According to the fact-checking/mythbusting website Snopes in 2019
“In 2014, weather reporter Évelyne Dhéliat of the TF1 television channel in France teamed up with the World Meteorological Organization to create a series of fictional weather reports imagining what the weather will be like in the summer of 2050. While these reports may have seemed far-fetched at first, a June 2019 heat wave across Europe showed that these temperatures are well within the realm of possibility.”
Ms Dhéliat had done this at the time of COP-20 (one of the many forgettable annual ‘last chance to save the world’ conferences that have been happening since Berlin 1995).
Snopes was on the case because of this tweet (back before the fash took it over and trashed it).
And fast forward seven years, and we have this
What do we learn
The changes we induced from
a) deforestation and then the burning of – er – industrial quantities of coal, gas and oil
b) continuing to do this after the scientists started saying we should really knock that off (in 1980s, or 1970s if you’re being pedantic)
are coming at us faster than ‘responsible’ (sober, reticent etc) scientists used to say they would. A captious and cynical observer could suggest that this implies that our self-confidence in understanding complex/chaotic systems once they go past certain ‘stable’ parameters is… how shall we say it to a family audience….”somewhat misplaced.”
The same somewhat assholish observer might also propose that we soothe ourselves with the idea that we can predict, because if we can predict, we can control, or at least prepare. Someone should tell them they’re dreaming.
This suggests that, as per Jason Bourne to the doomed journalist in the third (and equal-best) Bourne film “you have no idea what you are into here.”
This suggests that I was right twenty years ago when I did that spoof newspaper in the aftermath of Climate Camp
It’s too hot, this minute, to do anything. It’s too hot to march, it’s too hot to rally, it’s too hot to launch any dense, detailed footnoted report urging government (local, national, global) to Take Action Now. (It’s too hot to work on your tan as well).
So, what is to be done? Plant some (mental) seeds.
Explain to people (especially easy if you have a Keeling Curve tattooed on your forearm, just sayin’) that this heat is caused by the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries. Explain to people that scientists and activists have been warning about this for forty years (longer, in fact, but no need to complicate the narrative right now).
Explain that all the talk of renewables this, Strategic Plan that, have not, in fact, slowed the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
And, most of all, explain to them that this weather we are having is only in the most trivial sense the “new normal” – explain that it is not going to stay like this, it is going to get warmer – that looking back from 10 years into the future this will be regarded as not a particularly unusual year.
And, beyond explaining, if you’re not checking in on your neighbours and family who are vulnerable to heat (the old, the young, the poor, the ill, the asthmatic etc), then why should you expect anyone to listen to you about anything?
This heatwave will end. There will be others, later this summer (it is, after all, only June), and next year. And the year after.
So what does responsible activism on climate change mean? Most of all, it’s about, wait for it… holding good meetings.
The point is this. We need to understand that governments (made up of elected politicians and employed officials) have had forty years of warning, forty years to act, on climate, and they have been either unwilling or unable, for the most part. They will make declarations, sign pledges and then continue with business as usual, blameshifting onto another layer of government (“Well, we can’t do anything without money from central government” “Well, most of these actions have to be taken locally.” Rinse and repeat.
Similarly, there are constant false dawns of ‘progressive’ business, groups formed with great fanfare while CEOs get around the world to give motherhood-and-apple pie powerpoint presentations about ‘the sustainability agenda’ and “innovations which will help meet the challenge (once research and development funding from the taxpayer arrives).”
Meanwhile, every year we burn more coal, oil and gas to heat houses, fly planes, etc. Yes, electric vehicles are going gang-busters, but the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come down, it keeps going up.
So, if government and the corporate sector can’t act/won’t act, then, what? Individual action? Too difficult, not going to make a difference. Amounts to re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic while feeling good about yourself.
But what if – stay with me here, I know it sounds crazy – people got together in groups (unions, parties, churches, mosques, pressure groups, professional bodies) and those groups came up with enough in common (not frying the planet would be a start), then they might be able to insist, effectively, that governments and corporates stop making things worse – because that is what we’ve been doing these last forty years. In 1988, when the ‘carbon dioxide’ issue finally broke through, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. We’ve now made that blanket much much thicker – it’s about 430ppm and rising more quickly with every (well, most) passing year.
This would be what the academics like to call ‘civil society’ getting up on its hind legs.
The initiator for this, or one of them, would likely be effective ‘grass roots’ groups (based around shared interest, shared beliefs, shared demographics, shared location).
The problem with this pretty picture is that most groups are led by people with confidence and status who – almost always, from my experience – absolutely lack the relevant abilities to hold a meeting that is engaging, inspiring and will involve more than the usual suspects staying involved. I mean, most meetings are excruciating – boring, alienating, disempowering. As per one L. Cohen “they sentenced me to twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within.”
Alongside that, you have charismatic individuals with Old Testament prophet vibes who lead a bunch of desperate people (and anyone who can read a Keeling Curve and has the courage to understand its implications is desperate) into emotionally-charged and (in the moment) satisfying actions which lead to long court cases and not much else.
Somehow we need to create norms for these “social movement organisations” so that they avoid the boredom and demotivation of the former, and ALSO avoid the sugar-rush/sugar-crash of the latter.
In the former case the air leaks out like a punctured tire – people simply don’t come back for a second or third meeting. In the latter case they go up like a rocket and come tumbling down like a stick.
I think I have developed some (okay, quite a lot of) words to help explain that, and – more importantly – some techniques for how to avoid it. BUT it isn’t something that can be done in isolation. It requires a ‘critical mass’ of different groups all doing it at the same time, to kind of ‘create their own weather’.
I no longer believe it will happen, but if there are other people who want to know about it, then I’ll write about it.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, June 24th, Manchester does what Manchester does best – big promises of future environmental action.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the Rio Earth Summit had happened in 1992, and Manchester had stuck its hand up to do the follow-up.
The specific context was that there were all sorts of problems (funding, ‘vision’) and the whole thing was a damp nasty squib.
What I think we can learn is this: Manchester does cheap talk well.
What happened next: Waves of promise making, and ignorance about previous waves on the part of both activists and (some) councillors and officers. It’s all kayfabe, innit?
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
References
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).
Fifty seven years ago, on this day, June 24th, 1969 a Californian newspaper syndicates an article entitled “Air Pollution Hangs Like an Ominous Veil”
“Moreover, his dumping of carbon dioxide into the air (six billion tons a year) threatens to change the climate and may indeed already have changed it.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that from late 1965, with the release of the President’s Science Advisory Committee report on Restoring the Natural Environment, the question of carbon dioxide had been appearing alongside other, more immediate and prominent pollutants.
What I think we can learn is this: by 1969, you could rely on carbon dioxide to appear in any lengthy article about global pollution.
What happened next:
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
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).
The Prime Minister of France presented on June 23, during a meeting of the National Industry Council (CNI) at Le Bourget, the country’s strategy for Carbon Capture, Storage and Use (CCUS), opening a consultation with manufacturers until September 29, 2023 to gather feedback.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 421ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that there have been dreams of CCS as a saviour technology since the 1970s when Cesar Marchetti did some spitballing at a seminar organised by IIASA. And since then, CCS has come in peaks and waves troughs. We are in the middle of or near the end of another CCS wave. The resistance to it will grow. The sums of money are unbelievably large and the benefits unbelievably small. There was a time when this could have been a useful adjunct, but we may as well spend the money on well, I don’t know what to spend the money on, frankly.
The specific context was that Macron and the others need to continue to pretend that there are solutions to these problems.
What I think we can learn is this: that even when you’re fucked, you still have to keep pretending, or maybe especially when you’re fucked,
What happened next: I haven’t looked but doubtless huge sums of EU money are being thrown at CCS.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
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).
Seventeen years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 2009.
2009: Mountaintop Removal Mining Protest, Raleigh County, WV
A small, but vehement group staged a protest at the Goals Coal plant owned by Massey Energy against a type of mining called mountaintop removal. At least 30 demonstrators, including actress Darryl Hannah and James Hansen, then the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, were arrested for trespassing and other misdemeanor offenses like impeding traffic.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that in order to get at coal under mountains in the cheapest way, just remove the top of the mountain. Very clever.
The specific context was that James Hansen and others were helping to try to defeat these proposals. This was shortly into the beginning of the Obama administration, and Obama was pushing cap and trade ahead of the Copenhagen conference,
What I think we can learn is this: we have been trying to stop the rest of our species being insanely fucking stupid, and we have largely failed because stupidity and greed and fear and hate are easily accessed emotions. We are easily riled up apes.
What happened next: Don’t know. Google didn’t tell me. Presumably the bad guys won…
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
References
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).
Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997
American Petroleum Institute US newspaper advert in run up to Senate Vote, addressed to Clinton…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the American Petroleum Institute had been funding research into atmospheric pollution for a loooong time – see Rebecca John’s New Evidence Reveals Fossil Fuel Industry Sponsored Climate Science in 1954. And from 1965 onwards, the API knew, but then so did everyone, because Lyndon Johnson’s PSAC committee had released a report called “Restoring the Natural Environment”, and the API president had name-checked it in a speech in 1965.
The API had then been involved in a carbon dioxide task force in 1980 along with Texaco Chevron and Exxon. The API knew about the issue. And the API did what Texas Exxon did, which is resist action on climate change.The API will also have been involved, I’m sure, in the Global Climate Coalition.
The specific context was that the US had signed up to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, and had also agreed to the Berlin mandate in 1995 which said that the world’s industrialised nations would turn up at the third COP with concrete plans for reducing their own emissions.
That conference, the Kyoto conference, was due to be held in December of 1997 and a proper shit storm of propaganda and legislative blocking had been underway. I.e.he Byrd-Hagel resolution, which had passed 95 to zero, further efforts to fire warning shots across Clinton’s bows, and this, of course, was after Clinton had won his election against Bob Dole in 1996.Clinton had then given a speech at the Great Barrier Reef shortly after being re-elected.
What I think we can learn is this: is that the API has been a force for evil for a very long time, as you’d expect.
What happened next: Although the US turned up to Kyoto and made the right noises, in 2000 the Supreme Court handed the election to George W Bush; and Al Gore therefore did not become President. It would have been a little bit more interesting on climate if he had, possibly not that much more interesting though.
Anyhoos, the API kept doing what the API does. We as a species, kept burning fossil fuels, for warmth, for locomotion, for light, for you, name it, convenience.
And therefore the emissions continued to grow, and therefore the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow, and therefore the amount of heat from the sun trapped by that carbon dioxide continued to grow, and therefore the ice caps continued to melt, and the heat waves continued to become sharper, and all the other consequences that flow on from that.
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).
Fifty five years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1970
“Air pollution could tend to raise the Earth’s temperature and may make carbon dioxide, the most invisible product of combustion and respiration, the most important pollutant of them all.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the awareness that environmental problems were global rather than local had been growing for a decade or so (Rachel Carson etc) and had powered up in 1968 and 1969.
The specific context was that the Australian Senate had held hearings (and produced a report, released in September 1969) about Air Pollution. One was on the way on water pollution too. Books were being published, documentaries shown…
What I think we can learn is this: in this period, carbon dioxide was being mentioned as a potential problem…
What happened next: It would be 1988 before politicians were forced to pretend to be aware of/care about the issue. And forty years after that, there are still plenty who can’t be bothered to even pretend…
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).
For the first time since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Keating donned a green mantle yesterday at the launching of the Government’s waste-minimisation and recycling strategy.
Mr Keating made big claims for the strategy – an information campaign aimed at halving the amount of waste going to landfill by 2000.
Garran, R. 1992. Recycling drive brings out the green in Keating. Australian Financial Review, June 23.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that Australia’s political elites had had ample warnings about CO2 build up. In 1988 they asked for a ‘what can we do?’ report. In 1989 there were debates within the federal government, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke about what to do. The Environment Minister Graham Richardson had suggested that Australia adopt the so-called Toronto target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005. Richardson lost that fight, as he admitted at the time, because treasurer Paul Keating resisted vehemently. Keating also managed other successes in his fight against green issues. And in late 1991 he had succeeded in toppling a tired, worn out Bob Hawke and as leader of the Labor Party, and then Keating became Prime Minister. This spelt the end of the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process as anything approaching viable, Keating kicked it into committees where it was then killed off.
The specific context was that Keating also needed some way of pretending to give a shit about the environment, especially as he had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only OECD leader not to. He had sent his environment minister, Ros Kelly.
And so what is the most meaningless, ineffectual, but somehow has a warm glow, topic that even a fierce neoliberal like Keating can get behind? Why it’s recycling, motherhood, apple pie and emptiness. And so it came to pass.
What I think we can learn is this: if ever you see a politician, especially one noted for his or her hostility to environment action in a public relations bind, you will then see them standing smiling at a recycling centre with a hard hat and a high-vis in order to allay the concerns of people on their own side who yeah anyway…
Somebody could write something about recycling and CCS as forms of bargaining, self-soothing…
What happened next: Keating won the 1993 Federal election against all expectations. When a carbon tax proposal was in front of his cabinet, he was either neutral or hostile. Keating is still alive: it’s not too late to get him to the Hague.
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).
