Category: United Kingdom

Categories
United Kingdom

July 21, 1970 – Carol Mather talks climate in the House of Commons

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1970, Carol Mather, Conservative MP for Esher has this to say – 

The signs are very clear for all to see, and confirmation of these signs appears regularly in the newspapers. I will give only a few examples. It is said that jet aircraft landing and taking off in New York deposit 36 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. This has a “greenhouse” effect because it allows the sun’s rays to come down but prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere. …

However, if this goes on, it is thought that by the end of the century the temperature of the earth could be raised by two degrees Centigrade, and this would begin to melt the ice caps. Water generated by this melting process could, they say, be sufficient in mass to flood many cities. But all is not lost. We are pumping so much grit into the air that the sun’s rays are not able to get through, and they are deflected back into the atmosphere. The ice-cap thus is catching up with us.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1970-07-21/debates/44081be8-99e7-4a01-91a2-691347ccb5c4/EnvironmentalPollution?highlight=%22carbon%20dioxide%22%20atmosphere#contribution-a0bb4299-de7e-4649-ab16-32a903824711

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 from the mid-1960s onwards, more and more articles and books were appearing that at least referenced the possibility of global warming from carbon dioxide build-up (at the same time, there were also fears of an induced ice age). Mather was one of the first parliamentarians to raise the issue.

The specific context was that by 1970 newspapers were running regular “pollution” columns, features editorials. Carbon dioxide was not mentioned in all of them, or even, in fact, a majority. But it was cropping up… The issue had even been flagged in the first Environment White Paper, released in late May 1970.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known that there might be trouble ahead for a lot longer than most people think. Well informed people might guess “1988”, and that indeed was mostly my impression before I started the All Our Yesterdays project. Truth is, it was on the radar for almost 20 years before that.

What happened next – the issue got hammered a month later by the Chief Alkali Inspector. It was on the agenda through the 1970s, but it was only in 1988 that indifference, complacency and resistance was overcome, and that largely due to political opportunism. Ah, what a species!

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 21, 1991 – “Greenhouse Action for the 90s” conference leads to “The Melbourne Declaration”

July 21, 2001 – Sleeping protestors beaten by Italian Police

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. 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 through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. 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.

Also on this day: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
United Kingdom

July 10, 2015 – Zero carbon homes policy abolished

Ten years ago, on this day, July 10th, 2015,

the Tories abolished the zero-carbon homes policy. It was part of their “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation” gag.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. 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 British housing stock is largely crap – poorly insulated etc etc. This was spotted as a problem for energy conservation in the 1970s (probably earlier), but actually doing anything about it is tremendously difficult – so many stakeholders, so much ick about having strangers in your house etc.

The specific context was a relatively sensible Labour policy had been that all new houses would need to be super-energy efficient. The big house-building companies etc didn’t like it, but had to bide their time. Then, with the implosion of the Liberal Democrat vote in the 2015 general election, the moment came. The Cameron government really began to “cut the green crap.”

What I think we can learn from this is that you can go to a posh school and emerge an ignorant sociopath. Who knew? Also, lobby groups can be patient.

What happened next is that crap energy standards for new housing remained the norm (in all neo-institutional theory senses of ‘norm’).

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 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

July 10, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel cops a serve

July 10, 2008 – first Australian #Climate Camp begins, near Newcastle

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…

Categories
United Kingdom

June 22, 1978 – ETSU report about Human Activity and Carbon Dioxide

Forty seven  years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1978, a report about “Human Activity and Carbon Dioxide”, written by A.T. for the Energy Technology Strategy Unit was released.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the bodies within the general energy/environment policy networks had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up since the late 1960s (it’s mentioned in the first Environment White Paper, published in May 1970, for example). There had been the drought of 1976, and in the same year the World Meteorological Organisation Executive had flagged C02 build-up as something to watch. By the time this report came to be written, the WMO had decided on hosting the first World Climate Conference, to be held in Geneva in February 1979.

The specific context was that ETSU was under some pressure to justify its existence, and this particular report was subject to criticism for perceived duplication (the IEA Clean Coal Research people were producing something at the same time).

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, various UK science and technology groups were looking closely at carbon dioxide.

What happened next – the report sank without trace, having little or no influence on the “Climatic Change” report finally released in February 1980. 

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: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

June 20, 1995 – Shell raises the white flag in Brent Spar battle

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 20th, 1995, Shell surrenders in the Battle of Brent Spar

See this from Greenpeace’s 1995 Annual Report

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that there had been a decent run of “environmental successes” (if you squint) over the previous decade, most memorably on ozone. And a “convention” on climate change (squint a LOT, ‘kay?).  But the oil companies never sleep, and were looking for a cheap way of disposing of dozens/hundreds of old oil rigs. If they could get one done, then, well, the precedent is established, isn’t it?

What I think we can learn from this was that this was about the last time TNCs (transnational corporations) were under the cosh of the ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organisations)  (Though I’d happily be corrected).

What happened next.  The greenwashing and the lobbying kicked into higher gear. The emissions kept climbing. We are so fubarred.

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: 

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax  – All Our Yesterdays

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

June 18, 2015 – Power station petition

Ten years ago, on this day, June 18th, 2015,

PRESS RELEASE: Power station petition signed by over 110,000 to be handed to DECC by giant White Elephant

Jun 17, 2015 | Press Releases

When: 8:30-9:30, Thursday 18th June 2015

Where: DECC offices, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW

Who: Biofuelwatch, London Mining Network & Care2 Petitions https://londonminingnetwork.org/2015/06/pr-biofuelwatch-white-elephant/

“The UK Government is expected to make an imminent announcement of a grant of up to £1 billion to a coal power station ‘carbon capture’ project by a consortium including Drax Plc, owners of the UK’s largest power station [1]. In response to this, campaign groups Biofuelwatch, London Mining Network and US-based Dogwood Alliance, started a Care2 petition [2] against public support for the new power station, which was signed by over 113,000 people. Campaigners plan to deliver it to the Department of Energy and Climate Change with the aid of Rosie, a giant inflatable White Elephant.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 403ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that carbon capture and storage was close to getting some money…

What I think we can learn from this is that not every technofix arrives on time…

What happened next  The second competition for CCS funding fell over and was followed by a  long process of the shards of the Ming Vase being put together again, and then waiting for a long time…

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: 

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office – All Our Yesterdays

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Energy United Kingdom

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released

Twenty five years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2000, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution released a report that turned out to be pivotal.

RCEP releases influential “Energy: The Changing Climate” report, advocating 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.  Also tacitly endorses Contraction and Convergence

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly zzzppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the UK government had been making weak promises about climate action since the late 1980s, and been able to keep them for two reasons – the UK was de-industrialising (manufacturing was heading off to China and India) and coal was being challenged as a supplier of electricity by gas, which – nominally at least – has a lower carbon intensity.  The Kyoto Protocol was still “alive” (this is before Bush was gifted the Whitehouse by his dad’s Supreme Court appointees).

The specific context was the science was pretty clear – did we really need the Third Assessment Report? Or the Fourth? The Fifth? Hallelujah…

What I think we can learn from this 

Good people at the RCEP had an impact on the “common sense views” of the policy networks. Twenty five years ago. And here we are.

What happened next   some people within Blair’s broader policy network pushed for increased ambition and action.  You can draw a not-bad line between this and the 2003 Energy White Paper.

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: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

June 16, 1965 – Rothschild writes to Lovelock

Sixty years ago, on this day, June 16th, 1965, a senior science civil servant writes to James Lovelock, telling him to get ready to do some work on atmospheric pollution.

This request can be dated more precisely to a letter from Rothschild to Lovelock in which the former writes: “there are many problems cooking in Shell about which we shall need your help” (Victor Rothschild, letter to Lovelock, 16 June 1965, box 76, part 3, Archive Collection of Professor James Lovelock, Science Museum Library and Archives, Science Museum at Wroughton).

5. Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (New York, 1979), p. 8. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Shell had been aware of the possibility of carbon dioxide heating the planet at the ABSOLUTE latest by 1958 – see their article in New Scientist (realistically, they must have known about it from 1953 – Gilbert Plass’s announcement at the AGU in May 1953 can not have gone unnoticed). 

The specific context was in the United States, research was gathering pace. In 1963 there had been the one day meeting of the Conservation Foundation, and in February 1965 newly-elected President Lyndon Johnson had sent a special message to Congress about “Natural Beauty” that name-checked carbon dioxide build-up.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – sixty years ago ‘responsible’ people were beginning to think “himmm”.

As “active citizens” – responsible people will be the death of us.

What happened next  Lovelock produced reports (see here). Rothschild wanted one kept on the down low. 

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

June 10, 1961 – Nature report on “Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems”

Sixty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1961 the UK scientific publication Nature runs an article by climatologist Gordon Manley about the recent symposium in New York…

It became abundantly clear how large a number of investigators are patiently accumulating evidence of the amplitude, character, effects and especially the dating of climatic fluctuations all over the world. Speculations regarding the causes abound; supporters of each of the popular theories-solar variation, atmospheric turbidity, carbon dioxide, ozone, variations in the Earth’s orbital elements-find their several gods alternately set up and cast down. Workers in one field find themselves unable to judge the validity of the evidence from other disciplines;

MANLEY, G. Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems. Nature 190, 967–968 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1038/190967a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the modern argument that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the planet had been given a huge boost in 1953 by Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass.  The International Geophysical Year (1957-8) had added a bit to the interest.  

The specific context was the New York Academy of Sciences had held a big symposium, and Plass, Herman Flohn and others were present. Manley was there too…The international linkages were there….

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we have had so many warnings for so long. The problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

As “active citizens” is that the problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

Academics might like to ponder – growing spines.

What happened next  By 1963 the Conservation Foundation held a meeting just on carbon dioxide, proposed by the Yale biologist  G Evelyn Hutchinson, though ironically he was unable to attend due to illness.  The carbon dioxide build-up issue also began to work its way through the Presidents Science Advisory Council (LINK).

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Business Responses United Kingdom

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 9th, 2005, 24 companies say they would quite like to governments save the world (so they can continue making money),

24 large multinationals, including U.S. firms Hewlett-Packard and Ford, issued a statement in which they supported climate change measures, and pressured the G8 to adopt climate stabilization targets and set up a long-term, global climate change regime that would extend to 2030 at least, including a market-based system of emissions trading (World Economic Forum, 2005).

(Kolk and Pinkse, 2007:202)

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. 2007. Multinationals’ Political Activities on Climate Change. Business & Society Vol. 46, (2),  pp.201-228.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that

a) The G7 had first mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at its 1979 meeting in Tokyo, and then again in 1985 in Bonn. b) Business had pushed hard against any climate action in 1990-1 and now, fifteen years later, some of them were having a few second thoughts.

The specific context was that there was now an EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol were about to begin. But the major stumbling block was President Cheney. Sorry, “Bush.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair, hosting the G8 and keen for discussion to be Anything But Iraq, will have welcomed this. And his consiglieres may well have had a hand in making it happen – it’s a very Blair-ite stunt.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we like to believe we are the good guys. It ain’t necessarily so.

As “active citizens” – business will always do this – deny costs, squeal about action, then demand someone else do something to clean up their mess.

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping government and business versus the punters.

What happened next – more warm words (if not from the Cheney gang).

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate – All Our Yesterdays