Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1989 – Michael Buerk asks Thatcher if she’s a friend of the Earth

Thirty seven  years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1989,

‘Mrs Thatcher, looking back over your life,’ the BBC’s Michael Buerk asked, ‘are you really a  friend of the earth?’ The Greening of Mrs Thatcher, broadcast on 2 nd March 1989, BBC Two logo

BBC Two

First broadcast: Thu 2nd Mar 1989, 20:30 on BBC Two England

The Greening of Mrs Thatcher From No 10 Downing Street Mrs Thatcher talks to Michael Buerk.

Prime Minister for ten years, Mrs Thatcher and her Government’s environmental record hasn’t won her many bouquets. This weekend she hosts a major international conference on saving the ozone layer, when that record and her commitment will be on the line. She says that the Tories are the real ‘friends of the earth’, but is she genuinely committed or just chasing the Green vote?

Tonight she talks for the first time about her own attitude to the environment, and what her new initiatives could mean for Britain and the rest of the world. 

Research MARK FIELDER

Outside broadcast director IAN PAUL 

Producer AMANDA THEUNISSEN 

Editor PETER SALMON BBC Bristol

TV Interview for BBC1 Nature | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Thatcher had been briefed on carbon dioxide build up in 1979 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashton, and had replied with an incredulous you want me to worry about the weather? This didn’t stop her using the possibility of a greenhouse effect to say nice things about nuclear power. Marc, if you haven’t already put the Tokyo and Venice G7 meetings on your search for list at National Archives, do so now and Thatcher had continued to largely ignore carbon dioxide build up as an issue, even though it was there in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto. 

The specific context was that  thanks to nudges from people like Crispin Gickle in 1988 Thatcher had given a surprising speech at the Royal Society, and so kicked off concern about Carbon Dioxide build up. However, the green organisations had challenged her to do something meaningful, legislatively, and she had not been interviewed by Michael Burke on whether she was, quote, a friend of the earth. UNQUOTE, she said the following, x, y, z. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that people like Thatcher are were capable of doing what’s called a reverse ferret completely. U turning on their position. And that’s what happened in this case. 

What happened next she kept giving nice features about carbon dioxide build-up without ever pushing through any meaningful action by Her Majesty’s Government, and she was toppled in November 1990 shortly after giving another speech at the second world climate conference in Geneva. 

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: 

March 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder 

March 2, 1956 – IGY oceanography meeting on “clearer understanding”

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
United Kingdom

February 19, 1958 – the “Council for Nature” forms

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, February 19 1958, 

A meeting at Linneas Society London, from which Council for Nature group forms.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in the 1950s it was becoming clear that industrialization wasn’t just an issue for cities air quality, but also large chunks of the beautiful English countryside and diverse species were being wiped out. This had been going on for ages. Of course, I don’t want to say that it was just in the 50s.

The specific context was -well, I don’t know about the Council for Nature, presumably the Tory government wanting to look like it gave a shit. And there will have been people within the Tory government who did give a shit.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are always these fine sounding names slapped on state bodies that are there ostensibly to regulate and protect. These bodies always run out of steam, get captured, get corrupted, and occasionally renewed, but during their capture and corruption, they waste a lot of people’s time and hope and then cause cynicism, despair, apathy, which you could argue is ultimately a feature, not a bug.

What happened next: 

Oh, these groups come and go, get rebranded and waste a lot of everyone’s time and hope.

The Council for Nature. Nature 181, 867–868 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1038/181867a0

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: 

February 19, 1971 – Nature editorial on “The Great Greenhouse Scare”

February 19, 1981 – Nature article “Greenhouse Effect: Act Now, Not Later”

February 19, 1981 – Ecology Party meeting in Wells warns of carbon dioxide build-up

 February 19, 2003 – “CCS to be studied by IPCC”

 February 19, 2007 – Australian gas lobby hard at work…

 

Categories
Activism Coal Science United Kingdom

February 15, 2009 – James Hansen writes “Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, February 15, 2009, American climate scientist James Hansen is telling it like it is.

A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this – coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.

Hansen, J. 2009. Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them. Guardian, 15 February.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that we have known since the fifties that putting enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was going to have consequences. We didn’t know how big, how soon, but by the late 1970s, that was becoming clear…

The specific context was that the UK government was busy bullshitting about allowing the building of new “carbon-capture-ready” coal-fired power stations. For fuck’s sake.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists can tell the truth all they like. The truth, on its own, will not – in fact – set you free, no matter what St John wants you to believe.

What happened next: Hansen kept writing and sciencing. The politicians kept ignoring him and thousands of other scientists. So did, for the most part, the publics of the Western democracies.

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: 

February 15, 1995 – Australian Financial Review editorial, gloating in the aftermath of the defeat of a small carbon tax proposal, groks Jevons Paradox

February 15, 2011 – Lenore Taylor’s truth bombs

February 15, 2013 – the carbon bubble, will it burst?

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

February 14, 1994 – Friends of the Earth’s “Climate Resolution”

Thirty two years ago, on this day, February 14 1994, Friends of the Earth UK tried to get councils to take action on climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in 1992. Part of it was “Local Agenda 21” – we were all supposed to be doing governance together…

The specific context was that FoE was trying, bless it, to get the system to change itself from within. It had already tried this sort of thing with environmental issues more broadly a couple of years previously. Twenty plus years of boredom and futility and all that…

What I think we can learn from this is that we had our chances, we blew them.

What happened next: FoE kept campaigning. People kept ignoring them. Emissions and atmospheric concentrations 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: 

February 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

February 14, 1972 – the Lorax is animated…

February 14, 2015 – No love for coal from UK politicians

Categories
United Kingdom

February 7, 2023 – DESNZ born; reshuffling the cards on the marked deck

Three years ago, on this day, February 7, 2023 – another departmental recombination…

Feb 7 2023 The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is a ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom. It was established on 7 February 2023 by a cabinet reshuffle under the Rishi Sunak premiership. The new department took on the energy policy responsibilities of the former Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The department’s first Secretary of State was Grant Shapps; he was previously the final Secretary of State at BEIS. The current secretary is Ed Miliband. The department is scrutinised by the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 421ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that those running the UK Government periodically like to rebrand and reshuffle their departments. There can, of course, be very sound reasons for this.  Other times, it’s to allay public concern, or take the wind out of opponents sails etc.

The first “Department of the Environment” was founded in 1970 (A Wilson idea that the Heath Government continued with after the Conservatives staged a surprise win).

The specific context was that by 2023 the wheels were falling off the whole “Green Industrial Revolution” stuff that Boris Johnson had been promising.  So, throw the pieces in the air, see what comes down.

What I think we can learn from this is that reshuffles can “work.” Time tells, as she almost always does.

What happened next:  “Red Ed” (reader, he’s not that red) Miliband has been beavering away, and drawing endless ire from the tabloids and the Telegraph (though, to be fair, the Telegraph is basically a tabloid now).

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: 

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

February 7, 1995 – Australian Treasurer claims UNFCCC treaty contains loopholes and get-out clauses – All Our Yesterdays

February 7, 1995 – Business Council of Australia vs a carbon tax. Of course
Categories
United Kingdom

February 6, 1975  – The Quest for Gaia

Fifty one years ago, on this day, February 6, 1975, the UK magazine New Scientist published an article about, well The Quest for Gaia.

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972[1] and 1974,[2] followed by a popularizing 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. An article in the New Scientist of February 6, 1975,[39] and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia, began to attract scientific and critical attention.

Lovelock and Sidney Epton, “The Quest for Gaia,” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 1975, p. 304;

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Lovelock had been thinking about all this stuff for a while (see also his atmospheric pollution work for Shell in the 1960s!) here and here.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s the idea that positivist science was good at some stuff and might also be missing bigger parts of the bigger picture had really caught on.

(see also Dr Who and the Green Death!)

What I think we can learn from this is that Lovelock’s hypothesis (disputed) has gained traction and attention, for reasons both sound and unsound.

What happened next:  The Gaia hypothesis got a signal boost during the excellent thriller “Edge of Darkness” in the mid-1980s.
Lovelock lived to a very ripe old age, and warned about anthropogenic climate change repeatedly.

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: 

February 6, 1969 – Senate Select Committee warned about CO2 build up by Professor Harry Bloom

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision
Categories
Science United Kingdom

February 5,  1980 – the Met Office beavers away…

Forty six  years ago, on this day, February 5 1980 the UK Met Office was beavering away at the carbon dioxide problem.

Met Office meeting abt C02 BJ dash 336 dash 2 (138).JPG        5/2/1980        PR Rowntree        Summary of conclusions reached during discussion of CO2 experiments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Met Office had been aware of the idea of carbon dioxide build-up as a long-term warming influence since 1953 at the absolute latest (and in fact, all the way back to Arrhenius in 1895).

The specific context was that American scientists and politicians had been warming (see what I did there?) to the issue for a while.  The Met Office had, very reluctantly (thanks to its boss, John Mason) started scientific work in 1976, putting one of their brightest young research scientists on the case, with others.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known about this problem for a very very long time.

What happened next:  Once Mason retired and was replaced by John Houghton, in 1983, the Met Office began to play a stronger and more useful role in investigating climate change, alongside the UEA Climatic Research Unit.

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: 

 February 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas  – All Our Yesterdays

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Categories
United Kingdom

Suppressed reports: the government IS lying about climate change , but not in the way the denialists think – it’s far worse

The tl;dr “Governments are indeed lying to you about climate change – but not in the way the deniers claim. The situation is not better than we are told. It’s actually far worse.”

That’s a line that didn’t quite survive in my latest Conversation piece, which you can read here.

A UK climate security report backed by the intelligence services was quietly buried – a pattern we’ve seen many times before

Meanwhile, here’s a scrape of the Bluesky thread I did alongside it.

First,

@thierryaaron.bsky.social had a very good thread on two easy bad misreadings of this.

You may’ve seen coverage of a new report on the threat to national security from environmental collapse.A common response that’s got my goat is: “Look, it’s not just tree-hugging enviros saying this, it’s hard-nosed spooks!”A short thread on why this framing is bad history & bad politics🧵😡😉

— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@thierryaaron.bsky.social) 2026-01-24T04:42:37.737Z

Next, I’d add the point that there is a (largely unjustified) mystique around military assessments. They can be wrong, not just for budget-grubbing (threat inflation) reasons, but because they’re written to grab attention. See this from 2004.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Then, well, what is to my mind a key point got axed from my Conversation piece. The 1st British PM to be formally briefed abt climate change was… drumroll… Margaret Thatcher, in mid-1979. She responded with an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”

https://archive.org/details/margaretthatcher0000camp_o3c1/mode/2up?q=%22worry+about+the+weather%22

Ultimately though, all the warnings, with all the graphs and precision and passion and the rest of it don’t amount to a hill of beans in this cooking world unless there are broad-based, non-co-optable, non-exhaustible and – frankly – radical social movement organisations that can help people deal the feelings of anger and despair any rational human who can read a Keeling Curve and understand its implications feels. Without those social movement organisations, you get spasms, disavowal & acting out. But action? Not so much.

Further reading on this (and please add more!)

Chambers, R. 2026. The national security assessment on ecosystem collapse is a government wake-up call – Inside track

Hudson, M. 2023. Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life

Monbiot, G. 2026 The UK government didn’t want you to see this report on ecosystem collapse. I’m not surprised | George Monbiot | The Guardian

NEF National Emergency Briefing.

Read, R. 2026. Why did government try to hide climate report? Eastern Daily Press, February 3

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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: 

January 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 22, 1970- 747

Forty six years ago, on this day, January 22nd,1970

The Boeing 747, the world’s first “jumbo jet”, enters commercial service for launch customer Pan American Airways with its maiden voyage from John F. Kennedy International Airport to London Heathrow Airport.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by this time, humans have been flying since 1903 and in the post war era, commercial jet liners had become to be “a thing” thanks, in part, to Boeing using money they were given by the Department of Defence to create a cargo plane to prototype – aka the 707. There were also just a lot of surplus aeroplanes and pilots with the necessary skills. So commercial aviation in the 1950s is a good example of the Great Acceleration.

The specific context was that in the 1960s it was assumed that supersonic passenger travel would become a thing. Both JFK and Lyndon Johnson signed off on proposed jetliner funding for them, etc. But it turned out physics and economics had other opinions. There were also environmental issues around, for example, sonic boom and ozone depletion. 

In the midst of this, the 747 was designed as a kind of stop gap. It would be big, not slow, but not fast, and would be rendered obsolete by the coming of not just, you know, Concorde, but the Boeing etc, equivalents.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is sometimes the standby technology that is supposed to be there for a little while. Sticks around because it is good enough. (Kind of a flying QWERTY keyboard – kind of.)

What happened next 

And as we now know, for various reasons, that never happened. And the 747 stayed with us. It continued to be built with minor modifications, like those upturned wings. I think it’s still in use as cargo, but I’m not sure that anyone is still flying them for passengers because they’re heavy and out of date. Nope – there are still, as of Jan 2025, four airlines still using them! Which Airlines Still Fly The Boeing 747 On Its 55th Flight Anniversary?

I travelled on it a lot (never upstairs!) and it did the job. And in some ways, it was elegant. There’s all the airport films in the 70s. There’s this explosion, the bringing down of the Lockerbie plane, and of course, KAL-007

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: 

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on