Category: United Kingdom

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
Nuclear Power United Kingdom

October 10, 1957 – Windscale fire

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, October 10th, 1957,

Problems of atmospheric diffusion and pollution were also tackled in the late 1950s, notably an investigation into the incidence of sulphur dioxide pollution near a generating station of the Central Electricity Authority. And a very serious occurrence was the serious fire that occurred in the nuclear reactor at Windscale in Cumbria on 10 and 11 October 1957. As a consequence of the release of radioactive material, a study was made of the Atomic Energy Authority’s requirements for meteorological observations and forecasts. 

Source – Walker History of the Met Office

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 314ppm. 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 atomic energy was going to be too cheap to meter. There was nothing the men (and it was men) in lab coats could not do. Oh yes.

What I think we can learn from this – technology goes wrong. For many reasons, but there are such things as “normal accidents.”

What happened next – the British Government has spent further billions on nuclear power, for various reasons (hint – it’s about maintaining the “independent” nuclear deterrent).

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 10, 1977 – famous scientist Solly Zuckerman writes to top UK Civil Servant, warning about climate change 

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” 

Categories
Activism Coal United Kingdom

October 8, 2007 – Greenpeace attempt to write “Gordon Bin It” on Kingsnorth chimney

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 8th, 2007,

Environmental campaigners today claimed to have taken over a power station in Kent in a protest designed to stop the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from approving the UK’s first new coal plant in more than 30 years.

Just after 5am this morning, 50 Greenpeace volunteers entered Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. One group immobilised the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant and chained themselves to the machinery. A second group with enough provisions to last for several days, began scaling a 200m ladder up the chimney which they painted with the words “Gordon Bin It”.

Robin Oakley, a senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the protest posed no risk to the energy supply.

“Taking one power station off the national grid will not lead to a blackout,” he stressed. “There is plenty of spare supply in the system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/08/climatechange.energy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. 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, as per previous blog post, on October 6, Greenpeace had been occupying things since its earliest days. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act was going through parliament and all eyes were on Copenhagen the following year as one of the many “last chances to save the Earth.”

The specific context was that the UK government of Gordon Brown was trying to sell the idea of coal-fired power plants that were “capture ready”. Ed Miliband not having one of his finest hours….

What I think we can learn from this – some forms of symbolic non-violent direct action, well-timed and executed can “work.”

What happened next

In September 2008…

“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.

The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.

At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.”

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Power station protesters cleared

The first CCS competition fizzled out in late 2011.

Coal was pushed out of the UK Grid from 2014 onwards. If Greenpeace and others had not acted, this would not have happened.

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

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

Categories
France United Kingdom

October 1, 1969 – Concorde breaks the sound barrier

Fifty six years ago, on this day, October 1st, 1969 – 

Concorde Breaks Sound Barrier (1969)

Concorde breaks the sound barrier for the first time.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 the Sixties was the last decade where these sorts of techno-utopian dreams could be brought to “reality” without too much pushback from economics or civil society.

The specific context was that man had just walked on the moon (”Holy Shit”, as per The Onion’s Our Dumb Century), and perhaps anything seemed possible.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you were born in the 40s or 50s, then that sense of optimism/possibility is possibly baked into you, on some level, and you might be someone  who resents the existence of limits and all those dirty hippies and snivelling scientists who turned out to be right about that.

What happened next – Supersonic transport never took off (sorry about that) in the way intended. The economics didn’t add up, and after a fatal crash, Concorde came back only briefly before its last passenger flight in October 2003.

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

Oct 1st 1969, Concorde 001 breaks through the sound barrier for the first time. — Aerospace Bristol

Concorde wasn’t the first Airliner to Break the Sound Barrier: how the DC-8 became the first commercial transport to go supersonic – The Aviation Geek Club

Also on this day: 

October 1, 1957 – US Oil company ponders carbon dioxide build-up…

October 1, 1964 – The Free Speech Movement kicks off in Berkeley – All Our Yesterdays

October 1, 1977 – Worldwatch on “Redefining National Security” – All Our Yesterdays

October 1, 1997 – Global greens gather in Melbourne, diss Australian #climate policy

Categories
United Kingdom

September 24, 1970 – driving around London….

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 24th, 1970,

“The British Society for Social Responsibility in Science has formed an Art and Technology group…. the first demonstration sponsored by the group coincided with the opening of the Arts Council’s international KINETICS exhibition 24 Sept. The work MOBILE was presented to critics and spectators and driven around London. It consists of a box covered with PVC, and mounted on top of a car. The box contained meat, flowers and vegetables. A tube fed the exhaust of the car into the box, with stunning visual (and chemical) results. The group hopes that the idea will be taken up by people around the world.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. 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 from about 1969 British scientists and activists were starting to link local and global air pollution (and pollution more broadly).

The specific context was that London’s air seemed much cleaner thanks to the Clean Air Act of 1956 – and was, in some ways. In other ways, not so much…

What I think we can learn from this is that cars have been a catastrophic invention, on ecological, social, psychological levels.  God help us all.

What happened next

By 1973 the eco-wave was basically gone, and wouldn’t be back until the late 1980s.  These waves, they come and go…

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 – Kinetics. The record of an exhibition. Hayward Gallery 1970 : WestminsterResearch

Also on this day: 

 September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

September 24, 1991 – Australian denialist gives “Greenhouse Myths” seminar.

September 24, 1993 – A museum exhibition travels to Pittsburgh

September 24, 2006 – “Plane Stupid” holds first action, with “Sermon on the Taxiway” at East Midlands Airport