Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

July 28, 1990 – science writer John Gribbin explains why caution is wrong on global warming

Thirty four years ago, on this day, July 28th, 1990 UK science writer John Gribbin nails the problem.

AT WHAT POINT will politicians take real action to curb the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? A summary of the situation runs as follows: ‘Some blinkered optimists argue that until the case against carbon dioxide is proven, it is pointless to take any action to curb it. But since the only proof will be when the rains start to fail in North America and there is no spare grain to rush to famine regions, this hardly seems sensible.’

Gribbin, J. 1990. Talking Point: Why caution is wrong on global warming. New Scientist, 127 28 July, p. 18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Gribbin had been writing about climate systems as a trained physicist and science journalist for a good 15 years in New Scientist and so forth. He’d written various books and was well qualified to understand what the IPCC was saying in its various reports. By this time Working Group 1 had already reported and the synthesis report was due to happen.

There were by now outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, and World Coal Association trying to play denialist minimalizing games, and Gribbin was speaking out against taking their shit seriously.

What we learn is that by 1990, it was extremely obvious both that the world was going to warm and that denialists – for reasons of their own – would deny. The siren sounds of denial were to be warned against. 

What happened next. Look around you. Who won? Who lost?

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: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
United Kingdom

July 21, 1970 – Conservative MP talks about #climate

Fifty four years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1970, a Tory MP talks climate…

The signs are very clear for all to see, and confirmation of these signs appears regularly in the newspapers. I will give only a few examples. It is said that jet aircraft landing and taking off in New York deposit 36 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. This has a “greenhouse” effect because it allows the sun’s rays to come down but prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere. …

However, if this goes on, it is thought that by the end of the century the temperature of the earth could be raised by two degrees Centigrade, and this would begin to melt the ice caps. Water generated by this melting process could, they say, be sufficient in mass to flood many cities. But all is not lost. We are pumping so much grit into the air that the sun’s rays are not able to get through, and they are deflected back into the atmosphere. The ice-cap thus is catching up with us.

Carol Mather on 21 July in Parliament Conservative MP for Esher

Hansard

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was the European Conservation Year. The Swedes had successfully convinced the UN to hold an environment conference in 1972. In the UK the Wilson government had released an Environment White Paper, the first ever, which had made very minor mention of the potential problem of CO2 buildup. And there was also a Department of Environment on its way. So also, crucially, the environment was a bipartisan issue at this point, and in fact, the sides were competing.

What we learn is that when the environment first burst onto the scene, as an issue, this is crucial before anyone suggested oxen get gored. regulations and banning would be required. There was bipartisanship – shallow bipartisanship but bipartisan nonetheless. 

What happened next? In September 1970 The UK Department of Environment opened for business with Peter Walker as its Secretary of State. He did a pretty good job, all things considered though. That’s in the context of course, not really grappling with the core issues, but who was it that was, outside of the “lunatic fringe,” who were, of course, right…

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: 

July 21, 1991 – “Greenhouse Action for the 90s” conference leads to “The Melbourne Declaration”

July 21, 2001 – Sleeping protestors beaten by Italian Police

Categories
anti-reflexivity Denial United Kingdom

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change.

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 9th, 2004, popular conservationist David Bellamy made a complete fool of himself.

David Bellamy – Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we’ve had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere – and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist – will blame the weather on global warming. (Daily Mail, 9 July 2004) 

Gavin et al.: Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain Public Understand. Sci. 20(3) (2011) 422–438

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that David Bellamy was suffering a certain amount of Relevance Deprivation Syndrome. His star had waned since the 1980s. And along with a lot of other curmudgeonly old white men, he couldn’t bring himself to see that because fossil fuels have given us such power they’re also deadly. One of the ironies is that Bellamy pops up in a 1984 documentary called “What to do about CO2?”, directed by Russell Porter. And a mere 90 seconds into that, he gives a concise and compelling summary of… the greenhouse effect.

What we learn is that just because someone’s on television, banging on about nature doesn’t actually mean they’re capable of seeing the really Big Picture. They, like everyone else, have their blind spots, because they’re human. 

What happened next? Shortly after (in April 2005) Bellamy made a tragic miscalculation about ice glacier melt. George Monbiot, eviscerated him and basically ended his career, something he was bitter about, till he 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.

Also on this day: 

July 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
United Kingdom

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 6th,1988, an oil drilling platform in the North Sea blows up.

The Piper Alpha drilling platform in the North Sea is destroyed by explosions and fires. One hundred sixty-seven oil workers are killed, making it the world’s worst offshore oil disaster in terms of direct loss of life.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Piper Alpha had a bad safety reputation. Workers had been complaining and… boom. 

What we learn is that energy extraction is a dangerous business. Whether it’s coal mines, oil platforms, small coal mines are definitely more dangerous. And accidents happen. Normal accidents in the world words of Charles Perrow.

What happened next? There were the usual prolonged battles over blame and compensation. At this point, in Britain, this was the third big infrastructure horror show after the Kings Cross fire and also The Herald of Free Enterprise. It did feel like things were falling apart. And then of course, the following year, Exxon Valdez. 

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: 

July 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

 July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Categories
United Kingdom

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Eleven years ago, on this day, July 5th, 2013, Michael Gove had to back down on one of his more prickish gambits.

Michael Gove has abandoned plans to drop climate change from the geography national curriculum.

The education secretary’s decision represents a victory for Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, who has waged a sustained battle in Whitehall to ensure the topic’s retention.

The move to omit it from the new curriculum took on a symbolic status. Gove insisted it was part of his drive to slim an unwieldy curriculum down, to give teachers greater freedom to show their initiative. 

Patrick Wintour in the Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the “Conservatives” hate anything that reminds people that the status quo that they are trying to conserve is already killing some, and is going to kill everyone. And so they would like to de-educate the young. 

What we learn here is that these sorts of decisions can be defeated. If there’s a broad enough coalition and there’s enough outrage. And the politician doesn’t think the game is worth the candle. Fine. But Read on to what happened next.

What happened next on climate is it ostensibly allegedly stayed within the national curriculum. But look, what else got torched? Have a look at this article from the Morning Star on the ninth of December 2023, pointing out what Gove was able to remove from the curriculum. I don’t know, maybe there was a similar effort to push back. But it won’t have had as many educated white people behind it, as the climate campaign did. I’m not saying that all white people are racist, or that all the people who campaigned on the climate curriculum issue are hypocrites at all. I’m just saying that for some issues people who care about them are able to mobilise this kind of cultural capital, social capital, and on other issues it’s that much harder. 

And I can see how people pushing on other issues might notice that we were silent when they needed help. I personally don’t recall being involved. And this is to my shame in either campaign. But at this point I wasn’t in a good headspace and I was focusing on Manchester City Council, those are my excuses. 

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: 

 July 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 4th, 1989, a committee delivers its findings.

Energy Committee, Sixth Report, Energy Implications of the Greenhouse Effect, Volumes 1,2, 3, together with the proceedings of the Committee, HMSO,

As someone wrote.

When a report is described at its launch by one of its authors as ‘possibly the most important issued since Parliamentary departmental Select Committees began a decade ago’, it is scarcely surprising if those approaching it to study its comments do so with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation.
Having duly read not just the 65pages of the main report, but also trawled with increasing fascination through the two supplementary volumes of evidence presented (both written and oral), running to some 158 and 164 pages respectively, I have come to a simple conclusion. The topic under consideration is acknowledged by world leaders to be possibly the greatest threat to civilization-as-we-know-it; this is parliament’s latest work on the topic: ergo, it must by definition rank as ‘most important’.

Warren, A. (1989). The UK energy select committee greenhouse report. Energy Policy, 17(5), 452–454. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(89)90067-0 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

An energy committee receives a report!! Hold The Front Page. Stop the press!

The context is that by the end of 1988, politicians were setting up task forces and committees. The IPCC had its first meeting in November of ‘88, for example, but also domestically, most of this was channelled through the frame of energy, because energy was at that stage the number one issue (agriculture, aviation, industry would all start to be looked at later). 

What we learn is what else you’re going to do, of course, you’re gonna set up a committee fact finding. That in and of itself, isn’t the problem. It’s whether you then keep pushing or whether you use the fact that you set up a committee to send activists to sleep as an excuse not to do anything more. And that,  sadly, is what we did. And it seems impossible for social movement organisations to effectively follow the issue into the committees because they are the place where good ideas go to die. 

What happened next: A flurry of promises in 1989 – 1990, especially around variations on the Toronto target of rich nations cutting emissions. Then the Rio Earth Summit gave us a half-baked stabilisation target. And then it all just went away. Because it 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: 

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

Categories
United Kingdom

June 21, 1954 – Manchester Evening News explains climate change

Seventy years ago, on this day, June 21st, 1954, the Manchester Evening News runs a story on carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, seventy years ago.

Cook, J.G. 1954. That smoking chimney warms up the world. Manchester Evening News, June 21, p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the year before Gilbert Plass had made his attention-grabbing speech at the American Geophysical Union. And in early 1954, Gerald Wendt had published a piece in the UNESCO Courier. 

Alongside this other newspapers, notably the Mews Chronicle, had run pieces by Ritchie Calder. And so on. Yes, the Manchester Evening News was a regional paper that was bigger and better back then. (Manchester hadn’t really felt in a big way, the decline that was to take hold in the late 50s and 60s)

What we learn is that carbon dioxide buildup was not controversial. It was at this point speculative; there weren’t firm numbers just merely a guesstimate that the CO2 levels had increased by 10% and could reasonably be expected to increase further and that this could/should have implications. But that’s as far as it went. 

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: 

June 21, 1958 – Washington Post reports ‘world turning into a ‘greenhouse’

June 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf…

Categories
Sweden United Kingdom

June 17, 1957 – Guy Callendar writes more truth bombs – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, June 17th, 1957, Guy Callendar submitted an article – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” to Tellus, the Swedish scientific journal.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Guy Callendar had now been writing about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming planet for 20 years. He had presented this work in 1938 at the British Meteorological Society and received a polite but relatively dismissive hearing. Callendar must have been looking at the work around the IGY and hopefully, he was feeling at least a small sense of vindication. I don’t know, even though he’s been largely ignored by or tolerated by the British scientific establishment. 

 What we learn is that the old Hollywood trope of the lone genius, who’s right when the establishment is wrong or looking the other way, is not entirely without foundation. 

 What happened next Callendar had one more significant paper in him in 61/62. I think he must have been too sick to be invited to the Conservation Foundation meeting in 63. And he died in 1964 on the same day of the year, Svante Arrhenius had died, in 1927.

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: 

Carbon Capture? Far from ready… June 17, 2008

June 17, 2009 – Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne

Categories
United Kingdom

June 8, 1974 – People get together, in Coventry

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1974, the party that became the Green Party was formed, You can read more about it at the superb Green History website, see for example here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after Blueprint for Survival, published as a special issue of The Ecologist, there had been interest in creating a new political party to represent the “what was needed for survival” policies to enact the blueprint (though “party” is doing a lot of work there – many were more interested in a broader-than-party-politics movement. The organisation was called People, and it held its first conference in Coventry. You can read more about it here and here. It changed its name to the Ecology Party, and then later changed its name to the Green Party. 

What we learn from this is that environmentalists have understood the need for policy change and fairly early realised that it wasn’t going to happen in the mainstream parties. These would have decent individuals like Waylon Kennett, but the logic that the “grey parties” were wedded to was too, all encompassing. 

What happened next well, the Ecology Party stood candidates and had its first general election broadcast in 1979. And it has generally been a force for sanity. Not that people are particularly keen on listening to sanity. 

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

June 8,1991 – UK environment minister Heseltine visits USA, his climate compromise rebuffed

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1991, the UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, went on a (futile) mission to the US to try to get them to be less of a blocker in the negotiations around the climate treaty that had to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992.

You can see lots of gory details here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were upon us in full flow. The UK had just adopted the stabilisation target at least. But it was clear that the administration of George HW Bush was digging in its heels and generally being douchey. Environment Minister Michael Heseltine was therefore dispatched to see what could be done. 

What we learn from this is that even under John Major the UK was trying to be less terrible than the Bush outfit. And they’re always these behind the scenes games. It is actually one of those little incidents that would be nice to cover. Heseltine was fresh from challenging Margaret Thatcher for the leadership and precipitating her departure. 

What happened next? The American anti climate clique went round spreading bullshit about Heseltine and there was actually very unusually a public rebuke of this. See questions in Parliament about the July 12th 1991 article in The Times. For all the good it did. And then less than a year later, the pantomime ended with the British dispatching another envoy, Michael Howard this time, to raise the white flag on behalf of the Europeans. Targets and timetables were dead. A Tale of Two envoys…

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet