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.
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]
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
