – see below).

Why this matters. 

We should remember that ‘consultation’ is often just another of those governance devices that our Lords and Masters try to use. And fake consultation needs to be called out, resisted.

What happened next?

Greenpeace won the case  on February 15 2007 –

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/15/nuclear.greenpolitics1

Categories
United Kingdom

September 29, 1969 – British Prime Minister Harold Wilson blah blah “second industrial revolution” blah blah pollution blah blah

On this day, 29 September 1969, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson first spoke of the “environment” in a speech to Labour party conference, in Brighton, 1969)  

“First, our environment. There is a two-fold task: to remove the scars of 19th century capitalism – the derelict mills, the spoil heaps, the back-to-back houses that still disfigure so large a part of our land. At the same time we have to make sure that the second industrial revolution through which we are now passing does not be­queath a similar legacy to future genera­tions. We must deal with the problems of pollution – of the air, of the sea, of our rivers and beaches. We must also deal with the uniquely 20th century problems of noise and congestion which will increasingly dis­turb, unless checked, our urban life.   http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=167

The context is – well, the Torrey Canyon had already happened, people were beginning to get worried not just about cars and smog, but extinction. Wilson had an election to face soon (one he was expected to win, but didn’t).

On this day the PPM was 322.38. Now it is 421ish – but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Labour parties intermittently talk a good game, rarely deliver. Have to be wedded to industrial growth.

What happened next?

Oh, laws were passed. Ministries established. All the paraphernalia. None off the action. But what did you expect?