Categories
Soviet Union

 April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1986 reactor four at Chernobyl went kaboom (partial meltdown).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was precisely the wrong time for a nuclear reactor to explode, and the absolutely terrible response at the Politburo-downwards level versus the heroics on the ground, put the lie to “glasnost” and “perestroika”, and made Gorbachev’s efforts to change the Soviet economy and society that much more difficult. I mean, he was never going to succeed, but Chernobyl was, in retrospect, kind of a nail in the coffin. It also made the pro-nuclear because of greenhouse gas arguments that much harder to make.

What I think we can learn from this is that the intersections between politics, technology, economics, culture, you name it. They’re fantastically complicated, obviously or complex. And there are times when an accident wouldn’t matter that much. I would argue that Chernobyl was exquisitely timed, and so it came to pass.

What happened next

In September 1986 a Safe Energy rally in London was held – the anti-nuke sentiment grew…

The battles over whether Chernobyl caused hundreds of deaths, 1000s of deaths, 10s of 1000s of deaths goes on. 

The cultural response to Chernobyl is interesting. 

The Star Chernobyl by Julie Voznesakaya.

There is the Arkady Renko book. 

There is that bizarre Kenneth Royce book, Fallout. 

And there is the TV show Chernobyl, which I should watch sometime, 

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: 

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
United Kingdom

 April 24, 2001 –  Early Blair blather about dodgy policies on climate

On this day, 24 years ago, a Blair minister tries to tell the actual experts that they are wrong….

“In the event, the initial auctions led to claims that reductions in emissions were not additional and an acrimonious controversy developed between the ENDS Report (which pointed this out) and the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett. (Dieter Helm 2003) 14 Margaret Beckett letter to ENDS report contesting their point about additionality in the proposed emissions trading scheme”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Blair government was doing as little as possible about climate, still coasting on the emissions reductions from the closure of coal plants (and de-industrialisation). At this stage, climate was just another issue to be managed with the usual trickery and fakery (so much has changed in the intervening two decades!)

What we learn.  What was that Nick Tomalin said? They lie, they lie, they lie.

What happened next. In 2003, thanks to a RCEP report (RIP RCEP), the climate and energy policies began to seriously entwine, as they should have from 1988 onwards. The trickery and fakery continued obvs. I mean, what do you expect?

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Europe

April 23, 2009 – the EU Parliament says yes to CCS

On this day, April 23, 2009, the EU Parliament waves through another piece of the legal/regulator puzzle in favour of then white-hot CCS.  

Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the CCS bandwagon had been kicked into shape in the early 2000s, and while initially viewed as a dodgy technofix by many, the momentum for it had been built, including by people who Saw No Alternative.  Copenhagen was coming, and the EU needed to look like it was All Systems Go.

What we learn is that even ridiculous schemes (in every sense) will ‘win in the short term, if enough people bite their tongues, for various reasons of their own.

What happened next. The Global Financial Crisis made the numbers even suckier.  The Copenhagen conference ended in farce. The EU funding for CCS etc fell apart. The UK first competition fell apart. But here we are, sixteen years later, with CCS STILL as the Big Hope. What a species

Also on this day: 

April 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

April 23, 2013 – Power Companies want Abbott to rethink Direct Action – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Germany

April 22, 1915 – First gas attack in World War 1

One hundred and ten years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1915,

On April 22, 1915 at 5 p.m. a wave of asphyxiating gas released from cylinders embedded in the ground by German specialist troops smothered the Allied line on the northern end of the Ypres salient, causing panic and a struggle to survive a new form of weapon.

The attack forced two colonial French divisions north of Ypres from their positions, creating a 5-mile gap in the Allied line defending the city. This was the first effective use of poison gas on the Western Front and the debut of Germany’s newest weapon in its chemical arsenal, chlorine gas, which irritated the lung tissue causing a choking effect that could cause death.

A British officer described the effect of the gas on the French colonial soldiers:

“A panic-stricken rabble of Turcos and Zouaves with gray faces and protruding eyeballs, clutching their throats and choking as they ran, many of them dropping in their tracks and lying on the sodden earth with limbs convulsed and features distorted in death.”

There was no technology to protect the soldiers from this new weapon; an operational gas mask was not available, so the Allied soldiers improvised with linen masks soaked in water and “respirators” made from lint and tape.

Stunned by their overwhelming outcome of the attack, the Germans tentatively advanced, losing an opportunity to exploit their success.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 301ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

First Usage of Poison Gas | National WWI Museum and Memorial

 See also How Gas Became A Terror Weapon In The First World War | IWM

The context was that the First World War, the great wars, or the war to end all wars, or whatever you want to call it, was bogged down already in trench warfare. So what do you do when you’re stuck? You innovate. What did the Germans innovate? Gas! 

Was this the first use of gas against humans? I’m not sure. Had it been tried out in the colonies? I don’t know.

What we learn is that ideas of polluted air as a menace had been around for a long time, and it appeared in science fiction, the weather as a nightmare, and now a deliberate man made (local) climate modification was happening 

What happened next? The Germans kept using it for a while, but it was a tricky thing, because when the wind changed, you would cause mayhem for your own troops (literal blowback). Then, after the war, people’s lungs were shot. See also that poem by Wilfred Owen poem Futility.

See also Thomas Hardy’s poem Christmas 1924,

‘Peace upon earth!’ was said. We sing it,

And pay a million priests to bring it.

After two thousand years of mass

We’ve got as far as poison-gas.

Murder apes. We’re not just murder apes. But mostly, of late, murder apes.

What happened next

See also Churchill’s suggestion of it as a cheap way of maintaining empire, and the Churchill Society’s inevitable attempt at explaining it away. Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?

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: 

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming – All Our Yesterdays

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Categories
Predatory delay Renewable energy

April 21, 1978  – solar power is unfeasible (cartoon)

Forty seven years ago, on this day, April 21st, 1978, a cartoon with a long afterlife appeared.,

See Snopes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were fierce debates within America about what “paths” should be taken, nuclear, coal, solar, etc. And this is just a cracking cartoon that does a really useful piece of work in explaining what’s going on. 

See also solar socialism, by Ronald Reagan as per this corking letter of August 20, 1981 in the New York Times.

What I think we can learn from this is that  cartoons can really cut through.

What happened next

Solar continued to be starved of funding and attacked until despite the fossil lobby,  it was mature enough to make nice fat profits.

see also “The Sun Betrayed”  “Review 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.

Also on this day: 

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

April 20, 2023 – tabloid smear job of climate activist – Hypocrite-Zealot Trap

Two years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2023, the Scum , sorry “The Sun” “newspaper” published a hit job on XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook (whose ‘what next’ essay you can read here). The “journalists” sprang a version of the hypocrite zealot trap on her because – gasp – she drives a car and she buys food. 

The context was that the Sun in 2007 had come within a whisker of endorsing strong climate action. Then head office had got cold feet. The split between the Murdochs on the climate issue among others, is famous, but until that is resolved, with the Dirty Digger being dug six foot under, the Scum will continue to be knuckle dragging on climate.

This is not to say that you have to endorse XR as a loyalty test. 

What we learn is that activists are always vulnerable to this sort of hat job. It is the hypocrite zealot trap. If you are anything approaching a normal human being in terms of your travel, your eating, your ”lifestyle” you will be accused of being a hypocrite because by raising your voice to say ‘we all need to change’ you’re lecturing other people about how they should live their lives.,

Whereas, if you are consistent, if you’re a vegan who doesn’t get in internal combustion engine cars, etc, then you are a zealot, but you’re still a hypocrite. If you’ve ever, for example, used or been able to been saved by the NHS. 

So this is a classic attempt to play the man, not the ball, or in this case, the woman, by people who, on some level, must know that their opponents are right and that they are wrong. They can’t cope with it so they revel in this sort of nonsense. 

It also should be said that it’s kind of a cyber equivalent of sticking someone’s corpse on a pike or their dead body and a gibbet. It’s to send a message to other people who were thinking about maybe sticking their head above the parapet. This is what will happen to you. 

What happened next

The state corporate attacks on climate activism continued, and escalated. By early 2025 their war of attrition had ‘succeeded.’

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: 

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 2009 – World has Six Years to Act, says Penny Sackett – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

April 19, 2001 – Greenpeace Australia does some push-polling on climate

Twenty-four years ago, on this day, April 19th 2001,

 The difficulty for the Howard government is that its position on climate change is deeply unpopular and will cost it votes at the next federal election. A survey commission by Greenpeace Australia and released on April 19 found that 80.4% of respondents believed that Australia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, without the US if necessary.

The Greenpeace survey drew an angry response from industry minister Nick Minchin. “I think it’s irresponsible to be pushing this line without informing people how many jobs will be lost”, he said in an April 20 media release.

“ABARE [the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics] estimates that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the costs to Australia of meeting the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be significantly more than a severe recession and several times that of a major drought”, Minchin said.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was a federal election coming. Climate change was likely to be – or Greenpeace would have liked it to be – a real issue. George W. Bush had just said America would not proceed with ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and everyone assumed that sooner or later, Prime Minister John Howard would follow suit. 

So Greenpeace thought that they could do a survey, get some press coverage for it, put little pressure on the Liberals, maybe stiffen the spine of Labour, etc. And maybe it worked at the time. 

What we learn is that these sorts of push surveys as a shot across the bows or a spine stiffener, or whatever, are a well-established political technique. What we should also learn is that they’re basically meaningless because people say all sorts of crap in a survey because they want to believe that they are the kind of person who cares. In the privacy of the ballot box people tend to vote with their ids or their wallets – and climate change doesn’t suit either of those. 

What happened next?  In August 2001 the Tampa nightmare happened. Or rather, the lies told by John Howard and his goons, almost 25 years ago now, happened. And Howard got another term in which he very predictably did everything he could to stop meaningful climate action. And then he got another term after that. And 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: 

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

April 19, 1943 – the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began.

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

April 19, 2010 -World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Denial

April 18, 1992 – The Australian carries page one headline “Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels”

On this day 33 years ago

New and conflicting predictions continue to be made. For example, on 18 April 1992 the Australian carried a page one headline ‘Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels’, while later in the business section a case was made against a carbon tax on fossil fuels.  Business interests remain unimpressed by the call to tax themselves.

(Love, 1992:44)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that the international negotiations were grinding on (in face of United States intransigence). The denial and confusion campaigns funded by the “Global Climate Coalition” were grinding out, and tame “journalists” were dutifully regurgitating the lies and calling it a contribution to Informing the Public.

What we learn

The Australian has not been a newspaper for a very long time. A poisonous propaganda rag.

What happened next.

The UNFCCC treaty was toothless, at absolute best worthless. The “journalists” prospered. Murdoch prospered (if you can call it that).  We’re so fubarred.

References

Love, R. 1992. Stranger Weather Still.  Arena 99/100 pp.39-46.

Also on this day

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Categories
Australia

April 17, 2000 – Labor tries to get the green vote…

On this day 25 years ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Australian Labor Party was gearing up to use environmental issues to attract voters…  Ha ha ha ha.

Federal Labor is preparing a major push for the green vote at the next election by toughening its stance in key areas including greenhouse gases and mining in national parks.

A draft of its revised policy platform also commits the party to establishing a new independent watchdog, the Commissioner for the Environment.

Labor will also maintain its commitment to examine all legal options to stop the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney and close the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Mr Nick Bolkus, and foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Laurie Brereton, are involved in the push for a revised policy, arguing there is an opportunity to exploit disenchantment with the Government. [Kyoto was removed at August ALP Conference in Hobart by Martyn Edwards and Bob McMullan. But they went to the 2001 election with it, so it got put back at some point…]

Robinson, M. and Clennell, A. 2000. Labor To Push Tough Policy For Green Vote. Sydney Morning Herald, April 17, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Australian Prime Minister John Howard was dragging his heels on all environmental issues, and especially renewable energy and other climate issues. 

What we learn. Labor used to pretend harder to care.

What happened next.  Labor lost the 2001 Federal Election. And the 2004 one.  Then – irony of ironies – Kevin Rudd was able to use Howard’s policy vandalism on all matters climate as a stick to beat him with ahead of the 2007 election. Howard became only the second sitting Prime Minister to lose his own seat in the November 2007 election. 

 April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead – All Our Yesterdays

April 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…