Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

April 28, 1959 – the Chadwick lecture offers a (brief) carbon dioxide warning

Sixty six years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1959 a doctor, Gordon Fair, talks about carbon dioxide as a possible long term public health issue during his Chadwick lecture, 

,

28 April 1959 NEW FACTORS IN MAN’S MANAGEMENT OF HIS ENVIRONMENT *

Especially Fluoridation, Air Pollution and Radiation 

by GORDON M. FAIR, HON. F.R.S.H.

Professor of Public Health Engineering, Harvard University, U.S.A.

I am deeply grateful to the Chadwick Trust for its invitation to deliver a Chadwick Lecture at the 66th Annual Congress of the Royal Society of Health.  Although the prevention of local or metropolitan air pollution is the most immediate concern of health authorities, the threat of possible future world-wide effects must not be overlooked. Most real is the accumulation in the atmosphere of the radioactive by-products of nuclear fission (see part IV of this paper) which could endanger life in all parts of the globe. More speculative is the possibility that the combustion of fuels and wastes may eventually build up the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere so fast as to influence world climate by creating the so-called “green-house effect”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that already in the United States, carbon dioxide buildup was being spoken of by public health personnel alerted to it as part of the general problem of air pollution, but also just reading a newspaper.  If you were a scientifically trained intelligent person in the 1950s who was reading American scientists and paying attention to science journalism in mainstream newspapers, you would have been aware of the potential problem of carbon dioxide buildup. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people have been talking about carbon dioxide buildup for longer than most of the five or six people reading this website will have been alive. And we have never managed to even get a cursory grip on what is a slippery, growing and ever more slippery problem that has always been wicked, then became super wicked and is now probably “hyper wicked”, whatever that means. 

What happened next  People kept talking about carbon dioxide build up as an issue and by the late 60s, it was more significantly on the agendas of biologists, clean air, folk, etc.  For all the good that did. 

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:

April 28, 1975- Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” story.

April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

April 28, 1997 – John Howard says Australia should not have signed climate treaty (UNFCCC) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

 April 24, 2001 –  Early Blair blather about dodgy policies on climate

On this day, 24 years ago, a Blair minister tries to tell the actual experts that they are wrong….

“In the event, the initial auctions led to claims that reductions in emissions were not additional and an acrimonious controversy developed between the ENDS Report (which pointed this out) and the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett. (Dieter Helm 2003) 14 Margaret Beckett letter to ENDS report contesting their point about additionality in the proposed emissions trading scheme”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Blair government was doing as little as possible about climate, still coasting on the emissions reductions from the closure of coal plants (and de-industrialisation). At this stage, climate was just another issue to be managed with the usual trickery and fakery (so much has changed in the intervening two decades!)

What we learn.  What was that Nick Tomalin said? They lie, they lie, they lie.

What happened next. In 2003, thanks to a RCEP report (RIP RCEP), the climate and energy policies began to seriously entwine, as they should have from 1988 onwards. The trickery and fakery continued obvs. I mean, what do you expect?

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

April 20, 2023 – tabloid smear job of climate activist – Hypocrite-Zealot Trap

Two years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2023, the Scum , sorry “The Sun” “newspaper” published a hit job on XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook (whose ‘what next’ essay you can read here). The “journalists” sprang a version of the hypocrite zealot trap on her because – gasp – she drives a car and she buys food. 

The context was that the Sun in 2007 had come within a whisker of endorsing strong climate action. Then head office had got cold feet. The split between the Murdochs on the climate issue among others, is famous, but until that is resolved, with the Dirty Digger being dug six foot under, the Scum will continue to be knuckle dragging on climate.

This is not to say that you have to endorse XR as a loyalty test. 

What we learn is that activists are always vulnerable to this sort of hat job. It is the hypocrite zealot trap. If you are anything approaching a normal human being in terms of your travel, your eating, your ”lifestyle” you will be accused of being a hypocrite because by raising your voice to say ‘we all need to change’ you’re lecturing other people about how they should live their lives.,

Whereas, if you are consistent, if you’re a vegan who doesn’t get in internal combustion engine cars, etc, then you are a zealot, but you’re still a hypocrite. If you’ve ever, for example, used or been able to been saved by the NHS. 

So this is a classic attempt to play the man, not the ball, or in this case, the woman, by people who, on some level, must know that their opponents are right and that they are wrong. They can’t cope with it so they revel in this sort of nonsense. 

It also should be said that it’s kind of a cyber equivalent of sticking someone’s corpse on a pike or their dead body and a gibbet. It’s to send a message to other people who were thinking about maybe sticking their head above the parapet. This is what will happen to you. 

What happened next

The state corporate attacks on climate activism continued, and escalated. By early 2025 their war of attrition had ‘succeeded.’

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: 

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 2009 – World has Six Years to Act, says Penny Sackett – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

April 3, 2020 – Kwasi Kwarteng sends a letter….

It seems like a million years, but five years ago today, just as the first lockdown was underway, the Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng wrote a dismissive letter to some Labour politician who was chairing a select committee, saying, well – read it and weep

That select committee chair was… Rachel Reeves.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 414ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that while, in theory, carbon capture and storage was official government policy nothing much was happening. 

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s fun to keep the receipts for politicians. What they say in opposition is one thing. What they do if and when they’re in government is something else, quite often. That’s extremely banal, but there you have it. 

What happened next Kwarteng was the shortest ever lived Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, bar one who died on the job. He was thrown under the bus by Liz Truss. Reeves is now Chancellor, and CCS is probably toast – let’s see what happens in June…

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: 

April 3, 1995 and 2001 – Australia’s international trajectory – from bullshit to batshit delusion (but honest)

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

April 3, 2000 – Australian diplomats spread bullshit about climate. Again

Categories
United Kingdom

March 18, 1970 – Ministry of Transport says “exhaust emission is a minor pollution problem not warranting public expenditure“

Fifty years ago, on this day, March 18th 1970, the Ministry of (for) Transport told some other civil servants tasked with looking at pollution “nothing to see here”.

The National Archives – AB 48 dash 940

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a mad rush among the civil service to “support” the drafting and publication of the very first Environment White Paper

Feb 13 1970 the NonNuclear Committee had asked Roberts to talk to Ministry of Environment (see AB 48/940  jpg 67)

What I think we can learn from this is that civil servants go native, and are looking to support whatever industry they are supposed to be “regulating.”

What happened next

Car fumes as a problem for “the greenhouse effect” were getting attention within a couple of years (see Alistair Aird’s The Automotive Nightmare).  They were in the frame in 1988. And here we are, the fat end of 40 years later, still in thrall to cars (oh, and EVs? They’re not the panacea some would have you believe…)

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: 

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.

Categories
United Kingdom

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1993,

March budget announces VAT on domestic energy, disguises it as a climate measure (see Pearson and Watson 2012, p14)

Here’s the speech from John Major

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state was having one of its periodic fiscal crises (though the crisis is now perhaps more permanent!), Anyway they put Value Added Tax (VAT) on domestic heating and called it a climate initiative. And this is brilliant, because it raises revenue and it smears the green cause as it were. It’s like the salting the earth. It’s very, very clever politics (terrible policy and governance, but clever politics).

What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re evil doesn’t mean you’re stupid. 

What happened next

There was resistance to this, but it also made life harder for talking about actual green taxes. 

See 1995 post 

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

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: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Cultural responses United Kingdom

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up….

Two years ago, on this day, March 12th, 2023

The Greenhouse Effect

Barbican Centre (2023)

Starring:

Yshani Perinpanayagam,

Laura Moody,

Linda Jankowska,

Marcus Vergette,

Matthew Bourne

12 March 2023(2 performances)

The Greenhouse Effect review – bells, birdsong and a bubble-wrapped piano | Classical music | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 419ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was artists want to feel Relevant, while still being Artistic.

What I think we can learn from this. Artists, like almost everyone else, have been late and largely empty-handed to the party.  Human, all too human.

What happened next.  The opera ain’t over, but you can hear the fat lady in the wings, doing her warm ups.

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: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

Categories
United Kingdom

March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, March 12, 1984, conservative MP for Carshalton Nigel Forman, had this to say…

March 12 1984 – I shall add a word about the more remote problems, which are just as important. Are the Government prepared to take an international initiative of an appropriate kind to limit the use of chlorofluorocarbons, which may deplete the stratospheric ozone? Are the Government prepared to pay more attention to the possible dangers of the “greenhouse effect” on the globe as a consequence of the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Nobody knows about these matters for certain, but one knows for sure that the more investigation that is done in good time, the more we shall be able to minimise any risks that may ensue. Since the greatest contribution to the “greenhouse effect” comes from the burning of fossil fuels, does that not have important implications for our energy policies and those of other countries, since we are not the largest burners of fossil fuels?  

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1984/mar/12/environmental-pollution

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in October 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States had released a report called “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (spoiler, no, no we cant).  This had received some press coverage in the UK, and publications like Nature and New Scientist were covering the issue too.


What we learn  Backbencher politicians were alert to the issue, while those “At The Top” were studiously looking elsewhere…

What happened next

Forman’s intellect and independence clearly got in the way, but eventually, to quote from Wikipedia

“The omission of Nigel Forman, from successive ministerial reshuffles over the past few years has surprised many at Westminster when several apparently less talented politicians have secured top posts. But after 16 years in the Commons, he has become an under-secretary at the education department”[8]

He resigned from that post in late 1992, for reasons never disclosed (someone had a dirt file on him? Who knows) and he lost his seat to a Lib Dem in the 1997 landslide. He died in 2017, having had an academic and consultancy after-life.

Also on this day: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

Categories
United Kingdom

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1971,

“Due to Lack of Interest… ” Paul Ehrlich documentary” –

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/6254d3d38f674b6288acb485fcffdeda

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the BBC was making all of these documentaries about environmental issues and whether we were taking them seriously enough or too seriously. And this is another one of those.

March 1971 is possibly “peak Ehrlich” and peak environment. Everyone knew the Stockholm conference was coming. There was a new Department of the Environment. Super departments have been created, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, etc. 

And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this

The TV shows that we think will “wake up the masses” have been made again and again and again and again. And again.

What happened next

Ehrlich’s predictions of the inescapable famine did not come to pass, and this has definitely hurt the green cause, if you want to call it 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.

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
United Kingdom

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced

Sixteen years ago, on this day, March 6th, 2009, Peter Mandelson launching low carbon industrial strategy says 400,000 jobs in the next decade..

. https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/mandelson-launches-low-carbon-strategy/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that with the Global Financial Crisis in full swing, Peter Mandelson recently returned from time as a European Commissioner and bringing back a new-found love of industrial policy launched the first “low carbon industrial strategy with the all singing, all dancing Copenhagen climate conference coming up in 10 months. And of course, the Climate Change Act passed into law only two months previously. So this needs to be seen in the context of UK/EU/global efforts. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “industrial policy” as an okay thing goes back further than we thought – I mean, it was a standard Keynesian tool. However, after the post-stagflation triumph of the monetarists/neoliberals, it was career suicide in the 80s and 90s and first half of the noughties to say it, because you would be met with “beer and sandwiches at number 10” as an insult and apparently argument-winningpoint.

What happened next

Well, Gordon Brown’s premiership was at this point, already clearly a dead duck. There was an election in 2010 and to the shame of the Liberal Democrats, hungry for limousines and red boxes, they enabled the Tories (but then Nick Clegg is a Tory on everything except Europe). And although portions of the green rhetoric were kept, it was adios to industrial policy in any meaningful sense.

The low carbon industrial policy went south, but then came back and back and back again, and a new one is going to be launched in June (already pushed back from March). 

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: 

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial 

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch.

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”