Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Australia Renewable energy United Kingdom

April 1, 2002 – Renewables policies in UK and Australia

On this day, April 1,  

UK  Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016.

and 

2002 MRET in Australia 1st Mandatory Renewable Energy Target established (following speech by Howard just before Kyoto)

The 2% to 0% target shenanigans – see Kent and Mercer 2006…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the 1970s scientists had been saying that continuing to burn coal (and gas and oil) for energy was going to lead to really bad outcomes and that therefore nuclear and renewables needed to be prioritised.

The specific context was that in the UK the Blair government was continuing to bank the emissions reductions from the “dash for gas” and do pretty much as little as possible on climate change.  In Australia John Howard (Liberal Prime Minister) had slow-walked his 1997 (pre-Kyoto) promise of a renewables target.

What I think we can learn from this is that our political leaders don’t lead in any meaningful sense – they do what is convenient to their donors in the short term (next three years or so).

What happened next:  Renewables continued to get not that much support in the UK – though that changed a bit in the 2010s – or rather, offshore wind took off. Howard continued to resist all growth in renewables as much as he could.  

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

April 1, 1857 – Bucharest gets oily illuminations

April 1, 1960 – TIROS satellite launched – All Our Yesterdays

April 1, 1970 – Eco-documentary shown on Melbourne TV, carbon dioxide build-up mentioned

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 30, 1988 – Greenpeace protests acid rain 

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 30th, 1988.  

By ED LION LONDON — Tens of thousands of morning commuters watched two Greenpeace members Wednesday scale the 170-foot-high Nelson’s Column in London’s famed Trafalgar Square and perch atop it for three hours to protest acid rain.

Seven Greenpeace members — including the two climbers and five others who had helped them from the ground — were arrested


March 30, 1988 Seven arrested in protest against acid rain

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that acid rain had been a sore point for the UK, especially because the Scandinavians – the Norwegians and the Swedes especially – were complaining that sulphur dioxide from the coal fired power stations of the UK’s Central Electricity Generating Board were causing acid rain to damage Swedish ecosystems, and the Thatcher government was extremely hostile to all action on this.

The specific context was that there had been the European Year of the Environment. Greenpeace was riding high. 1988 was one of those years that where a decade happens in a month sort of thing, on climate but more generally on environmental concerns.

What I think we can learn from this is that they weren’t able to get the same level of concern going about carbon dioxide, because it is so central to everything that we do and hard to imagine replacing. 

What happened next  Well, the acid rain issue largely went away because the amount of coal being burned decreased for various reasons. The coal had slightly less sulphur in It, etc. The eco-concern fizzled out by 1992. Everyone was exhausted of staring into the abyss, and those few who had tried to get arms of the state to respond were simply exhausted and demoralised.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 March 30, 1948 – The Conservation Foundation founded

March 30, 1983-  EPA sea level rise conference

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

March 30, 2005 – The Millennium Ecosystems  Report is launched.

March 30, 2007 – economist Nick Stern in Australia

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

Categories
Media United Kingdom

March 20, 2000 – snow joke –  Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”…

On this day 25 years ago, March 20, 2000 a gift to the denialists was given,

 Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the relationship between media and scientists has been one of “frenemies” for decades, far beyond climate science.

The specific context was that climate change was now steady “background noise”, and there was a flare up in coverage thanks to the Bush administration preparing to pull out of Kyoto.

What we learn? Well, here’s a journo from the same paper.

Steve Connor: Don’t believe the hype over climate headlines | The Independent | The Independent

Headlines are meant to draw people into a story and have to conform to quite rigid restrictions on space in the printed medium – where this headline first appeared. They are meant to be accurate, but they can never do full justice to the nuances of reporting. This is even more true when it comes to the more complex nuances of science. The headline in this case is not what the story itself said, as Dr Viner made clear. The story was about the frequency of snowfalls, and how “snow is starting to disappear from our lives”, which the it stated clearly.

A more accurate headline would be something like: “Snowfalls are becoming less frequent in our little corner of the world but that doesn’t necessarily mean that snow will disappear from our lives completely and forever.” Unfortunately, any sub-editor who would suggest such a tediously long headline is unlikely to last very long.

What happened next


Various denialist sites kept the receipts.

The End of Snow, 13 Years On – The American Interest

Stripped of context – Readfearn in Guardian

White lies: Daily Telegraph’s excitement over bumper snow season skates over facts | Graham Readfearn | The Guardian

Readfearn in DeSmog

Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For “Alarmists” To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers – DeSmog

Also on this day

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc  

Categories
United Kingdom

March 19, 1989 – “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger”

On this day, thirty seven years ago “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger” 

GEOFFREY LEAN Environment Correspondent

The Observer  March 19, 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning since the mid-late 1970s that there was serious trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the climate issue had exploded in September 1988 thanks in part to Margaret Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society. In response, green groups had thrown down what they called the “Green Gauntlet,” 20 policy proposals; Thatcher had basically blanked it. And now we see this report that ministers delay plans to curb climate danger

 What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy to say something is an issue and get plaudits, but then when people say, what are you going to do about it, it begins to get awkward, doesn’t it? The management of the climate issue as a political problem, rather than a civilizational one, kicked in because it is the perfect super-wicked problem in terms of distributed responsibility, uncertainty, long term effects, etc, and the problem of free riders, all the rest of it. 

What happened next  Well, in the UK, there was Thatcher’s 1989 Cabinet meeting in April. Then the UNFCCC process kicked in. And so on.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom Upcoming events

Upcoming event – March 26th – “Carbon Capture or Carbon Fiction? Science, Policy, and the UK’s Methane Blind Spot”

Next Thursday – March 26th – at 6.15pm, Dr Andrew Boswell is giving a talk at the Royal Society of Chemistry on “Carbon Capture or Carbon Fiction? Science, Policy, and the UK’s Methane Blind Spot“. 

The talk will be livestreamed.  It would be good to see you in

If you live in the London area (the talk is at Burlington House, central London). 

Details on how to book both are at https://www.rsc.org/events/detail/82590/carbon-capture-or-carbon-fiction-science-policy-and-the-uk-s-methane-blind-spot

The talk will introduce new material from Boswell’s work on the UK policy framing of Carbon Capture, supporting the call from campaigners for an evidenced based review of UK (and global) CCS policy. 

Please forward on to colleagues who may be interested. 

See also –

Interview with Andrew Boswell – “When I found the double-counting error, I thought, ‘no, they can’t really be doing that.'” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 17, 2013 – Daily Mail idiot makes idiotic climate claims 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2013,

In the four-page version published in the Mail on Sunday on 17 March, he calls climate science the “Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to expose his errors. 

https://storage.googleapis.com/gpuk-archive/blog/climate/mail-fake-cover.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 400ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Daily Mail has been mostly but not entirely, hostile to the idea of carbon dioxide build up. There was this article from 1979 based on a book, World without Trees.

But on the whole, the Daily Mail mostly has derided hippies and anti-capitalists and grant grubbing-scientists. Every so often, they’ll run a story or an editorial to show that they’re somehow “balanced”, but they’re not really fooling anyone

The specific context was that their journalist, if you want to call him that, David Rose, was a reliable repeater of the latest denialist memes and talking points and bullshit to come out of the United States. (and, self-confessedly at the time of the Iraq war, security services disinformation). And so it came to pass here, in 2013 after the Copenhagen failure and ahead of David Cameron saying “cut the green crap.”

In 2013, Media Matters named Rose’s publication, the Daily Mail “2013 Climate Change Misinformer of the Year” for its stirring up of “faux controversies about climate science.” In 2014, Greenpeace made an official release noting that David Rose is “not a credible source.”12 13

David Rose – DeSmog

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a conveyor belt of ass-hollering, where denial, half truths and outright lies get washed into newspapers, and then some of it ends up in people’s heads. I am not proposing a hypodermic model;  it is more of an air mist than a hypodermic. 

What happened next The Mail has kept on being awful on climate, alongside the Express, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, as per Carbon Brief.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2006 – Rio Tinto says “CCS is key to cutting greenhouse gases.” Oops, then…

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

 March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

March 15,  2019 – Met Police film children at climate protest

Seven years ago, on this day, March 15th, 2019,

Police unlawfully spied on children as young as 10 taking part in a climate strike protest in London, documents have shown.

The previously unseen papers reveal the Metropolitan police were rebuked by the information commissioner’s office (ICO) for video surveillance of the March 2019 protest, which was attended by up to 10,000 children and young people.

Ruling the data-gathering unlawful, the watchdog said the force had failed to consider the privacy rights of the children at the protest, and had not considered their entitlement to added data protections in light of their age.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/05/met-police-illegally-filmed-children-as-young-as-10-at-climate-protest

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 411ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the police are there to protect… the propertied classes and to subdue political dissent. There’s a lot of other window dressing stuff as well. The Met especially, as the biggest police force, leads the way in a lot of this. And ah, and had been harassing community groups, non violent groups, for a long time.

In 1968 the Special Demonstration Squad, aka spy cops. (Though spy cops is broader than that). It sent undercovers in for four or five year deployments not to gather evidence so much but as to demoralise, provoke etc. Which is absolutely what a thriving democracy, where the elites respect the rights of the peasants, behaves like.

The specific context was that in the 1990s – some of us are old enough to remember – it was still iffy for police evidence gatherers to be randomly and routinely gathering video footage at protests and demonstrations..  Now, well, normalised.

What I think we can learn from this is that in late 2018 the climate issue had burst onto the scene again, thanks to the very hot summer, though possibly not so hot by today’s standards, in the UK and Europe, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees. Greta Thunberg had just started, but the main thing in the UK was Extinction Rebellion, co-founded by Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook, and they had announced a declaration of rebellion in Parliament Square. And then a month later, they had occupied five bridges in London.

And no one could know how long this wave of protest would last. So the Met were there busy filming everyone, which has various advantages.

One is you get a nice, fat database to crawl through, potentially disobedient people. 

Number two, it intimidates some people. 

Number three, it forces other people angry about it, to spend time and energy combating police overreach, rather than spending that time and energy on pushing corporations and governments to do more on climate change – so it’s a nice little sort of diversion of energy and resources. 

So it’s a win, win win for the cops, they might, at worst, get a rap on the knuckles from some legal busy-bodies, but they can largely ignore that. 

What happened next The police continued filming, of course, and now have facial recognition profiling technology thanks to various dodgy deals with people like Peter Thiel of Palantir.

The techno dystopia is being rolled out, and except for, I don’t know, Liberty and Netpol and a few other groups, everyone else is shrugging their shoulders and doing their best Bart Simpson, “What are you going to do?” imitation, myself included.

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 15, 1956 – scientist explains climate change to US senators

March 15, 2001 – “First, Direct Observational Evidence Of A Change In The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Between 1970 And 1997”

March 15, 2002 – GM bails from Global Climate Coalition

March 15, 2019 – New Zealand school strike launched, called off.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle 

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin. 

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.” 

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here. 

What happened next

 The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

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

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

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

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

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1989 – Michael Buerk asks Thatcher if she’s a friend of the Earth

Thirty seven  years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1989,

‘Mrs Thatcher, looking back over your life,’ the BBC’s Michael Buerk asked, ‘are you really a  friend of the earth?’ The Greening of Mrs Thatcher, broadcast on 2 nd March 1989, BBC Two logo

BBC Two

First broadcast: Thu 2nd Mar 1989, 20:30 on BBC Two England

The Greening of Mrs Thatcher From No 10 Downing Street Mrs Thatcher talks to Michael Buerk.

Prime Minister for ten years, Mrs Thatcher and her Government’s environmental record hasn’t won her many bouquets. This weekend she hosts a major international conference on saving the ozone layer, when that record and her commitment will be on the line. She says that the Tories are the real ‘friends of the earth’, but is she genuinely committed or just chasing the Green vote?

Tonight she talks for the first time about her own attitude to the environment, and what her new initiatives could mean for Britain and the rest of the world. 

Research MARK FIELDER

Outside broadcast director IAN PAUL 

Producer AMANDA THEUNISSEN 

Editor PETER SALMON BBC Bristol

TV Interview for BBC1 Nature | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Thatcher had been briefed on carbon dioxide build up in 1979 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashton, and had replied with an incredulous you want me to worry about the weather? This didn’t stop her using the possibility of a greenhouse effect to say nice things about nuclear power. Marc, if you haven’t already put the Tokyo and Venice G7 meetings on your search for list at National Archives, do so now and Thatcher had continued to largely ignore carbon dioxide build up as an issue, even though it was there in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto. 

The specific context was that  thanks to nudges from people like Crispin Gickle in 1988 Thatcher had given a surprising speech at the Royal Society, and so kicked off concern about Carbon Dioxide build up. However, the green organisations had challenged her to do something meaningful, legislatively, and she had not been interviewed by Michael Burke on whether she was, quote, a friend of the earth. UNQUOTE, she said the following, x, y, z. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that people like Thatcher are were capable of doing what’s called a reverse ferret completely. U turning on their position. And that’s what happened in this case. 

What happened next she kept giving nice features about carbon dioxide build-up without ever pushing through any meaningful action by Her Majesty’s Government, and she was toppled in November 1990 shortly after giving another speech at the second world climate conference in Geneva. 

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 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder 

March 2, 1956 – IGY oceanography meeting on “clearer understanding”

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
United Kingdom

February 19, 1958 – the “Council for Nature” forms

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, February 19 1958, 

A meeting at Linneas Society London, from which Council for Nature group forms.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the 1950s it was becoming clear that industrialization wasn’t just an issue for cities air quality, but also large chunks of the beautiful English countryside and diverse species were being wiped out. This had been going on for ages. Of course, I don’t want to say that it was just in the 50s.

The specific context was -well, I don’t know about the Council for Nature, presumably the Tory government wanting to look like it gave a shit. And there will have been people within the Tory government who did give a shit.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always these fine sounding names slapped on state bodies that are there ostensibly to regulate and protect. These bodies always run out of steam, get captured, get corrupted, and occasionally renewed, but during their capture and corruption, they waste a lot of people’s time and hope and then cause cynicism, despair, apathy, which you could argue is ultimately a feature, not a bug.

What happened next: 

Oh, these groups come and go, get rebranded and waste a lot of everyone’s time and hope.

The Council for Nature. Nature 181, 867–868 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1038/181867a0

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: 

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

February 19, 1981 – Nature article “Greenhouse Effect: Act Now, Not Later”

February 19, 1981 – Ecology Party meeting in Wells warns of carbon dioxide build-up

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

 February 19, 2007 – Australian gas lobby hard at work…