Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

November 18, 2020 – Boris Johnson’s ten point plan

Five years ago, on this day, November 18th, 2020,

The Johnson government (if you can call it that) launches a “Ten Point Plan for Green Industrial Revolution”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 414ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Boris Johnson had become Prime Minister in July 2019, prorogued parliament illegally and then won the General Election. After shaking hands enthusiastically with people at hospitals, he’d ended up briefly in an ICU. Johnson’s wife-beating father, Stanley, had been aware of the problem of carbon dioxide build-up from the late 1960s, as the Spectator’s environment correspondent

The specific context was that the UK was going to be hosting a COP (first time) and so there had to be SOMETHING to make it look like the green show was still on the road.

What I think we can learn from this is that there can be a nice round-numbered policy document, and some nice graphics, all produced by a department of state.  That doesn’t mean it is a strategy, but academics have to pretend that it is.

What happened next – Johnson was undone by a) himself and b) a scandal people could understand. Sunak basically binned “the energy transition” and “Red Ed” is beavering away, but nobody really believes in any of this stuff, do they?

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

Also on this day: 

November 18, 1953 – Macmillan tells the truth about committees

November 18, 1979 – leaked Cabinet Papers reveal effort to “reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration”

November 18, 1989 – Small Island States say “er, we gotta do something before the waves close over our heads”

November 18, 1998 – coal guy becomes Australian environment ambassador

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

November 17,  2009 – “Climategate” hack

Sixteen years ago, on this day, November 17th,  ,2009 email hack at the Climatic Research Unit of University of East Anglia.

“Early on the morning of November 17, Gavin Schmidt sat down at his computer and entered his password. It didn’t work. Strange, he thought. He tried a few other accounts and none of them worked, either. Now he was alarmed. As a leading climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Institute in Manhattan, he’d been hacked before. He was used to e-mails from people who disapproved of his work, 

wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that scientists doing “impact science” work on climate had been attacked, smeared and intimidated since 1989 (e.g. hatchet jobs on James Hansen).  It had hit an early peak in 1994-5 when the IPCC’s second assessment report was underway. It had continued against Michael Mann for the “hockey stick”. 

The specific context was the Copenhagen climate sumit was about to start – and those opposed to action were going to do absolutely anything they could to reduce the chances of progress (the chances were vanishingly low, btw).

What I  think we can learn from this – we should see this attack as part of a longer trend.

What happened next – there were various investigations and it was deemed a “nothing burger” – except the denialists, obvs, cried ‘cover-up’.

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: 

November 17, 1869 – Suez Canal opens – All Our Yesterdays

November 17, 1968 -The Observer covers carbon dioxide pollution… – All Our Yesterdays

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1978 – British Wind Energy Association launches – 

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 1994 – “When consumption is no longer sustainable”… – 

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

 November 17, 2023 – two degrees warmer, for the first time… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

November 5, 2008 – Queen asks the key question

Seventeen years ago, on this day, November 5th, 2008,

On 5 November 2008, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was opening a new building at the London School of Economics. Speaking of the credit crunch, she turned to some of the economists present and said, ‘It’s awful. Why did no one see it coming?’ Journalists, not constrained to be diplomatic, were more forthright in condemning economists. For Anatol Kaletsky, one-time economics editor of the Times, ‘Economists are the guilty men’ (the Times 5 February 2009). The economics editor of the Guardian, Larry Elliott, claimed that ‘as a profession, economics not only has nothing to say about what caused the world to come to the brink of financial collapse … but also a supreme lack of interest’ (the Guardian 1 June 2009). Writing in the same newspaper, Simon Jenkins attributed this failure to the fact that ‘Economists regard it as their duty fearlessly to offer government what it wants to hear. … Don’t rock the boat, says the modern profession, and the indexed pension is secure.’ The whole economics profession, he contended, had ‘suffered a collapse’ (12 November 2008).  https://strangematters.coop/frederic-s-lee-profile-part-one

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that climate change had burst onto public awareness again in 2006. The Queen had lobbied Prime Minister Tony Blair to do more in 2004. And then in late 2008 the Global Financial Crisis had kicked in.

The specific context was that by now everyone was talking about the COP to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, as the last chance to save the earth. But everything was complicated by the banking near death experience and the bail outs…

What I think we can learn from this is that smart questions come from the most unexpected quarters.

What happened next – the Queen kept banging on (well, it’s all relative) about climate change.  We’re so screwed.

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.

See also

October 31 2004 report in the Observer that the Queen had lobbied Blair on the Bush administration’s stance on climate.

Also on this day: 

 November 5, 1969 – House of Lords question about the greenhouse effect

November 5, 1992 – Jeremy Leggett calls Australian petrol price cuts “insane”

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

November 5, 2014 – Vince Cable and the Energy Trilemma – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

November 2, 1965  – The Met Office starts twice daily weather forecasts

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 2nd, 1965,

Soon after I arrived on 1st October, I became impressed that the experimental forecasts for aircraft crossing  the Atlantic were systematically more accurate than traditional forecasts based on extrapolation of time  sequences of hand-drawn charts.  Accordingly I decided, against the advice of some senior colleagues,  who favoured a longer trial period that the numerical forecasts would be issued routinely twice a day from  Monday, 2nd November 1965.  The Press and TV were invited to witness this landmark in the history of  the Met Office and gave it wide coverage.  Fortunately the first forecast was excellent and ushered in a  new era in which weather forecasts were to become objective exercises in mathematical physics replacing  the empirical methods that, for more than a century, had depended on the skill and experience of the  individual human forecaster. 

Mason memoir  

and

By carefully stage-managing the public performance of a new,  computer-driven meteorology, new claims of objectivity could be made, with public credibility  and social authority at stake.37 Thus, on the same day as the inauguration of numerical forecasts,  Mason presided over the Office’s first-ever press conference, where he proclaimed a new dawn  in weather forecasting – a move which his deputy, A.C. Best, thought to be a “great risk” for the  office’s reputation.38 While much of the credibility economy which Shapin describes concerns  scientific claims where virtual witnesses have no direct access themselves to the phenomena in  question, the success and credibility of weather forecasting is easily adjudicated on by anybody  who cares to look out of the window. Standing before more than 100 journalists and cameramen  from the BBC, national newspapers and the technical press, Mason marked the introduction of  numerical weather forecasting in the UK with great confidence: “Today is a landmark in the  history of forecasting in the Office”, he declared, “because this afternoon you will see the  production of our first routine numerical weather forecast by the computer”.39 Britain, he continued in his first push to build social authority in the Meteorological Office, could now look  forward to increasingly accurate weather forecasts underpinned by modern, objective  technologies. As the press gallery watched the Meteorological Office’s line printer slowly  produce the UK’s first routine numerical forecasting chart, Mason patiently answered questions  for nearly an hour and then distributed souvenir copies of the chart to all attendees. The  formalities over, the press gallery toured the Central Forecasting Office at Bracknell and chatted  over coffee with senior members of Mason’s staff. 

2017 Maartin-Nielsen – 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the Met Office had not delivered warnings about a particular cold winter in 1962, and had copped some flak for that, because US meteorologists had warned about it.

The specific context was that new boss, John Mason wanted to move things along, and take advantage of new computers etc.

What I think we can learn from this – the forecasts we now accept as normal required a hell of a lot of work, and some institutional risk-taking.

What happened next

Mason was keen to move things along (the man was dynamic but backed the wrong horse on carbon dioxide and never changed course). He was a major block on “early” action (e.g. at the First World Climate Conference).

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: 

November 2, 1957 – “Our Coal Fires are melting the poles” Birmingham Post 

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

November 2, 1994 – Greenpeace vs climate risk for corporates… 

November 2, 2006 – “RIP C02” says New Scientist

November 2, 2009 – , Australian opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull seals own doom by not bending knee to shock jock

Categories
United Kingdom

October 31, 2004 – QE2 lobbied Blair on climate, reports Observer

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2004,

So it was extraordinary when London’s Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had “made a rare intervention in world politics” by telling Blair of “her grave concerns over the White House’s stance on global warming.” The Observer did not name its sources, but one of them subsequently spoke to Vanity Fair…. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the monarchy, it likes us to believe, usually steers clear. But Brenda’s husband Philip had been talking about conservation for yonks, and had been aware of carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue since 1970 at the latest. (LINK TO BP FILM ETC 

The specific context was the Cheney-Bush administration were being total assholes, and not even trying to hide it.

What I think we can learn from this – everybody knew. Even the “powerful” were basically powerless.

What happened next – business as usual. More emissions. More bullshit, in lockstep.

On Brenda? Well see this

Last year [2021], the queen was captured on video complaining about the UN COP climate conferences where, she said, “it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

Climate gets personal for the queen

At COP26 in Glasgow, the queen gave what many royal watchers say was the most personal and emotional speech of her reign when she opened the UN climate conference by reminding the gathering that her beloved Duke of Edinburgh had sounded the alarm on climate change well before it was even called that.

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 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

 October 29, 1984 – Lord Ashby speaks out

Forty one years ago, on this day, October 29th, 1984, the House of Lords got schooled.

Lord Ashby – There are the dangers of the long-term effects of gases causing a change in the cloak of ozone in the upper atmosphere; and then there is the most ominous teaser in the pack, which is the possible effects on climate of something we know for certain is going on, and that is the accumulation of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and oil. Only last week, in the scientific journal Nature, four books were reviewed by an authority on that subject. Every one of the writers of those four books takes a serious view of the long-term dangers that may—scientists will never go beyond using the word “may” in public—come from the accumulation of carbon dioxide. The commission warns, I think very rightly, that the social and economic consequences of climatic change which might be caused by this in the next century “could be very great indeed”. Not much perhaps can be done; but something could be done now. The Government’s disregard for this long-range problem is perhaps illustrated by the way the Commission on Energy and Environment has been put into abeyance at a time when the issue finally ought to be challenged with this very important possible future time bomb. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1984-10-29/debates/e5fae6df-ecfd-4e0d-a8a6-ce67bf780fe3/LordsChamber

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that British scientists and civil servants had been working on carbon dioxide build-up and what to do about it in the second half of the 1970s. Then Thatcher showed she really was not at all interested and that, combined with the lukewarm First World Climate Conference, put everything on the backburner. But Eric Ashby, for it is he, who had known about the problem since he was the first chair of the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution – The RCEP’s first report, in 1971, had a reasonable section on CO2 build-up

The specific context was four books had been published and were reviewed:

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

Ashby was using that as a hook to talk about the problem.

What I think we can learn from this – it was there. The scientific elite knew about it. But what could they do, with a planet-trasher in charge?

What happened next – the problem finally became an issue in the middle of 1988.

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

Obituary: Lord Ashby | The Independent | The Independent

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to h

Categories
United Kingdom

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1988, the limits are pushed…

This recalls an infamous case from 1988 involving the Guardian, considered Britain’s most liberal newspaper. An article by Guardian journalist James Erlichman covered a Greenpeace campaign to name and shame Ford motor company – then by far the country’s biggest advertiser – because it lagged behind other car manufacturers in adapting engines to take unleaded petrol. A Greenpeace poster showed exhaust fumes in the shape of a skull and crossbones with the slogan: ‘Ford Gives You More.’

Greenpeace tried to publish the poster as an advertisement in The Times, the Guardian and the Independent – all refused. The conclusion to Erlichman’s piece contained one of the great bombshells in the history of British journalism:

“Greenpeace booked 20 hoardings for its poster campaign. But then the advertising agency was informed that most of the sites – those owned by Mills & Allen – had been withdrawn.

Carl Johnson, who is handling the account, said: ‘We were told that the posters were offensive, but I am sure someone was afraid of losing a lot of Ford advertising.’

Mr Johnson attempted to book the ‘skull and crossbones’ advertisement with The Times, the Guardian and the Independent. ‘I have no doubt that they all feared losing Ford’s advertising if they accepted ours,’ he said.” (Erlichman, ‘Threat of boycotts “turns firms green”,’ The Guardian, October 27, 1988) https://www.medialens.org/2009/the-guardian-climate-and-advertising-an-open-email-to-george-monbiot/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that newspapers have been reliant on advertising for a very long time. Efforts to break free of that have on the whole not worked so well, at a mass level.

The specific context was that everyone was het up about global warming. It was a good story. There was nothing wrong with it journalistically. Economically though….

What I think we can learn from this – that advertising is one of the five filters in the Herman and Chomsky Propaganda Model. Which should be taught in schools, but won’t ever be.

What happened next – the Guardian mostly learned its lesson, eh?

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 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions –

Categories
United Kingdom

October 18, 1984 – Nature reviews four climate change books

On this day forty one years ago, American scientist John Perry reviewed four books about climate change for Nature.

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that by the early 1980s the evidence was basically in, as far as the scientists were concerned.

Carbon dioxide trapped heat.

Carbon dioxide was building up in the atmosphere.

More heat would be trapped.

You can make it more complex if you like…

The specific context was that the climate issue wasn’t going away, just because Reagan and Thatcher were ignoring it…

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty.

What happened next – 

See Lord Ashby in House of Lords a few days later (am blogging it)

Also on this day

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 13, 1988 – ITV – “The Environment and Pollution”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 13th, 1988,

October 13 1988 ITV programme “The Environment and Pollution” Lord Caithness says “we have got a world leading programme for finding alternatives to fossil fuels.”

And

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that climate change had been “on the news” as a very small part of the broader ecological concern in the period 1968-1972. The Dutch had known about the issue, or at least Prince Consort Bernhard had. In 1988 the issue had burst back onto the scene.

The specific context was that ITV presumably made this show in response to Thatcher’s speech to the Royal Society in late September (but I am guessing).

What I think we can learn from this – everyone was told what was at stake. But turning even “listening” into action requires sustained civil society activity (of which social movements are only a subset), and that is tricky, especially in times of enforced neoliberal shitfuckery.

What happened next – more enforced neoliberal shitfuckery. Spasms of social movements and a basically dead civil society. And the emissions kept climbing.

(NB this is not to say Keynesianism is a barrel of laughs.)

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 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

October 13, 1993 – IIASA and the IAMs – Gaia help us all – All Our Yesterdays

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published

Categories
Activism Media United Kingdom

October 9, 1961 – “Doomed,” says the Daily Mirror

Sixty four years ago, on this day, October 9th, 1961, the Daily Mirror crusaded, about other animals besides the hairless murder apes

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that nature documentaries were having to start noticing there was trouble ahead.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew what we were doing, by commission or omission. Oh well.

What happened next – it has gotten to the point where most of the mammalian biomass on this planet is hairless murder apes and their pets and livestock. We’re so screwed.

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 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”