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.
On this day in 2009. Peter Mandelson, then Secretary of State for business, launched the very brief, glossy, “low carbon industrial strategy” of the United Kingdom.
The context is the global financial crisis had made it possible to talk about industrial strategy again. For the previous 20 plus years, to do so, in the UK, was to put a target on your back and to write a career suicide note, because you were clearly an interventionist communist “beer sandwiches at number 10” kind of person.
Why this matters.
We need to remember that what is “possible” (even just to talk about) is most often shaped by events that have nothing to do, in particular, with the issue at hand. So, the GFC opened up a discursive space, which has kinda-sorta been occupied and maintained – whether that discursive space has made policy implementation as opposed to announcements is a question for another day or for a research fellowship.
What happened next?
The industrial strategy went nowhere, because everyone knew the Brown Government was toast. The Coalition Government that replaced it came up with “The Carbon Plan”, then another one, then another one. And here we are.
On this day in 2010, Professor Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, gave testimony to a parliamentary committee (the Science and Technology Select Committee since you ask) on the subject of the so-called Climategate hack (or the “Climatic Research Unit email controversy”).
In late 2009, in the run up to Copenhagen, the servers of the University of East Anglia had been infiltrated, a vast archive of emails downloaded, and then selected releases to make it look as if climate scientists were colluding to keep critics out of peer review. And this was designed to make the negotiations at Copenhagen COP more problematic. Whether it mattered or not is impossible, perhaps to say, but no single bullet ever wins a war…
The broader context is that climate scientists had been coming under fierce public attack since at least 1989. (Never mind James Hansen’s funding being pulled in 1981 because of a New York Times front page article displeasing the Republican Administration).
But the kind of personal, bitter ad hominem attacks really took off 1995-96 around the second IPCC assessment report. Michael Mann, who became the subject of attacks himself, calls this the Serengeti Strategy.
Why this matters.
The narrative of “there is doubt about how severe climate change will be/the climate scientists may be – if not lying – exaggerating” is an immensely powerful narrative. Because it allows middle class professional people to continue not to pay attention to the issue. And that’s why the predatory delayers have played the card for so long.
What happened next?
The “climategate” emails were found, after multiple investigations, to be – in the words of the right wingers – a “nothing burger.” Jones continued his career, having admitted that he had contemplated suicide at the time. Meanwhile, the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have continued to climb
Atmospheric C02 concentration at that time: 390.1ppm
Atmospheric C02 concentration at time of publication: 416.71ppm
On the 15th of February 1994, a brilliant anti-bullshit piece of political theatre took place.
Picture the scene. In a few months Manchester was supposed to host a major international environmental event. But amidst budget cuts and cost blowouts the organisation in charge had just lost its second head honcho in six months.
Meanwhile, the Council was embroiled in a high profile physical battle with well-connected, brave and intelligent people trying to protect a site of nature within spitting distance of the city centre (Abbey Pond).
In retrospect, the first (and only) public meeting of the “Manchester Global Forum board was always going to be hard to pull off.
Here’s one witness’s take of the scene
It was in the run up to Global Forum. It’s just beginning to get off the ground. We were quite deeply cynical about this, but they did genuinely try to involve the community, so this was an open meeting to discuss the aims and objectives of Global Forum.
So that was Councillor Spencer, the figurehead for the Council and other people named in that press cutting.
Now the enterprising Earth First!ers, and lovely students, were very creative. They made papier mache in, buckets, they got some wire, they made a framework. then covered it in black bean bags and made a face and it took 4 people to carry it, wasn’t heavy, but quite long. And it was our mascot and they christened him Isaac Newt. He was finished just in time for this open meeting and xxx organised so they could hear it from the newts. Our pallbearers, just let it all get settled sort of kept in the shadows and then very slowly marched in with Isaac Newt.
No shouting, in silence, marched straight down the central aisle. Up to the dais and plonked very gently in front of all the speakers and just sat back and enjoyed the effect
And here’s a newspaper account the following day.
As Unity Stack observes, it ticked all the boxes for a classic stunt:
Image says more than words ever could – controversial in all the right ways and left field, but conveyed simple message, save the newts, had impact
Non violent and time limited, the retreat was almost as impactful as the unexpected entry
Had the chuckle factor, even if the high table didn’t think so at the time, embarrassment factor just right
The perpetrators remained in control of the situation, so stayed in charge of the message, not hijacked by police or security actions.
Every day from Friday 11th to Thursday 24th February, a post (sometimes two) will appear on this site, to celebrate the Republic of Newtonia – a brief occupation of a site in Hulme in defence of Abbey Pond (near the Old Abbey Taphouse). In 1994, local people and environmental activists tried to stop the Council and the Science Park from filling in the much-loved pond. If you were there, and want to share your memories (and any photos or other material) please do get in touch via mcmonthly@manchesterclimatemonthly or on Twitter – @mcr_climate
Also, on Thurs 24th, the 28th anniversary of the Pond’s destruction, there is an online meeting, from 7.30pm, bringing together people who were at the Republic of Newtonia with campaigners defending green spaces now. You can book here (it’s free).
The background is this. Like other cities, Manchester had been caught on the backfoot, by the wave of “eco-concern” in 1988 and 89. It had signed up to Friends of the Earth’s “Environment Charter” and not done very much. And it wasn’t until UK Prime Minister John Major declared that Britain would host the follow up to the Rio Earth Summit, and Manchester bid to do so that things moved into higher gear. The Global Forum was supposed to be a large all singing all dancing international event while the world waited for the Rio Earth Summit, to be ratified by enough nations to pass into law. In the end, Rio was ratified more quickly than people have anticipated. And the budget for Global Forum got hacked, leaving Manchester with egg on its face. This was apparent already by the time of the “Partnerships for Change” events in September 93, but in February 94 they were still putting a brave face on things, Manchester said that it was all going to be okay. And as we’ll find out in June, it wasn’t.
Why this matters.
Because you have to understand that cities take on these agendas for other reasons in order to try and reinvent themselves in Manchester’s case, and along with the Olympic bid, (which ultimately morphed into the Commonwealth Games). Manchester leaders have always used environment as part of its marketing strategy, rather than its actual industrial strategy or decision making process.
What happened next
Manchester Council continued making absurd promises, which it did not keep.
