Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1967,

Speaking of a programme that was broadcast on 7th December 1967, Roy Battersby wrote in his memoir. 

 I went back to do some more documentaries for him in a series called Towards Tomorrow. The first, the subtly-titled Assault on Life, about biological research into cloning, fertilization in vitro, sperm banks, genetic engineering etc. created a lot of discussion. It began with commentary over a shot of a foetus in utero:

“If he asks why polluted air for his first breath, why the rivers are dying, the animals disappearing, the ice caps in danger of melting, if he asks about war and the countless millions killed this century, what shall we tell him: That we have the secret of life?”

The support of Professor Waddington and Sir Alex Haddow and Barry Commoner was of great importance in the specially televised public debate that followed, and in keeping the BBC’s nerve.

(Battersby, 2014: 19)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322 ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roy Battersby had already made one film mentioning carbon dioxide buildup – that was Challenge, which had been released at the beginning of 1967. This was the first in a new series called Towards Tomorrow, which ran for two seasons and caused a bit of a stir.

What we learn is that the questioning of technoscience will get you labelled as a troublemaker/hysterical luddite/whatever, because the arguments for unbridled technological development are actually quite thin and rather than address those they’ll go ad hominem on you. 

What happened next Battersby we made another film for Towards Tomorrow. But his third film Hit Suddenly Hit was well there’s no other word for it suppressed. Meanwhile all the things he warned about in his films has potential problems pretty much come to pass and here we go 

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.

Also on this day: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

November 23, 2009 – Global Warming Policy Foundation launched

Fifteen years ago, on this day, November 23rd, 2009, everyone’s favourite science-loving and entirely rational outfit, the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” is launched

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was, speaking of nut jobs (see yesterday’s post), the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created. With some big names who mysteriously always get invited onto the BBC to spout bollocks, even though it is absurd, and scientists are pointing out the absurdity all the time. Having a “Foundation” is also a useful place to hold your meetings, especially with visiting American nut jobs. 

What we learn is that the founding of these organisations usually indicates an intention to build capacity to act. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has had to hive off its campaigning subsidiary after complaints, but they’d scored some decent victories and they can be proud of the fact that they’ve been a persistent irritant of and confused the public mind, which was of their purpose all along. Just old white men who can’t admit that they backed the wrong horse, and that their beloved so-called free market capitalism is actually going to be responsible for the death of us all. Because that would mean that they were bad people supporting a bad system and that is, of course impossible, cannot be true. 

What happened next

There are people (inc MPs) trying to get the Charity Commission to do its job… “MPs accuse Charity Commission of legal breach over climate sceptic thinktank” The Guardian, April 2025

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.

Also on this day: 

November 23, 1961 – “The Day the Earth Caught Fire” (in Denmark)

November 23, 1963 – Doctor Who begins

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. Climate…

November 23, 1988 – Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke gives greenhouse speech

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1988 – Will Thatcher pick up the Green Gauntlet? (spoiler: no, no she won’t)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1988,

“To ask the Prime Minister what response she plans to make to the 30 point plan for environmental improvement in the United Kingdom set out in “The Green Gauntlet” document launched collectively by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on 20 November.” [1988]

“The Green Gauntlet” – Hansard – UK Parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the green groups in the UK had collaborated! This was not entirely unusual, but the breadth and depth of this collaboration was beyond average. They’d produce a wish list they called the Green Gauntlet that they threw down in front of Margaret Thatcher who had after all, just made a big noise at the Royal Society about the biggest experiment that we were conducting. And so it was a question of “was that all hot air, or would she actually do something about the green gauntlet?” I think we all know the answer.

What we learn: If you’re a politician at a national level at least, and you make big bold pronouncements, don’t be surprised if various green groups try to hold you to your word. And so it came to pass.

What happened next, Thatcher kept on giving nice speeches. She held a Cabinet meeting in April of ‘89, all about CO2. Her government shat on the idea of the Toronto Target. She made another nice empty speech at the United Nations General Assembly in November ‘89. And a year later, she was gone. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1974 – “The Weather Machine” is broadcast

Fifty years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1974,

On Wednesday evening, immediately following The Frost Interview, the BBC broadcast its much heralded, prestige extravaganza The Weather Machine (BBC2, November 20, 9.00 p.m.); the latest in a series of annual productions which began so successfully back in 1970 with Violent Universe. Excellently assisted by the studio commentary of Magnus Magnusson, the modulated narrative tones of Eric Porter and, more importantly, by the availability of a six figure budget, producer Alec Nisbett endeavoured to squeeze into 120 minutes of airspace the fruits of twelve months globetrotting 

Nature 22nd Nov 1974.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Nigel Calder son of Peter Ritchie-Calder had already produced a couple of very popular BBC specials, which were kind of tentpole things that the BBC were quite proud of. And now he was talking about the Weather Machine in the context of a lot of weird weather and competing theories, such as ice age, because of dust, heating, because of waste heat heating, because of carbon dioxide, and so forth. 

What we learn from a close reading of the files at the BBC Written Archive Centre, is that there was a hell of a hoo ha after this, because the Met Office’s John Mason in particular, was basically being a total ass. And Calder and the BBC felt they had to stand up for Calder. It all fizzled out after a couple of years. But it goes towards a further explanation of why Mason was so hostile to the carbon dioxide issue, even though it wasn’t what Calder was pushing. Mason was surely of the opinion “all these bloody amateurs should just leave it to the experts” ignoring, of course, the fact that lots of the people pushing carbon dioxide were more expert than him. But never let the facts get in the way of a good red mist. 

What we learn was that television programmes can cause mayhem. 

What happened next? Mason kept being a douche on climate issues for quite some time, with sadly, great effect, slowing down any UK consensus and activity. I do wonder what people like Herman Bondi thought of Mason over this issue. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
United Kingdom

November 18, 1979 – leaked Cabinet Papers reveal effort to “reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration”

Forty five years ago, on this day, November 18th 1979,

leaked Cabinet papers record the Government’s efforts to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration'(The Sunday Times, 18 November 1979).

This was the effort of John Hoskyns….

Norton-Taylor, R. 1979. Topping up the Think Tank. The Guardian, Nov 24, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Thatcher had come to power in May 1979. And there were a bunch of even more extreme right-wingers trying to pull her in that direction, not just Keith Joseph. And there was this guy who had come up with a big fat book, like Dominic Cummings of his time, only successful. And one of his enemies had leaked something to the Sunday Times.

What we learn is that there are always intra government, intra department battles going on about the direction and speed of travel and so forth. And one of the time-honoured ways of fighting those battles, is leaking embarrassing information about your enemies to the press. They will happily splash that because it sells newspapers and makes them look like they’re investigators. (See also EP Thompson and the culture of leaks and non-attributed briefings.) 

What happened next, the guy, John Hoskyns, wasn’t in post for terribly much longer, and it really looked like Thatcher wouldn’t be. But then the Argentinian junta delivered her an election on a plate. She took it and she never looked back. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 18, 1953 – Macmillan tells the truth about committees

November 18, 1989 – Small Island States say “er, we gotta do something before the waves close over our heads”

November 18, 1998 – coal guy becomes Australian environment ambassador

Categories
United Kingdom

November 17, 1968 -The Observer covers carbon dioxide pollution…

Fifty-five years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1968 Observer article by John Davy contains significant mention of carbon dioxide greenhouse 

“By the end of this century, we may have released enough carbon dioxide to raise the atmospheric temperature by two degrees centigrade.” [to be clear – this was a big overestimate, at least in the short-term]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various newspapers, especially the serious ones, were covering environmental issues with more enthusiasm. There had been the Torrey Canyon the year before. And in September, UNESCO had held a Man and the Biosphere conference in Paris. So smart people were beginning to scratch their heads about the consequences of modernity. We’d already had battles over pesticides and cars in cities and what they were doing towns, next up, the global issues…

What we learn is that carbon dioxide was popping up as an issue as early as 1968. Admittedly, as one that at this point was seen as if not speculative, then distant and if not distant, then entirely speculative. 

What happened next carbon dioxide continued to be for most a minor item on the list. By late 1969 the Financial Times could call it one of the more “venerable doomonger prophecies.” In November December 1969 the Scottish biologist Frank Fraser Darling had given it a serious mention in his Reith lectures. Already we’ve had Richie Calder talking about on the radio, and a couple of weeks after this Observer profile he gave his presidential address “Hell on Earth” to the Conservation Society’s Annual General Meeting. 

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.

Also on this day: 

 November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal

Nineteen years ago, on this day, November 14th, 2005, 10 Downing Street was blocked with coal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 380ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meeting in Gleneagles that summer had made all sorts of nice, warm promises about climate change. But Blair’s government was still planning to give approval to more coal-fired power stations. And they were going to use carbon capture and storage as some sort of cover for that, a Get Out of Jail Free card. And so here we have Greenpeace, pointing to the reality rhetoric gap. 

What we learn is that one of the guys driving the trucks that deposited the coal was an undercover asset for the Special Branch. Oh, the irony. 

What happened next? Well, starting 2006, there were attempts to kickstart a social movement around the issue. An umbrella “Stop Climate Chaos” group had been created. And the NGOs and social movements were trying to get hold of this issue. Without success, it must be said it all died away by 2010. Everyone was exhausted and more than that, just despondent. And the emissions kept climbing. As did the atmospheric concentrations.

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.

Also on this day: 

November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989, UK Prime Minister Thatcher speech to UN General Assembly

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 14 months previously, Margaret Thatcher had stunned everyone by making a speech about global warming to a gathering of the Royal Society in Oxford. And this had really moved the conversation on “the greenhouse effec”t and what to be about it onto a much higher level. But she’d actually committed the UK to very little despite her special one day Cabinet meeting about the greenhouse effect April 1989. And here, we have her making nice flowery speeches at the UNGA. 

What we learn is that she was a consummate politician. 

What happened next, a couple of days later, environmental analyst Tom Burke pointed out that there was “a hole in the policy layer”(which is quite a fun title, but you have to put it in the context of the ozone). And he pointed out that the UNGA speech had half an hour of flowery rhetoric, but nothing concrete, nothing specific. And so it came to pass that nothing specific or concrete was done. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

November 5, 2014 – Vince Cable and the Energy Trilemma

Ten years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2014, Vince Cable splashes the cash on the Energy Trilemma

A £14 million fund to help businesses develop new products and technologies to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy security and reduce costs was announced by Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Vince Cable.

The fund will encourage companies to invest in technologies which help to meet our future energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way, while at the same time boosting economic growth.

In a separate competition, Innovate UK are also making £5 million available to increase research and development and fund feasibility studies to reduce the environmental impact of extracting and using fossil fuels. It will help develop innovative technologies to take advantage of the changing energy landscape and make £1 million specifically available for feasibility studies led by small businesses.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said;

We are facing a trilemma. As well as reducing emissions and improving energy security, we need to reduce costs for energy users. Governments have their role to play, but we also need there to be investment by businesses in innovation to develop new products and technologies.

We are making £14 million available to encourage that investment and make sure that British companies have help to tackle this challenge.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Liberal Democrats had chosen to go into a coalition government with fucking Tories. Because Nick Clegg was a Tory on everything but Europe. And they quite liked the idea of limousines and red ministerial boxes. And here’s Vince Cable banging on about the energy trilemma. The context being that David Cameron had already decided to “cut all the green crap.” And there were the typical Treasury tussles over funding on anything that couldn’t pay for itself within five minutes. 

What we learn is that smart people are understandably seduced by power because they want to make their mark, get something done, change the system from within, etc. 

What happened next? The Tories since 2015 have been governing in their own right, thanks to the infinite wisdom of the British electorate, and everything has turned to shit. Literally, in the case of rivers, the state is being looted, and the earth is being assaulted. And the young can be grateful that catastrophic climate change is going to mean that they don’t have to spend 70-80 years enduring this. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

Categories
Activism Australia United Kingdom

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates…

Thirty years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1994,

 Greenpeace trying to attack market perceptions of energy companies

GREENPEACE has launched a strong campaign to show that market perceptions of energy companies are overblown and do not take into account the potential impact of climate change.

The environmental organisation said yesterday that climate change presented major long term risks to the carbon fuel industry which were not adequately discounted in financial analysis.

Quoting a report released in London, Greenpeace said global warming was a long term risk to investors in the carbon fuel industry.

Wilson, N. (1994) CARBON PAPER’S CLIMATE RISK WARNING The Australian Financial Review 3rd November [this while their Redbank case was still pending – decision came down a week later]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423.7ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Greenpeace had been banging on about the Climate Time Bomb [LINK] . The first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties was due to take place in another four months in Berlin. And Greenpeace was trying to rally the “responsible” and responsive within the capitalist sector to show up in every sense, especially the reinsurance industry. This is an entirely sensible tactic. I think it didn’t work, but that’s hardly Greenpeace’s fault. 

What we learn is that capitalism is by no means a monolith. Intrasectoral and intersectoral battles are always going on. Groups like Greenpeace will try and enlist and mobilise, which you can call cowardly or you can call sensible – it depends how you’re feeling, I guess. None of it worked, many of us are gonna die messily and soon. 

What happened next? COP1 happened. Insurance and reinsurance groups turned up for day one and then went home. The oil executives stuck around. Guess who won. And you can read more about this in Jeremy Leggett’s the Carbon War. 

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.

Also on this day: 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock