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 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 21st, 1990,
Later, once the UK had established its stabilisation target, but only for the year 2005 rather than 2000 as others had done, Trippier again produced high-quality rhetoric. ‘We could go for 2000, if we wanted to close down half the coal mines in Britain and go for no economic growth’,
he stated (quoted in the Independent 21 September 1990
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 in June 1888 at the Toronto conference on the changing atmosphere a target of a 20 per cent reduction in C02 emissions by 2005, on a 1988 baseline had been proposed.
The specific context was that 1990 was the year of all the conferences, and the UK had already said “nope” to Toronto, but were still trying to look like the good guys. – thus this wretched compromise.
What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will, obviously, always try to make a terrible compromise/retreat from reality look like a bold step in statesmanship. It’s perception management all the way…
What happened next – the wretched UNFCCC treaty contains an implicit expectation that rich nations will stabilise their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. Most didn’t, obvs.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 284ppm. 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 poor bloody horses had been pulling wagons of coal along tracks for a while. Then someone had the bright idea of getting steam engines to do the work…
What I think we can learn from this Is that we are a very inventive bunch of murder apes.
What happened next “Railway mania”. And almost 200 years later, the English can’t even build a railway between London and Manchester. But we’re definitely going to build a huge CCS infrastructure. Sure we are.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2015, the Financial Times did one of its “Big Reads.”
More than $30bn has been committed, or spent, on carbon capture and storage schemes to deal with CO2 emissions curb climate change but so far the sector – the preferred option of the fossil fuels industry – has fallen short of expectations. By Pilita Clark
Today it is just a scrubby field next to the enormous Drax coal and wood pellet power station in the English county of North Yorkshire. But in a matter of months, this could be the spot where the UK finally gives the go-ahead for what has become one of the world’s most perplexing tools in the quest to combat climate change : a carbon capture and storage plant.
Clark, P. 2015. Miracle machine or white elephant? FT BIG READ: CLIMATE CHANGE. Financial Times, 10 September, p.11.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 the much hyped Paris COP was only two months away, and the full-page adverts of greenwash were starting to appear in the pink’un (aka the Financial Times). So, time to let one of the hacks (quite a good one, imo) educate the rich.
The specific context was that it was also hot times for CCS policy – a second competition (the first had fizzled out)) was picking up speed.
What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been talking about turning points and last chances for a very very long time.
What happened next
The second competition for CCS was very abruptly cancelled (people were seriously butt-hurt, understandably).
Paris was a joke, but one we still, apparently, have to take seriously.
And Drax? Well, there’s an FCA investigation about its “sustainability” claims just firing 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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1971 climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a letter to the New York Times about some industry bullshit that the Times had run as a n op-ed.
AND on the same day, things were a foot in the United Kingdom
“Whereas Bray had been highly sceptical of the World model, Cottrell had been enthused by its demonstration. Returning to Britain, he proposed that the British government develop a similar model, stating his belief that ‘Forrester’s approach is the most important development of its kind since Keynes’ general theory’.117
Given the centrality of Keynesianism in post-war economic policy, this was a significant claim. Heath, as his early enthusiasm for management science had revealed, had some interest in forecasting and simulation, and gave his permission for a scoping study on the feasibility of a British world model. Cottrell held a meeting on the subject at the Cabinet Office in September 1971, in which he had told the assembled civil servants that developing a global model for British purposes would require £50,000 and four staff. In response, an unnamed civil servant argued that the Treasury had a more sophisticated econometric model that it used for forecasting. Despite this criticism, the general idea of a global environmental model was well received, and further work was proposed.118 “
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 in the late 1960s people started worrying about the global impact of industrialisation and population growth (as distinct from concerns about localised pollution).
The specific context was that a) Schneider was already making a name for himself as combative and b) the British state was beginning to think about systems modelling (aware that the Club of Rome report was coming)…
What I think we can learn from this is that there was mention of carbon dioxide and limits to growth way back when. It had pushed out from the undergrowth in the late 1960s…
What happened next: By 1973, we were back to sleep, for the most part. A few new NGOs, a couple of magazines (Your Environment, The Ecologist). It is very very hard to combat a world view.
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.
Sixty two years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1963, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Aberdeen on the morning of September 3, Ritchie Calder gave a speech on “Man and his Fellow Lodgers; a Question of Co-existence”.
Discharge of combustion products into the atmosphere had increased its content of carbon dioxide by 10 per cent in a century. The ‘green house effect’ could be expected to increase average mean temperature by 3·6° C in the next 40-50 years. This would radically affect the extent of glaciers and ice-caps with resultant rise in sea- and river-levels and increasing precipitation.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. 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 Ritchie-Calder had known about the carbon dioxide problem from at least 1954 (possibly earlier). He had written an article in the News Chronicle, as their science correspondent in 1954.
The specific context was that in March 1963 the Conservation Foundation had held a one-day conference in New York. Frank Fraser-Darling was there, and may have alerted Ritchie-Calder, who was already aware of the issue (he wrote a newspaper article in 1954).
What I think we can learn from this is that members of the British scientific elite were informed about the possibility by the early 1960s (some earlier, obviously).
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.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2006,
Opposition leader David Cameron signs up to FoE’s “The Big Ask”
– part of the “de-toxify the tory brand” thing.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 there had been bipartisan concern about “the environment” in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Then, however, came the collapse of Keynesianism and the return to naked “fuck the poor”-ness with Thatcher, dressed up – as it always is – in words like ‘liberty’.
The specific context was that new leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron was trying to “detoxify” the Conservative brand, and “the environment” was the chosen means to do this.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are brief bouts of “competitive consensus” – there’s usually a bunch of different factors at play. Then you MIGHT get some policy “progress”, but good luck getting implementation.
What happened next – Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, heading a coalition government because the Liberal Democrats wanted limousines and ministerial boxes.
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.
