Categories
Interviews

Interview with Dave Vetter – “politics is downstream of culture”

Dave Vetter writes extremely well about climate change and the messiness of it all. He has a very much worth-your-time set of essays about climate disinformation, a judiciously active social media presence (first on the site that Shall Not Be Named) and latterly on Bluesky. He kindly agreed to an interview…

Who are you – i.e. roughly when were you born, where did you grow up, what did you do after leaving school?

I was born in Edinburgh at some point in the (cough) 1970s, but grew up in Cardiff, where it rained so hard for so long that I ran away to East Asia. I spent a few years as a teacher in Hong Kong, until I realised I couldn’t have a job that didn’t revolve around writing. At that point I returned to the UK and took up an MA in international journalism. Since then I’ve had just about every print media role you can think of, and the entire time print media has been in its death throes. That’s quite a concerning correlation, when I think about it.

When and how did you first hear about climate change – do you remember what you thought?

I first heard about climate change in the 1980s, when I was in primary school. Our teachers did a good job of scaring us into being little activists. That’s never really gone away. I also understood from a young age that climate change is indivisible from human injustice, probably thanks to my dad [the epidemiologist Norman J. Vetter]. I get annoyed when people talk about “saving the planet”. We’re saving ourselves! Shoutout to Dana Fisher, there.

You write for Forbes – how did that gig come about?

I began writing for Forbes when I returned to the UK in 2019. I’d been in media and publishing for about 12 years by that point, but wanted to focus solely on climate. At that point I had the means, motive and opportunity to completely reconfigure my career in a media industry that I felt was becoming increasingly frivolous – so I went for it.

You’re pretty prolific on social media – what do you get out of it (positive and negative) and what would you like to see “climate people” doing more of – or less of – on Bluesky etc?

Yes, I post too much. It’s probably a net harm to me in all sorts of ways, but I generally try to highlight issues that I feel need attention, and I try to do so in a responsible way without being boring about it. I’m perpetually conflicted about how useful any of this is; I, like many of us, am just figuring it out as we go along.

What other projects are you involved in?

I’m trying to juggle a dozen projects while treading water. My approach is far too headless chicken. And to pay the bills I ghostwrite and do copyediting. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is everything is gonna be peachy keen through to 10 is “Mad Max scenarios look like The Sound of Music before the Nazis turn up”, where do you think we will be in 2050?
From a self-centred, short-termist, northern European perspective, I’m hopeful that European agriculture doesn’t collapse. There are indications that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation might be more robust than we thought, which might be a reprieve, though we absolutely shouldn’t be banking on this.

The one thing we can be sure of is we’re heading into a less safe, less stable future. I’m sorry to say that that means most of us are going to be struggling a lot more, while a few very wealthy fraudsters will continue to grab what they can. To sustain ourselves I think we’re going to need to rediscover the meaning of community, and what’s actually important, rather than what we’ve been inculcated to believe is important.

Bonus – anything else you’d like to say.

Something I really appreciate about All Our Yesterdays is that, via history, it emphasises aspects of the climate crisis that are overlooked – namely the cultural and the social aspects, which is where I believe all the most important fights are being fought. People always claim the biggest hurdle to climate action is politics, but they’re wrong: it’s culture. Andrew Breitbart, the most appalling figure, was right when he said politics is downstream from culture. Liberal politicians almost universally do not understand this, which is a big reason why we’re facing the crises we’re facing.

Categories
Uncategorized

March 25, 1995 – “Women and the Environment” conference in Melbourne

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26th, 1995, red and green try to mix, with limited success.

Bad blood flows between the green movement and the union movement. The controversy over logging recently has led to ugly incidents between timber workers and conservationists. Ms George said she had agreed to speak at a conference on women and the environment this weekend to try to ease some of the hostility between the two groups…. The Australian Conservation Foundation’s executive director, Ms Tricia Caswell, said the ACF, Greenpeace and women’s groups had decided to host the conference at the World Congress Centre because women were often the backbone of community environment groups and were the main environmental educators to children but received little recognition.

Milburn, C. 1995. ACTU’s George Plays Peacemaker To Greens, Unions. The Age, March 24

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia is a patriarchal settler colony with horrendous attitudes on sex, race, nature, and there are ongoing cultural, ideological, political, physical battles around this. When ACF set this conference up, they were probably hoping that they could bask in the glory of a carbon tax, but it was not to be. 

crucially,Can we find someone who was there that would be interesting, a woman who was there in Melbourne, 30 years ago. So for an interview, Article doesn’t have to be specifically about that conference and whether it meant anything, because, frankly, maybe it didn’t. It can be more broad than that. Okay, send out the request. 

What I think we can learn from this

We fail.  And we keep failing.

What happened next

We failed some more.

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: 

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News repor

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – CBS Evening News runs 3 minute story on the greenhouse effect. Can’t say we weren’t warned…

Forty three years ago, on this day, March 25th, 1982,

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. (Sachsman, 2000)

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

(also in C02 Newsletter Vol 3 No 3, March-April 1982)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

that the CO2 issue was something journalists had been particularly interested in since maybe the late 1970s and although Reagan and Republicans were in the ascendant, that didn’t mean that Congress had stopped chipping away. And I think in ‘82 was the first time Al Gore had held hearings

Congressional hearings are a nice hook – the experts are in town, so you can grab them for an interview. And you can get two or three minutes of quality journalism relatively cheaply and predictably. 

What I think we can learn from this that Americans were being tolerably well-informed about future threats. 43 years ago. It was on the television for Christ’s sake – national news. 

What happened next

CO2 kept bubbling away in the American news, famously in ‘83 with the EPA report “can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (no),  and on and on at a relatively low level until it properly exploded in the summer 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.

Also on this day: 

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News repor

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
Uncategorized

March 24, 1990 – Labor politician has dummy spit on election night about needing small g-green votes

Thirty five years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1990, on the night of the Federal election, a retiring Labor Minister got stuck in to environmentalists.

“The backlash against environmentalists began very publicly on election night. Peter Walsh launched a bitter attack on them from the tally room, attempting to deny any influence they might have had on the outcome. He was joined in later weeks and months by a number of Cabinet ministers, largely but not exclusively from the economic portfolios, but careful evaluation of that election result makes Walsh’s assertion untenable.

Malcolm Mackerras (The Australian, March 1, 1993) summarises the result well: on the primaries, the Coalition had 43.5 per cent to Labor’s 39.4 per cent, the Democrats 11.3 and others 5.8 per cent.

However, Labor’s environment second-preference strategy was so successful that the two-way party preferred vote became 50.1 per cent for the Coalition and 49.9 per cent for Labor (which just fell over the line to win in seats).”

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Australian Federal election, where the ALP gets a fourth term very narrowly, and crucially, thanks to small g green voters, though Peter Walsh, who was stepping down, didn’t like to be beholden to people he despised (people who believed in, you know, beauty and post-material values and all the rest of it.) Walsh was an old-fashioned Labor right, disdained these people, and must have hated that his party could only get back into power with their help. Thus, of course, vociferous denial and denunciation. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people like Walsh, and there are lots of them around, cannot abide fragility, especially their own. 

What happened next

Walsh acted out his fury and hate and presumably self-loathing in both his newspaper columns. See here LINK and here, LINK for example, and also as part of the Lavoisier Group. If ever you needed an Australian poster poster boy for anti-reflexivity, (link to video about this here) it’s Peter Walsh 

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: 

March 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

Categories
United States of America

March 23, 1969 – US TV network CBS asks “What are we doing to our World?” 

Fifty six years ago, on this day, March 23rd, 1969,

15 March 1969 CBS documentary Edmond Levy – What are we doing to our world? pt. 1. Telecast: Mar. 16, 1969. © 15Mar69; 

MP20651. What are we doing to our world? pt. 2. Telecast: Mar. 23, 1969. © 22Mar69; MP20652.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

the second part of a “what are we doing to the earth?” CBS show. The context was that throughout the 1960s concern about growing air pollution, water pollution, litter, ugliness, deforestation,  and general angst about the consequences of modernity had been building. One obvious marker of this was Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring. 

Anyway, things really kicked off in ‘69 because of the Santa Barbara oil spill and Nixon wanting to get ahead of the environment issue. But of course, the documentary was two part 

Oh, sidebar, that 15th of July report, that’s probably the memo from Kennet, explicitly mentions Barry Commoner. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there has been hand wringing and pearl-clutching and worry about environmental issues long before Earth Day in April 1970. 

What happened next

Six months later, Senator Gaylor Nelson decided that there should be an Earth Day, and he deliberately chose Vladimir Lenin’s birthday as a secret signal to his fellow crypto-Marxists… I’m just kidding. And his intern, Dennis Hayes, did a good job of coordinating. And then on April 22 1970 everyone was out proclaiming their Love of Mother Nature. 

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: 

March 23, 1989 – cold fusion!!

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

 March 23, 2011 – Ditch the Witch rally in Canberra

Categories
Australia

March 22, 2007 – Fairfax tells its staff to Be Green, for an hour.

Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 22nd, 2007, Fairfax Media tells its employees to virtue-signal

From: Staff Notices To: All_Fairfax_Staff

Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2007 9:06 AM

Subject: EARTH HOUR – A MESSAGE TO ALL STAFF

When the lights of Sydney are turned off for one hour at 7:30pm on Saturday, March 31, we should take a moment to reflect, with pride, on the role Fairfax Media has played in Earth Hour.

For the past eight months, the Earth Hour working group has been meeting every Tuesday on Level 19 at Darling Park to plan this bold event.

Every strand of our business – management, editorial, online, commercial, marketing and production – has been involved in the planning process.

(From Ray Evans, 27 April 2007 rant…)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that approximately six months previously, climate change had burst back into Australian public consciousness, via the Millennium Drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, things like the Stern Review and perhaps even the UK Camp for Climate Action. 

Kevin Rudd as first ALP shadow foreign secretary and then leader had by this time, already called climate change “the great moral challenge of our generation” (he was using the issue as a stick with which to beat the incumbent Prime Minister, John Howard). And everyone wants to feel they’re doing their bit without being at all really inconvenienced, or to turn that “inconvenience” into a display of virtue. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there might be a so-called Earth Hour, but the other 23 days of that day, and all the other days of the year where there isn’t an Earth Hour is what – Anti Earth Hour? or Kill the Earth Hour? Go figure. 

What happened next

Some people switched some lights off. And patted themselves heartily on the back. We’ll come back to this on the day itself, March 31.

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: 

March 22, 1960 – US Television warning of carbon dioxide build up, courtesy Athelstan Spilhaus…

March 22, 2007 – Unions talk good game on climate

March 22, 2012 – flash mobs and repertoire exhaustion

Categories
Norway

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1980, the oil companies CLEARLY knew what was coming. And not just those Evil American ones – also the nice cuddly progressive [Er, is this right? Ed] European ones….

One example of this was a talk given in 1980 [on March 21] by Finn Lied, the chair of the Statoil board, at a seminar about Norway’s energy supply towards the year 2000. Lied, who had also been the minister of industry during the establishment of Statoil in 1971–72, stressed the ‘social cost’ of the ‘CO2 problem’. His main concern, however, was not the effects that increasing carbon dioxide levels would have on nature and human life but what it meant for the oil industry’s future prospects. ‘Luckily’, Lied concluded, the emissions problem was ‘a very long-term problem that no one really dared to begin think about’.11 

Nissen, A. 2021. A greener shade of black? Statoil, the Norwegian government and climate change,1990—2005. Scandinavian Journal of History, Volume 46, 2021 – Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2021.1876757

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 429ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva in February 1979. In the U the Charney report had happened. There were other reports coming out saying, “hey, carbon dioxide build up is going to be a real problem.”  If your day job was energy provision, you knew.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who knew about the problem and knew that their industry, their country, was helping to cause it, were, in 1980, sanguine, saying that proof was a long way off and they could simply kick the can down the road.

But eventually you run out of road, and the can gets bigger and you start to break your toe. That metaphor could be overused. Anyhoo. 

What happened next

Ten years later, Norway introduced a carbon tax, and Statoil started work on its tax dodge of Sleipner Field. 

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: 

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
Australia

March 20, 2014 – Australian Senate votes against killing off ARENA, CEFC etc 

Eleven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 2014,  Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s first attempt at legislative climate thuggery is foiled.

The government’s carbon tax repeal laws have been voted down by the Senate, leaving the fate of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme up to the new Senate that sits from July.

It appears very likely the carbon price will then be repealed – and the government says its repeal laws will make the end date of the tax retrospective to 1 July, 2014 – even if they have not passed the parliament by then.

Carbon tax repeal voted down by Senate | Australia news | The Guardian

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous five years had seen ferocious battles over a fairly basic and inadequate carbon pricing scheme. 

In late 2009 the Liberal Party had tossed Malcolm Turnbull for being too pro-climate action and given Tony Abbott, the leader of the opposition gig. Abbott had then killed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Rudd basically imploded. Rudd’s henchman then gave a journalist a jibe about Julia Gillard that caused Gillard to uncharacteristically lose her cool. Gillard challenged for the leadership and Rudd was turfed by Labor. Gillard became prime minister, and during the snap election campaign that she just called, there would be no carbon tax under her government. The 2010 election resulted in a situation with neither the Coalition or Labor having enough MPs to form a government, and therefore relied on Gillard or Abbott doing enough deals with the independents and the Greens. Gillard succeeded, but the cost of their support was – you guessed it – a carbon pricing scheme. The optics were bad, and they were handled even worse (see February 24 2011 blogpost). 

And so 2011 saw this astonishing, vitriolic, insane battle over a “carbon tax”, with most businesses ducking and covering and not wanting to be drawn into the fight. and even the consultancies, or maybe especially the consultancies, given that they are entirely dependent on the good graces of political parties were cutting their cloth accordingly (See Malto Maltenberger anecdote- the intellectual corruption and quiescence is astonishing.)

Anyway, Gillard, thanks to in part, the ferocious attacks of the Murdoch press, became very unpopular in the opinion polls. Kevin Rudd, who’d been lurking on the back benches, launched his challenge, toppled Gillard. 

There was an election in 2013 which the wrecking ball, aka Tony Abbott, won handily, and Abbott had set about trying to repeal all the carbon pricing legislation and also to abolish things like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, but Abbott did not have control of the Senate, and this is an example of them pushing back. 

What I think we can learn from this is that this period in Australian politics was an especially bewildering soap opera. Actually, not even a soap opera, more like a Jacobean tragedy. 

What happened next, CEFC and ARENA survived, sort of. Abbott was turfed by Turnbull, who was then turfed by Morrison. A lot of this has to do with energy and also the culture wars going on. “Which kind of Australia do we want?” And it seems that enough people want an imagined 1950s Australia that never existed.

And these people can be mobilized. And the so-called progressive forces, which are mostly or at least partially blind to the arrived ecological debacle, have neither the language nor the skills to do much about it.

It may or may not be different when the Rupert bloody Murdoch finally dies. But just because the poisoner is dead doesn’t mean the poison stops working. 

I suppose this is a contestable way of looking at it. You also have to look at the poison needing to be frequently updated, or else the so-called immune system of the so-called body politic might “cleanse itself” of insanity? Who knows? We’ll find out. 

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: 

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
United States of America

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 19th, 2001,

Spencer Abraham announcing new power plants each year etc. 

“On the other side, Energy Secretary Abraham had stated in a public speech on March 19 that the United States must add ninety new power plants each year, mostly coal-fired, for the next twenty years to meet the need for a 45 percent increase in electricity demand by 2020. Vice President Cheney strongly supported efforts to increase fossil fuel supplies, including the opening of public lands, continental shelves, and the Arctic for increased coal mining and oil and gas drilling. Altogether it was unclear where the balance of opinion of the Task Force would fall. I thought it was realistic to think the scientific information we provided would aid their decision making.”

From James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, page 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

George Bush Junior had been handed the presidency thanks to the Supreme Court and some hanging chads in Florida, and Al Gore’s willingness to play along, (there’s that footage of the black Democrats knowing what’s coming, desperately trying to overturn it and Gore basically laughing at them…  and them good old boys drinking whiskey and rye. 

And President Cheney, being an oil man, everyone kind of knew it was coming.. 

Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, talking about hundreds of new coal plants, which puts one in mind of President Nixon’s Project Independence. 

What I think we can learn from this is that every incoming administration wants to lay out morale-boosting for their side, eye-catching, Big Number targets. Mostly it does not come to pass. 

What happened next

It did not come to pass. And then in 2011 Michael Bloomberg funded lots of local anti-coal initiatives, which meant that coal-fired power stations started to not get built/get retired. It didn’t happen by accident.

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: 

March 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

Categories
Australia

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, March 19, fifty five years ago, Dr Richard Gun, a South Australian, made his maiden speech in the Federal Parliament.


He had this to say –

And what about smog? This matter has had some attention from the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. The Senate Select Committee has recommended that some attention be given to controlling exhaust emissions from cars. But, even if the report of the Committee is acted upon, the effect of anti-pollution measures should be quite clear. The Committee looked at the possibility of an electric car being evolved, or a car powered by steam. After-burners were studied and carburettor modifications were considered also. These result in more complete fuel combustion. So too does the use of liquid propane for fuel. But, whatever these ingenious proposals can do in reducing smog, they still cannot prevent consumption of oxygen and production of carbon dioxide. It is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide which may be the most sinister of all effects. The only way that this can be controlled is by reducing the amount of combustion taking place. An enormous wasted combustion occurs in our cities with each individual motor vehicle bearing an average of only 1.2 persons per vehicle trip. Surely, the most logical way of overcoming this is by increasing use of public transport for commuters; in other words, to have more people per vehicle. So, let us commute by public transport and keep our motor cars for other purposes than driving to work.

You can read more about him (he was interviewed about this last year!) here.

March 18, 1958 – Military man spots carbon dioxide problem

March 18, 1968 – Bobby Kennedy vs Gross National Product

 March 18, 1971 – “Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn”

March 18, 2010 – “Solar” by Ian McEwan released.