On this day (May 2nd) in 2012 the UK government announced a “Carbon Capture andStorage” Cost Reduction Taskforce which would
“to advise the government and industry on the steps needed to reduce the cost of CCS, so that it could compete with other low carbon technologies in the 2020s.” (see also this press release).
CCS has long been the get-out-of-jail-free card for industry (esp oil and gas) and a lot of time and money has been spent on it. But it still ain’t here. Maybe this time will be different…
Why this matters
We need to remember that these salvationary technologies have fallen over repeatedly, and ask ourselves “gee, maybe we could focus on, you know, just using hella lot less energy?”
What happened next
CCS fell over, got picked up and dusted off, and is again flavour of the month.
On this day 22nd of April 1975, a meeting of the World Trends Committee of the Cabinet Office had an (inconclusive) discussion about climate change. A very small number of people within the UK state (as distinct from the government) was beginning to pay attention to the build-up of carbon dioxide doing nothing particularly was happening in public.
“Warren, who was one of its two secretaries, suggested putting a position paper on climatological research to the World Trends committee.36 The Met Office provided a paper that covered climate change for discussion in 1975.37 The ‘conclusion of the paper was that it was all very difficult and that ‘‘fundamental understanding has not reached a stage which permits a reliable computation of future climate.Moreover, natural climate time-series can give no useful indication of future trends’’’.
38 NA CAB 134/3974. Sawyer, ‘Problems of assessing the future climate’, WT(75)7, 4 April 1975.
The paper was discussed at WT(75)2nd meeting, 22 April 1975.”
We have to remember that there was a significant but largely ignored history before Thatcher gave her speech at the Royal Society in September of 1988. And this has been excavated by Gabriel Henderson and Jon Agar, among others.
What happened next?
The Civil Service bureaucracy did produce a report, that was finally released in 1980. And when the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK, John Ashworth, tried to brief Margaret Thatcher in 1980 she said apparently “incredulously” “you want me to worry about the weather?”
On this day, April 20 2006, David Cameron, newly-minted opposition leader in the UK, the head of the Conservative and Unionist Party, had his photo op with a husky in the Arctic. The context was that Cameron needed to detoxify the Conservative brand. And he’s chosen environmentalism as the way to do that, in much the same way that Kevin Rudd would use climate and environment as a wedge issue against John Howard a year or so later in Australia.
Why this matters.
We really, really really need to learn not to take anything a politician, any politician says at face value. And we need to help other people understand that – or rather, we need to get beyond information deficit and deference, to a sense of the power that (potentially) rests in social movements. Or did. Probably too late to do anything now.
What happened next?
Gordon Brown became Labour Prime Minister, and bottled calling an election in 2007. The global financial crisis hit and then there was an air of inevitability around Cameron becoming Prime Minister which he did, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in May of 2010. In 2012
“The head of the charity that helped to arrange David Cameron’s memorable husky photoshoot in the Arctic, launching the Conservatives’ rebranding as the nice-not-nasty party, has warned that the PM’s lack of leadership on environment issues risks “retoxifying” their image.”
On April 16 1980, John Ashworth, then the Chief Scientific Adviser of the UK,, wrote to another senior figure, Robert Armstrong (Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary) on the question of preparing people to accept nuclear in order to drive down fossil fuel emissions. A few days later, Robert Armstrong wrote back saying this needed some further thinking.
As John Ashworth wrote, his personal view was” that the nuclear waste problem is manageable whilst the CO2 problem is not and therefore that a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning if it were offered the choice. A rational risk averse society, of course, might prefer energy conservation to either….”
86 86 TNA CAB 184/567. Ashworth to Robert Armstrong, 16 April 1980. Armstrong replied that the idea of inducing the public to go along with nuclear energy by frightening it with global warming ‘would need much thought’. Armstrong to Ashworth, 21 April 1980
Why this matters
We need to know that the UK Government was, well, portions of the bureaucracy of the UK Government, were well aware of the issue. It became impossible, however, for this policy discussion to proceed, because Thatcher wasn’t interested (when Ashworth briefed Thatcher on the issue in 1980, she replied incredulously “you want me to worry about the weather?”
What happened next?
Well, the nuclear lobby in 1988/89, would try to use climate change as a spur to more nukes. And failed. And tried again from 2006. And failed. And, as we have seen in the recent “Energy Security Strategy”, it continues to do so down unto this day.
Okay, fourth of April 1978, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government Sir John Ashworth writes a letter in which he says – well, here is Janet Martin-Nielsen (2018) Computing the Climate: When Models Became PoliticalHistorical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245.
“The Meteorological Office’s ‘‘important and very helpful’’ work on Concorde, Ashworth wrote in a secret letter to Berrill, proved the value of climate modeling to U.K. interests—and since ‘‘the real worry is now the CO2 level in the atmosphere’’ he continued, the Meteorological Office needed to focus its energy in that direction . J. M. Ashworth to K. Berrill, re: ‘‘Meteorological Research,’’ 4 Apr 1978, secret KEW, CAB 184/567W01211,
The context for this is that the UK Government had started looking via its World Trends Study Group at the climate issue, also paying attention to what was happening in the United States. Also you have to factor in the the aftermath of the very hot summer of 1976, and the very cold winter in the US and Canada of 1977.
And it’s clear that they were trying to get their head around the problem. But not everyone in the UK scientific establishment was at all sold on this. And it would require other entrepreneurs as well, like Solly Zuckerman and Herman Bondi to push further. Unfortunately, all of this culminated in 1980 with Ashworth trying to brief the new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and her response was an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”
And it would be another eight years before that she would do one of her turns because it turns out the lady was frequently for turning
Why this matters.
We need to puncture the myth that Thatcher deserves any credit whatsoever. She was warned a decade earlier,did nowt.
What happened next?
The problem stream entrepreneurs tried to get the issue paid attention to, but everything was against them. And it had to wait until 1988 for attention to be paid….
The question of coal’s longevity was because of environmental constraints was a hot topic, because negotiations were underway (or rather, Uncle Sam was busy slowing down attempted negotiations) for a global climate treaty.
The World Coal Institute had formed in the late 70s as a global body for the coal production industry. It has emerged out of a smaller group as these things are wont to do. And of course, by 1991, everyone and their dog was still kind of talking about climate change if they weren’t talking about the war in Iraq.
And what we learned is that there have been various technological options (not solutions – and eye-wateringly expensive) sitting alongside a certain amount of, so-called scepticism, leaning over into outright denial.
Why this matters.
We need to know that the industry lobbies are always active, always watching who is trying to figure out how to turn an issue back into a problem and a problem into a non problem. And often they succeed at least in the short-term. That’s predatory delay for you.
What happened next?
The World Coal Institute would become the World Coal Association. And it would fight the “good” fight on resistance to regulations, and spouting hopey-changey nonsense about new technologies (CCS, HELE – the acronyms change, but the siren song of delay and putative technosalvation remains the same).. That is what these types of outfits do, and they generally do it quite well, if you’re a politician looking for cover to not do the right thing by future generations…
On this day in 1998 a report “Climate change : a strategic issue for business” was presented to British Prime Minister Tony Blair
An “Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment” had been asked to come up with the usual soothing words and blandishments and so it had delivered.
Blair had come to power with a promise to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. This at the time looked not too tricky because emissions were on a downward trend. But, oops, that was because of a) switching from coal to gas for some electricity generation and b) offshoring manufacturing. And things got trickier and trickier. Turns out promises are easy, delivery not so much…
Why this matters
We should at least remember some of the past promises and glossy reports when looking at the new promises and glossy reports
What happened next
The emissions reduction target got pushed up to 60% by 2050 in 2003 or so (and then 80% b 2050 as part of the Climate Change Act 2008).
And the atmospheric concentrations continue to climb. Ha ha ha.
On March 18 2010, Ian McEwan’s novel Solar was released .McEwan is a well-regarded prominent English novelist, who has been publishing from the 70s onwards
Solar was his – good in my opinion, fwiw – , attempt at a novel about innovation, masculinity and the common problems of collective action,
People will quibble about whether it’s a good novel or whether it is “fair” to some of these issues. But if you’re looking for something that will make you think and make you laugh and make you wince, then Solar is a good place to go.
It would have made a very good movie or TV series, but probably was published too late to benefit from the whole climate window of 2006 to 2010…
Why this matters.
We don’t have many good novels about technology, innovation, bureaucracy (!) – try also Michael Frayn’s The Tin Men. Also check out Ben Elton’s Stark, if you like…
On this day in 2007 perhaps a hundred people attended a climate action gathering in central Edinburgh, Scotland. At that time I was a student in Glasgow, so I travelled over for the event, along with some friends. Rising Tide Scotland coordinated the day, which involved workshops, plenaries, and film screenings.
My memories are hazy and there is very little information about the event that remains online. Nevertheless I can tell you about some recollected snippets from the day, and I can put the event in some context.
The context of Scottish climate activism in 2007
March 2007 was a period of significant concern about climate change in the UK. The 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (physical science basis) was released with stark warnings in February 2007. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary had made some impact in 2006. Public concern was growing and the UN Kyoto Protocol’s flaws were becoming more obvious.
We had not yet been hit by the global financial crisis which shifted public attention elsewhere (Northern Rock collapsed in September 2007). Nor had we yet been demoralised by the intense failure of the 2009 UN climate talks in Copenhagen (COP15).
The organisers of this gathering, Rising Tide Scotland, were involved in Climate Camp, which promoted actions of civil disobedience at sites of major polluting infrastructure, including Drax coal fired power station (August 2006) and Heathrow airport (August 2007).
Rising Tide Scotland, among others, sought to build climate activism from among the Scottish anti-war and alter-globalisation left that had mobilised against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and against the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005.
In parallel, electoral strategies by the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party had led to significant representation in the devolved Scottish Parliament in 2003, albeit this ebbed away for the Greens in the May 2007 election and ended disastrously for the Socialists, who had been split by the ongoing Tommy Sheridan debacle.
Memories of the climate action gathering, March 17th 2007
These are hazy and partial, so if others have better recollections, perhaps they could leave a reply in the comments. I remember being excited about the day. There is a desire to learn, engage and connect, which activist groups should always be able to tap into.
The event took place in the premises connected to the Forest Cafe, which was then housed in an amazing, centrally located listed building that was a hub for arts and events, supported by volunteers and not-for-profit initiatives. This lasted until 2011, when the building was sold after the charitable owners went bankrupt. The Forest moved to a much smaller premises in 2012. I arrived early and had a coffee (vegan milk only).
In the workshops, I vaguely remember learning about some things I already knew, and hearing some things that I was not aware of. There were some interactive elements, including a memorable use of a ‘strength line’ in a breakout session. This involved people physically moving closer to one side of a room or another, depending on how much they agreed or disagreed with a proposition for debate. People could move during the debate, so you could see how it was going. One of the discussions was about technology, and at that time I was pretty sceptical about technological solutions, so I raised my hand to speak. I said something about technology getting us into this climate change problem and therefore not expecting technology to get us out of it, and found to my surprise that more people had moved away from my favoured position and towards the opposite!
I remember another workshop introducing people to non-violent direct action (NVDA), led by someone who was advocating this approach. For some reason – probably because I was learning analytical philosophy in my first year of university – I decided to quibble with the speaker in the Q&A about whether destruction of property could be considered violent. I think he had in mind destruction of polluting corporate infrastructure, and I had in mind personal property, so we ended up speaking at cross-purposes.
Aside from that, I remember seeing some familiar faces, and lots of unfamiliar faces. To my surprise, one of my philosophy lecturers, Prof Alan Carter, a specialist in environmental ethics, spoke with the microphone from among the rows in one of the gatherings. I suppose this confirmed to me that I was somehow in the right place, even if I was not yet much good at debating. It’s just very disappointing that the climate crisis has become so much worse since then.
On this day in 1989, Baroness Hooper (because the UK has unelected members of parliament making consequential decisions) appeared before the UK Energy Select Committee, which was investigating the “greenhouse effect” as we then all called it.
According to the Financial Times (14/3/1989, page 15) she told the MPs that the Government had no plans to introduce a special tax on fossil fuels such as coal.
The final paragraph of the article is as follows –
[Hooper] said the Government was “extremely sceptical” of the call from a meeting of scientists in Toronto last year for a reduction of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by the year 2005. It was neither feasible nor necessary at this stage, she said.
Hunt, J. (1989) Science support group to be formed at Met Office. Financial Times, 14 March, p.15.
Why this matters.
We should remember that this was potentially fixable. It’s almost certainly not now. But then, it mighta been…. And here we are.
What happened next?
The following month Margaret Thatcher held a full-day cabinet meeting about climate mitigation options. Will blog about that too – bet you cannot wait, can you?
But thanks to the “dash for gas” – buying gas in to accelerate the demise of the hated coal mine(r)s, emissions went down a bit, and the UK Government stopped pretending to give a shit about carbon emissions for another decade. What a species we are.
