Category: United Kingdom

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United Kingdom

October 8, 1964 – Party X and Party Y (techno and eco) – seminal article in New Scientist

Sixty years ago, on this day, October 8th, 1964,

 Nigel Calder’s article in New Scientist on 8 Oct 1964 (at the time of the 1964 general election). Calder’s article expressed dissatisfaction with the similar policies offered by the two main parties, and called for the creation of two very different political parties, X and Y. This seminal article basically espoused two different visions of the future: ‘Party X’ technocratic, ‘Party Y’ ‘ecological’. What is interesting about Calder’ s vision is how much of the vision for ‘Party Y’ was to become part of the early 1970s environmental message.

(Herring, 2001)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that awareness of environmental problems was growing. Whether it was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, or the Buchanan report about traffic in cities. And it was clear that there were unmet political needs because both main parties were all about economic growth. And the proposal for a technocrat party and an ecological party as we would never call them was a sensible one. But there are simply too many cross cutting needs and myths. These are not the official lines as people see them, because people think they can have their cake and eat it. And for a certain amount of time you can, but eventually, you look down and you have an empty plate and a face full of food. You no longer have your cake.

What we learn is that these debates about technology “versus” ecology whatever, they go back. Well, they go back earlier than 1964. But they were expressed plainly in New Scientist in 1964.

What happened next? The article was, I’m told, influential in some circles, largely ignored more broadly.

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: 

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

October 8, 1958 – “CO2 has begun to come home, hasn’t it?”

Sixty-six years ago today (October 8th, 1958) British meteorologist Gordon Manley wrote to his friend, steam engineer Guy Callendar, who had – for the past twenty-plus years had been banging on about carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere as a (or even the) factor affecting the climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was happening. More people were coming on board with the carbon dioxide theory, Gilbert Plass, GER Deakin, Appleton, etc. And Manley was congratulating Guy Callendar bless. 

What we learn is that Guy Callendar was getting a little bit of recognition and was getting published still in journals like Tellus and so forth. But he wasn’t being carried through the streets on people’s shoulders, as perhaps he should have been. Such is the nature of humanity when the wrong person making the announcement, if you’re Miss Triggs. 

What we learn is that you can be right and not get the credit you deserve. That’s one of the oldest stories in the book. 

What happened next Callendar had a couple of more really astute observations in him about, for example, why theories aren’t popular, and so forth. And he died in 1964, 37 years to the day after Svante Arrhenius died. 

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

CP 1, Gordon Manley to Callendar, 8 October 1958, cited in Fleming, 2007

Also on this day: 

October 8, 1959 – Shell says “nothing to see here” on carbon dioxide build-up

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

October 8, 1988 – Aussie poet and activist Judith Wright in final speech, warns of environmental problems ahead…

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Industry Associations technosalvationism United Kingdom

October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1993,

London, Sunday It was difficult to see how global carbon dioxide emissions could be stabilised by 2000 unless governments implemented politically unacceptable decisions, the new chief executive of the World Coal Institute said last week.

But Dr Alex Toohey, a former director of Shell Coal International who took over as head of the WCI on Friday, said the move toward clean coal technologies would be stepped up in the next five years.

Noack, K. 1993. Emission Cuts A Hard Choice, Says Coal Chief. The Age, 4 October.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the fossil fuel lobbyists had managed to defeat a strong deal at the Rio Earth Summit in June 1992. But the issue clearly wasn’t going to go away because already a bunch of nations had ratified the treaty. And it was clear there was going to be a series of meetings about what to do. The coal industry was still largely helpless because none of the technological options was convincing to them, let alone to anyone else. And so, we see here some hand wringing and some indication of technology as a magic fix. Sprinkle the word “innovation”, bish bosh and you’re done.

What we learn is that the fossil fuel industry was helpless, and naked. The reason it’s fighting so hard now with CCS is because it doesn’t have anything else. 

What happened next? The World Coal Institute changed its name more than once. But you can’t really put that much lipstick on a pig 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: 

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

October 3, 1970 & 2008: Nixon creates EPA, Brown creates DECC

Fifty four/Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 3rd, 1970/2008,

In 1970, Nixon created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), another major center of atmospheric monitoring, forecasting and general circulation modeling.

(Howe, 2014:51)

AND

DECC was formed on 3 October 2008 to focus specifically upon the twin challenges of climate change and energy supply. DECC brings together certain groups from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Energy Group for DBERR (including the team that is coordinating the CCS demonstration competition).

(Bowman and Addison, 2008: 522) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm (1970) and 386ppm (2008). As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1970 President Nixon signed off on the Environmental Protection Agency. It was created having been an idea that had been around for a while. And in 2008. In the UK, in a departmental combination reshuffle, the Department of Energy and Climate Change was created under Ed Miliband. In the gap, 38, long, long years of wasted time, where we made things significantly worse. 

What we learn is that new agencies and departments of state come into existence. They produce glossy reports. They are a sandpit for middle-class people to play in. Sometimes useful stuff gets done, especially if there is enough external pressure that the people in charge are forced to adopt some of the good ideas that have been ignored/suppressed.. Probably marginally better that they exist than they don’t, I suppose. But if you really want to see meaningful action, it will require an alert vigorous civil society, and that is a different kettle of fish.

What happened next Well the Environmental Protection Agency is still going and sometimes it does useful stuff, it depends on who’s been appointed boss. So under Reagan they had the wrecking ball woman, whatever her name was – Anne Gorsuch and then under Bush two they declared that CO2 was not their business, it wasn’t a pollutant. Massachusetts took the EPA to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said actually it IS your business, that was in 2007.

DECC did what it could but under the Coalition it was largely irrelevant. Well that’s a bit unfair: they put together some work on industrial decarbonisation for example. And it kept fighting. DECC was abolished in 2016 and became part of BEIS which also did some good work, ish.

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: 

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

October 3, 2004 – John Howard revealed to have asked for fossil fuel CEOs to kill renewables. #auspol

Categories
Nuclear Power United Kingdom

September 29, 2007 – World’s first nuclear power station is demolished

Seventeen years ago, on this day, September 29th, 2007, a nuclear power plant goes kaboom, but in an okay way.

Calder Hall, the world’s first commercial nuclear power station, is demolished in a controlled explosion

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nuclear power was gonna signal a renaissance for British industry, global industry. It had been a very expensive nightmare, but had given us supply chains for nuclear weapons and the technology and the workforce to keep those going. So that’s the most important thing; keeping the UK seat on the Security Council as a nuclear power. 

What do we learn? Is that all good things come to an end and so does Calder Hall. Compare the end of Concorde in 2003…

What happened next? Well, this was 2007. This was in the midst of yet another attempt to go nuclear. By this time Blair had been successfully lobbied. And here we go, planning to spend yet more money on nuclear energy and it’s not going to work. 

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

Compare the last flight of Concorde on October 24 2003

Also on this day: 

September 29, 1969 – British Prime Minister Harold Wilson blah blah “second industrial revolution” blah blah pollution blah blah

September 29, 2000 – On campaign trail, George Bush says power plants will require carbon dioxide cuts

Categories
United Kingdom

September 28, 1977 – John Mason being an idiot again.

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, September 28th, 1977, the Met Office’s John Mason covers himself in glory yet again…

In one of the earliest indications of Cabinet-level interest in climate change, Hunt took the opportunity to quiz Mason on climate issues during his visit to the Meteorological Office in September 1977. Over the course of the visit, Mason made his views on CO2 climate change, as well as his exasperation with ‘‘alarmist United States views’’ clear.54 Whilst Hunt agreed that the voices coming out of the United States were unduly scaremongering, still he insisted that the Meteorological Office devote more attention and resources to climate questions and directed Mason to coordinate with the Central Policy Review Staff—orders Mason could not ignore.55

Source: Martin-Nielsen “Computing the Climate.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US National Academy of Sciences had just released its two year report on Energy and Climate. It’s not clear whether Mason had seen a copy yet, probably not. But he had read press clippings, no doubt, and Mason was continuing his failure to engage with CO2 as a problem, something that he had been doing at least since 1967. Possibly earlier. 

What we learn is that important, influential scientists within the British establishment were arrogant and complacent (this will come as a big shock to you). And that this arrogance and complacency had monumental consequences. 

What happened next Mason continued to be a dick. And he was especially a dick. At the First World Climate Conference in Geneva in February of 1979. 

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: 

September 28, 1997 – Australian denialist spouting tosh to his US mates.

September 28, 2000 – Liberal MP goes full cooker on Kyoto as threat to sovereignty.

September 28, 2008 – “Wake Up Freak Out” posted online

Categories
United Kingdom

September 13, 1661 – Fumifugium!

Three hundred sixty four years ago, on this day, September 13th, 1661,

“Whilst Evelyn is most celebrated for his journals documenting the plague and the Great Fire of London, Fumifugium has been widely recognised as one of the first rational, reasoned and scientific accounts of pollution (Jenner, 1995; Sinclair, 1973). It was a campaigning pamphlet that was presented to King Charles II on 13th September 1661 soon after the King’s coronation in April of that year”

(Atkins & McBride: 1267-8)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 270ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that London was becoming unbearably polluted. My goodness, how times change! Everyone was using filthy sea coal, as it was called, for heating their houses and so forth. And here was an air pollution rant delivered to the king. This was of course just after Cromwell had died and the king had come back. 

What we learn here Is that “please do something mighty majesty” style activism has a long history. We’re still doing it today when we’re tugging at the sleeve of regulatory agencies, even though they’ve been captured, or parties, even though they’ve been captured, and even corporations, even though they’re capitalists and raptors. 

What happened next? London’s air quality magically improved. And no, it didn’t. And then there’s a whole stream of Apocalypse literature in the late 19th century, about the London fogs just getting worse and worse. And then finally in 1952, thanks to a temperature inversion a whole lot of people died in a prolonged smog event. You can either say it was 4000, which was the estimate at the time, but later estimates say 11000. And that opened the door to a new Clean Air Act (1956) There had been many before. And despite the best efforts of the Conservative government and Macmillan’s “Macmillan manoeuvre.” The Clean Air Act had some teeth and some impact and drove policy innovation and a certain amount of technological innovation. And at least the visible quality of London became less shit. Whether the invisible (2.5ppms) got much better, is another interesting question. 

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

Atkins, J. * McBride, K. 2021 “Fumifugium: Or the inconvenience of the Aer and Smoake of London Dissipated”: emancipatory social accounting in 17th century London. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 35 No. 5, 20 pp. 1262-1286

Also on this day: 

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

September 13, 1992/1994- Scientists traduced, ignored

Categories
Canada United Kingdom

September 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference…

Sixty six years ago, on this day, September 10th, 1957, The Times runs a short piece – “Melting the Polar Ice Caps: Scientists Study Carbon Dioxide Threat” based on discussions at the International Geodesy conference in Toronto

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the International Geophysical Year was underway. And so there were these sorts of international conferences happening. The geodesy people had been going for quite a while. And it was at this one there were calls for urgent study of CO2. But that’s been largely forgotten.

What happened next is after the International Geophysical Year finished, the interest in carbon dioxide as a problem kind of died down a bit. And it wouldn’t be until the mid 60s that it started to come up again…

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: 

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Categories
United Kingdom

September 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1972,

A Finite Earth BBC Radio 3

First broadcast: Sat 2nd Sep 1972, 21:55 on BBC Radio 3

Professor Dennis Meadows , Dartmouth University, USA, co-author of The Limits to Growth in discussion with Professor Wilfred Beckerman , University College, London, member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. about the concept of using a computerised world model to determine the limits to continued economic growth.

The publication of The Limits to Growth has stimulated renewed controversy In the doomsday debate. Professor Beckerman attacks the assumptions of the report and challenges its conclusions.

Chaired by Michael Peacock

Producer Michael BRIGHT – (see also review of this by David Wade the following week in The Times)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Limits to Growth report had come out before this, as had the Blueprint for Survival. Since then the Stockholm Conference on the Environment had happened. Everyone was saying, thinking about limits to growth, agreeing, disagreeing, and it was fair fodder for radio programmes where you could have various talking heads. And this is one where Wilfred Beckerman got a chance to talk. He was an economist and he was on the Royal Commission of Environmental Pollution at the time. He was up against Dennis Meadows, one of the LtG authors/.

What we learn is that radio was not all radio gaga, and it was having one of its finest hours. nd the debates that we’re still having in 2024 were being had, then round and round in circles we go where it stops, nobody knows (well, the collapse of western “civ”, obvs). 

What happened next. The sorts of programmes and series kept being produced. Middle-class people kept stroking their chins while accepting promotions and ever greater comfort, believing that the system was fair, was delivering for them, because it was – without thinking about the deeper underlying costs in the long term. There was always such a short-term price to pay. If you go up against “the system” (man).

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: 

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

Categories
United Kingdom

August 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1970,

The BBC and the newspapers reported on the latest report of the Alkali Inspectorate, which pours scorn on… worries about carbon dioxide build-up.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The Context was that the Alkali Inspectorate was feeling under fire, and thought it would lash out at carbon dioxide buildup which had been noted in public since 1966 with the Barry Commoner Science and Survival book, which featured in the January 1967 BBC science programme Challenge.

And by 1969 Kenneth Mellanby was giving talks in Coventry about the problem. Later in the year the FT was saying that it was a venerable idea. You know, it was “out there” by the late 1960s – it was out there on the radio and on television, Frank Fraser Darling’s Reith lectures, etc. 

What we learn is this was the first pushback by the British state. Epic ignorance on their part, still interesting and amusing. 

What happened next? The Alkaline Inspector came under more attention for its cosy relationship with industry. F.W. Ireland didn’t last much longer in post, and the Alkali Inspectorate was eventually absorbed within the Environment Agency. And the emissions kept climbing, of course. 

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: 

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins