Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

September 21, 1990 – Stabilisation in 2005, says the UK

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.

Also on this day: 

September 21, 1958, LA Times runs a Greenhouse Cartoon 

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

September 21, 2014 – big #climate march in New York. World saved.

Categories
United Kingdom

September 15, 1830 – Manchester-Liverpool railway opened

One hundred and ninety five years ago, on this day, September 15th, 1830, 

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway[1][2][3] (L&MR) was the first inter-city railway in the world.[4][i] It opened on 15 September 1830 between the Lancashire towns of Liverpool and Manchester in England.[4] It was also the first railway to rely exclusively on locomotives driven by steam power, with no horse-drawn traffic permitted at any time; the first to be entirely double track throughout its length; the first to have a true signalling system; the first to be fully timetabled; and the first to carry mail.

Liverpool and Manchester Railway – Wikipedia

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…

The specific context was an MP got himself killed.

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.

Also on this day: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online. – All Our Yesterdays

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United Kingdom

September 10, 2015 – one of those “whither CCS?” articles

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.

Also on this day: 

September 10, 1957 – The Times covers the International Geodesy Conference… – All Our Yesterdays

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

September 10, 2007 – shiny #climate promises versus grim reality

September 10, 2008 – Greenpeace Kingsnorth protesters acquitted

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

September 9, 1971 – Stephen Schneider’s letter, and a World Model

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 “

Histories of Technology, the Environment and Modern Britain

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.

Also on this day: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Categories
United Kingdom

September 3, 1963 – Ritchie-Calder sounds the alarm: CO2 build up will “radically affect glaciers and ice caps”

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. 

Mattingly, P.F. NATURE January 18, 1964 vol. 201

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 happened next

Ritchie-Calder kept banging on about the issue, especially in the late 1960s (see here for example, his “Hell on Earth” presidential address to the Conservation Society in November 1968). The emissions 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: 

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues – All Our Yesterdays

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”.

Categories
United Kingdom

September 1, 2006 – Cameron signs FOE’s “Big Ask”

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.

Also on this day: 

September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2006 the first “Camp for Climate Action” has a day of “non-violent direct action” at Draw Power Station.

Day of action

On 31 August 2006, up to 600 people attended a protest called Reclaim Power converging on Drax and attempted to shut it down. There was a ‘kids march’ to Drax Power Station, with a giant ostrich puppet, made by The Mischief Makers. Two protesters climbed a lighting pylon at the edge of the Drax site and four others broke through the fence.[22] Thirty-eight protesters were arrested. The police reported that work at the power plant was not disrupted.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_for_Climate_Action#Drax_2006

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 previous efforts to do direct action on climate change (Rising Tide) but the issue wasn’t yet “salient” enough among environmentalists to get things moving. At the G8 protests in Gleneagles in July 2005, dissatisfied environmentalists had proposed “A Camp for Climate Action.” Its first public meeting had been in Manchester in January 2006.

The specific context was that there were enough people who could tell that there was trouble ahead. But they/we lacked basic anthropological/sociological/whateverical insights into what movement building actually WAS. Oh well, all too late now, and was probably too late then. 

What I think we can learn from this – is that good intentions are really really not enough. But nothing was ever going to be enough, frankly. The inevitability was written in decades earlier – this is all just wriggling on the hook. 

What happened next – “Camp for Climate Action” which had begun because people were fed up with summit-hopping had, inevitably, within three years, degenerated into (checks notes) summit-hopping. And bewildered, they gave up the ghost in 2011. There was then “Reclaim Power” before XR came along and… oh, one loses the will to live, you know?

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: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra 

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

Categories
United Kingdom

August 25, 1969- “Global Circulation in the Atmosphere” Conference in London

Fifty-seven years ago, on this day, August 25th, 1969,the American Meteorological Society and Royal Society Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 questions of meteorology and climate were beginning to heat up (sorry). There were concerns about weird weather, local air pollution etc etc.

The specific context was that the previous year the American Association for the Advancement of Science had run a symposium…

What I think we can learn from this – that events like this were important for the emerging “epistemic community”, in the lead up to the Stockholm conference and beyond.

What happened next

Within a few months scientific meetings about manc’s impact on the environment – and then in 1971 a meeting on possible climatic changes – were held.  By the late 1970s, the picture was pretty clear. Everything since then has been refinements, really.

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: 

August 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence” 

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Categories
United Kingdom

August 23, 2002 – Stafford Beer dies

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 2002, Stafford Beer died.

Anthony Stafford Beer (25 September 1926 – 23 August 2002) was a British theorist, consultant and professor at Manchester Business School.[1] He is known for his work in the fields of operational research and management cybernetics, and for his heuristic in systems thinking, “the purpose of a system is what it does.”

n mid-1971 Beer was approached by Fernando Flores, then a high-ranking member of the Chilean Production Development Corporation (CORFO) in the newly elected socialist government of Salvador Allende, for advice on applying his cybernetic theories to the management of the state-run sector of the Chilean economy.[9][10]

This led to Beer’s involvement in the never-completed Cybersyn project, which aimed to use computers and a telex-based communication network to allow the government to maximise production while preserving the autonomy of workers and lower management.

Beer also was reported to have read and been influenced by Leon Trotsky‘s critique of the Soviet bureaucracy.[11] According to another senior member of the Cybersyn team, Herman Schwember, Beer’s political background and readings completely derived from works written by Trotsky and Trotskyists. Schwember himself disapproved of Trotsky’s approach.[12]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. 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 Beer was an interesting thinker, and who knows where the experiments in Chile might have led? The whole point is that the technocrats – the “pigs” in the language of Animal Farm, need to stop the chickens and sheep etc from learning to run things for themselves. Experiments in alternatives must be scuppered…

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: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

Categories
United Kingdom

July 29, 2023 – Sunak all in on oil and gas drilling

Two years ago, on this day, July 29th, 2023,

The Prime Minister announced on Monday that his Government will grant potentially hundreds of new licences for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea in a dramatic departure from the Government’s stance on fossil fuels. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tory-backlash-as-rishi-sunak-vows-to-max-out-north-sea-oil-and-gas-reserves-2517491

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 421ppm. 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 the UK had been an early “leader” on climate policy, or so it liked to tell itself. Funny though, it never stood up to the American vandalism in the early 1990s, for fear of damaging the “Special Relationship”. So, for example, was climate on the agenda of the G7 in London in 1991? Well no, no it wasn’t.

Meanwhile, thanks to the reduction in the amount of coal in the electricity mix, and deindustrialisation (factories shipped to cheaper places), the UK looked like it was doing its bit, or more than its bit (which is narrowly true, so long as you don’t look too closely, or think about consumption emissions). 

So, thanks to all this, there was a broad but turns-out-thin “consensus” on the need/desirability for further climate action. And then came Rishi…

The specific context was that Sunak had become Prime Minister thanks to Liz Truss (and that six weeks is beginning to take on the aura of a cheese dream). And Sunak, who is clever but dim, thought he could use the perceived “ahead of the curve” ness of UK decarbonisation as cover for business as usual.

What I think we can learn from this is that the British political elite – like the Australian political elite and probably any other you care to mention – wouldn’t know a Keeling Curve if it bit them on the ass. They think the only reality is spreadsheets. They have doomed us all to fiery death. Ah well, so it goes.

What happened next – Sunak was turfed by the electorate and replaced by the towering political colossus, with unimpeachable political instincts and deep respect for human rights and the environment – known as Keir Starmer.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

July 29, 1974 – the World (will be heating) according to GARP

July 29, 2013 – unreadable denialist screed published.