Categories
United Kingdom

February 6, 1975  – The Quest for Gaia

Fifty one years ago, on this day, February 6, 1975, the UK magazine New Scientist published an article about, well The Quest for Gaia.

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972[1] and 1974,[2] followed by a popularizing 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. An article in the New Scientist of February 6, 1975,[39] and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia, began to attract scientific and critical attention.

Lovelock and Sidney Epton, “The Quest for Gaia,” New Scientist, 6 Feb. 1975, p. 304;

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Lovelock had been thinking about all this stuff for a while (see also his atmospheric pollution work for Shell in the 1960s!) here and here.

The specific context was that by the mid-1970s the idea that positivist science was good at some stuff and might also be missing bigger parts of the bigger picture had really caught on.

(see also Dr Who and the Green Death!)

What I think we can learn from this is that Lovelock’s hypothesis (disputed) has gained traction and attention, for reasons both sound and unsound.

What happened next:  The Gaia hypothesis got a signal boost during the excellent thriller “Edge of Darkness” in the mid-1980s.
Lovelock lived to a very ripe old age, and warned about anthropogenic climate change repeatedly.

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: 

February 6, 1969 – Senate Select Committee warned about CO2 build up by Professor Harry Bloom

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

February 6, 2007 – Rudd taunts Howard on 2003 ETS decision
Categories
Brief Rants Economics of mitigation

The models will kill us all – #BriefRants

I’m gonna start doing semi-regular rants, drawing on (okay, pointing you towards) stuff that I’ve already written here (4 years) and elsewhere. Some may end up as academic article submissions, or chapters in one of the books I am writing. First up: climate models, economic models and features not bugs.

So folks at Carbon Tracker Initiave and University of Exeter have put out a report

Recalibrating Climate Risk – Carbon Tracker Initiative

You can read about it on the Grauniad under the heading Flawed economic models mean climate crisis could crash global economy, experts warn | Green economy | The Guardian

I am old enough to remember all the talk in 2013 about “unburnable carbon” and “stranded assets”

I am even old enough to remember – 20 years ago now – the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

Okay. In no particular order.

  1. Deep breath: We. Have. Known – if we wanted to – . For. A. Long. Time. That. “Our”. Economic. “Models”. Are. Shit.

Here’s one of my favourite quotes about this, from a 1980 book called Friendly Fascism

“If we just enlarge the pie, everyone will get more”. This has been the imagery of Capitalist growthmanship since the end of World War II- and I once did my share in propagating it. But the growth of the pie did not change the way the slices were distributed except to enlarge the absolute gap between the lion’s share and the ant’s. And whether the pie grows, or stops growing, or shrinks, there are always people who suffer from the behaviour of the cooks, the effluents from the oven, the junkiness of the pie, and the fact that they needed something more nutritious than pie anyway.”

2. The “economics of climate change” dates back further than a lot of people understand. In the mid-1970s the then newly-minted International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis hosted seminars and study programmes on energy and also climate. I’ve blogged about these guys a lot.

One of the people they got do to some work, in 1975, was William Nordhaus. Nordhaus is an idiot, but one who has fancy graphs and is telling the rich what they want to hear, so of course he has won a “Nobel Prize” (the fake one, set up by the bank). This take-down is worth your time.

3. The economic models have been designed and used to spread bullshit about the costs of switching from fossil fuels. That’s not to say there are not HUGE economic, social, political, cultural, psychological etc costs involved in getting off fossil fuels – of course there are. But the models have been literally funded by the usual suspects to help keep the usual suspects rich. Check out the ABARE saga as one example of this use of absurd modelling to create “facts” around costs and so decrease pressure on the meat-puppet politicians (and shout out to Royce Kurmelovs for his recent archive dive and forthcoming article).

4. The economic models are lapped up and given credence by people (mostly denialist old men) who complain bitterly about the purported inaccuracy of climate models (the climate models are pretty good, though sometimes underestimate the speed and scale of physical changes.)

5. None of this will change until or unless civil society (which is broader than social movements) gets up on its hind legs and stays there, demanding actual change. That won’t happen, and even if it did, we have some already existential (and escalating) consequences about to slap us around the face and kick us in the nads, thanks to near forty years of political and social movement inadequacy.

6. That’s it. That’s the rant.

Things to read

Fressoz, J.P. 2025 In tech we trust: A history of technophilia in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate mitigation expertise – ERSS.

Keen, S. (2021). The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change. Globalizations18(7), 1149–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856

Pindick, R. 2015. The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy | NBER

Schrickel, I. (2017)  Control versus complexity: approaches to the carbon dioxide problem at IIASA

Wynne, B. (1984) The Institutional Context of Science, Models, and Policy: The IIASA Energy Study. Policy Sciences

Categories
Science United Kingdom

February 5,  1980 – the Met Office beavers away…

Forty six  years ago, on this day, February 5 1980 the UK Met Office was beavering away at the carbon dioxide problem.

Met Office meeting abt C02 BJ dash 336 dash 2 (138).JPG        5/2/1980        PR Rowntree        Summary of conclusions reached during discussion of CO2 experiments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Met Office had been aware of the idea of carbon dioxide build-up as a long-term warming influence since 1953 at the absolute latest (and in fact, all the way back to Arrhenius in 1895).

The specific context was that American scientists and politicians had been warming (see what I did there?) to the issue for a while.  The Met Office had, very reluctantly (thanks to its boss, John Mason) started scientific work in 1976, putting one of their brightest young research scientists on the case, with others.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known about this problem for a very very long time.

What happened next:  Once Mason retired and was replaced by John Houghton, in 1983, the Met Office began to play a stronger and more useful role in investigating climate change, alongside the UEA Climatic Research Unit.

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: 

 February 5, 1986 – Thomas Sankara Imperialism is the arsonist of our forests and savannas  – All Our Yesterdays

February 5, 1992 – Liberal leader Hewson snubs the Australian  Conservation Foundation

February 5, 1993 – Space Based Energy experiment takes place

February 5, 2007 – Australian Prime Minister trolled by senior journalist

Categories
On This Day

On this Day – February 4

Sixty three years ago, questions around appropriate and possible technologies were on the agenda. Ritchie Calder, about to really get his head around the carbon dioxide problem, was present.

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

Forty six years ago, alongside American efforts, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis was holding another climate meeting (something they’d been doing since about 1976).

February 4, 1980 – IIASA taskforce on Climate and Society

Thirty three years ago, coal exporters and their allies/minions were making sure all this stupid “greenhouse” nonsense wouldn’t get between them and their profits…

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Twenty eight years ago today, a bent state department, ABARE, got a mild rebuke for its dodgy economic modelling that was being used as an excuse not to take climate action. 

February 4, 1998 – Ombudsman on ABARE and its dodgy af #climate modelling – All Our Yesterdays

Twelve years ago the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the Trades Union Council release a report on how wonderful CCS will be for the UK economy.

February 4, 2014 – CCSA and TUC release Economic Benefits of CCS report

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
United Kingdom

Suppressed reports: the government IS lying about climate change , but not in the way the denialists think – it’s far worse

The tl;dr “Governments are indeed lying to you about climate change – but not in the way the deniers claim. The situation is not better than we are told. It’s actually far worse.”

That’s a line that didn’t quite survive in my latest Conversation piece, which you can read here.

A UK climate security report backed by the intelligence services was quietly buried – a pattern we’ve seen many times before

Meanwhile, here’s a scrape of the Bluesky thread I did alongside it.

First,

@thierryaaron.bsky.social had a very good thread on two easy bad misreadings of this.

You may’ve seen coverage of a new report on the threat to national security from environmental collapse.A common response that’s got my goat is: “Look, it’s not just tree-hugging enviros saying this, it’s hard-nosed spooks!”A short thread on why this framing is bad history & bad politics🧵😡😉

Dr. Aaron Thierry (@thierryaaron.bsky.social) 2026-01-24T04:42:37.737Z

Next, I’d add the point that there is a (largely unjustified) mystique around military assessments. They can be wrong, not just for budget-grubbing (threat inflation) reasons, but because they’re written to grab attention. See this from 2004.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Then, well, what is to my mind a key point got axed from my Conversation piece. The 1st British PM to be formally briefed abt climate change was… drumroll… Margaret Thatcher, in mid-1979. She responded with an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”

https://archive.org/details/margaretthatcher0000camp_o3c1/mode/2up?q=%22worry+about+the+weather%22

Ultimately though, all the warnings, with all the graphs and precision and passion and the rest of it don’t amount to a hill of beans in this cooking world unless there are broad-based, non-co-optable, non-exhaustible and – frankly – radical social movement organisations that can help people deal the feelings of anger and despair any rational human who can read a Keeling Curve and understand its implications feels. Without those social movement organisations, you get spasms, disavowal & acting out. But action? Not so much.

Further reading on this (and please add more!)

Chambers, R. 2026. The national security assessment on ecosystem collapse is a government wake-up call – Inside track

Hudson, M. 2023. Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life

Monbiot, G. 2026 The UK government didn’t want you to see this report on ecosystem collapse. I’m not surprised | George Monbiot | The Guardian

NEF National Emergency Briefing.

Read, R. 2026. Why did government try to hide climate report? Eastern Daily Press, February 3

Categories
Australia Denial

February 3, 2010 – Tony Abbott and the lunatic fringe

Sixteen years ago, on this day, February 3 2010 newly-minted Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was being his true self.

Tony Abbott’s decision to meet Lord Monckton was contemptible — but smart politics. Abbott is just doing what he has been hired to do: dog-whistle to the extreme right of the party.

Tony Abbott met with conspiracy theorist Chris Monckton yesterday at lunchtime, but Abbott wouldn’t allow photographers to record the meeting or publicly comment on what was discussed.

Keane, B. 2010. Abbott to the lunatic fringe: it’s OK, I’m one of you. Crikey, 4 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1990 the Liberal and National party had been terrible on climate change (they had gone to the March Federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP, and felt betrayed by the greenies).

The specific context was that Abbott, a manifestly unfit and overpromoted idiot, had become Liberal Leader the previous November, toppling Malcolm Turnbull.

What I think we can learn from this is that Abbott and his goons were brilliant at opposition. Running anything? That’s a different skillset.

What happened next:  Oh, the soap opera. Abbott became Prime Minister in 2013. He was toppled two years later, by Turnbull, who was then in turn toppled by… I can’t type this.
Meanwhile, the coal exports continued, the impacts grew.  Australia is now on the frontline of the Fafocene.

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: 

February 3, 1994 – Greenhouse burden “unfair” on Australia

Feb 3, 2009 –  Physical encirclement of parliament easier than ideological or political. #auspol

February 3, 2015 – UK tries to puzzle out industrial decarbonisation

Categories
On This Day

On this day – February 2,  Groundhog Day….

So, trapped in a loop, knowing it and unable to change things? Nah, Groundhog Day the movie does not speak to climate activism at all…

 February 2nd is Groundhog Day!

Meanwhile, that wonderful decent human being Laurence Summers is writing the memo about dumping pollution on worthless people.

Feb 2, 1992- that “sarcastic” memo about exporting pollution…

Thirty years ago today the pitiful Fred Singer was spraying his denialist nonsense and personal attacks.

February 2, 1996 – denialist sprays #climate science with his bullshit

16 years ago the Australian psychodrama around the simple act of putting a price on carbon dioxide was in full flow (see tomorrow’s post). 

February 2, 2010 – Abbott on Direct Action, CPRS for 3rd failure… – All Our Yesterdays

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
On This Day

On this day  February 1,  

A busy day in climate history

Forty eight years ago, American audiences on PBS were treated to discussion about possible causes of climate change

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Thirty six years ago the piss-weak daily business paper “The Fin” reprints a piece from the Financial Times about the crazy radical idea of, erm, putting a price on carbon dioxide.

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Twenty one years ago scientists gather in Exeter to discuss “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change.”  Er, we didn’t, it’s here and it’s going to get so much worse. Oh well.

February 1, 2005 – “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” conference begins – All Our Yesterdays

Rich people aren’t always stupid. On this day 19 years ago, an investor explains the consequences of a stupid American president.

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

Interview with documentary film maker, Russell Porter

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
United States of America

January 31, 1963 – Malthus and technology, via Roger Revelle

Sixty three years ago, on this day, January 31st, 1963

At a meeting of the Federal Council on Science and Technology in 1963, Revelle, then the science advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and the chairman of the PSAC’s Committee on Natural Resources, observed “a shift from earlier ‘Malthus’ attitudes of apprehension over scarcity … to an optimism that science could help meet resources needs, but with a new concern on man’s contribution to pollution of his own environment.”195

 Revelle’s words are quoted in: Edward Wenk, Executive Secretary, Federal Council for Science and Technology, “Minutes and Record of Action,” 31 Jan 1963, I. I. Rabi Papers, LOC, Box 45, “Meetings, agenda and minutes, 1957-1972 (1),” 4.  Loetscher 2022

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was as that after World War Two, and especially from the 1950s with coming in military Keynesianism, there was an enormous explosion of economic innovation, activity growth, partly to do with pent up consumer demand from the war, growing populations, but also all the new technologies of production that had been invented during or refined during World War Two; radar, sonar, jet engines, computing, the list goes on and on. This has become known as the “Great Acceleration.”

The specific context 

So the early 60s is an interesting period, because people like Revelle are well aware of carbon dioxide build up and probably some other long-term issues, and they’re thinking about a switch over from scarcity thinking ie Malthus to cornucopia, but not a cornucopia without consequences.

What I think we can learn is that thoughtful people like Revelle were “on it”. 

What happened next. Climate change, oddly, continued  Revelle kept being relatively into climate issues

Then in his literally dying days in the early 1990s he was scammed by a failed scientist called Fred Singer, who put out a bullshit article under both their names. 

You also had Murray Bookchin tackling similar issues to Revelle here in his post scarcity anarchism essay. And, of course, Bookchin was aware of CO2 build up, as per his “Crisis in our Cities” book, published in April 1965. 

The other thing to think about is the tensions between impact science and production science.

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: January 30th – Cooling world? (1961), flogging coal (1989) “no regrets” (1989)

January 30, 1961, in a story that would later be used by incoherent denialists, Walter Sullivan, New York Times science reporter, reported that the world was… cooling,

January 30, 1961 – New York Times reports world is cooling

On the morning of Monday 30 January 1989, the ABC 7.45am news reported the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, had begun an overseas trip to Korea, Thailand, India and Pakistan, with the primary aim of promoting Australian exports, particularly coal, iron ore and agricultural products.

January 30, 1989 – “Hawkie” flies off to flog coal

On this day, January 30, in 1989, James Baker, Secretary of State for the new George HW Bush administration gives a speech propounding so-called “no regrets” actions on climate change

January 30, 1989 – Je ne fais rein pour regretter… #climate jargon

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.