Fifty four years ago, on this day, May 14th, 1972, American journalist John Crosby was making fun of ecology. Smart fella.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Crosby had been a big deal in the US, before moving to the UK in the 60s. He’d fronted one of those ‘harrumph, the green freaks are wrong’ documentaries, that I should write about some day.
The specific context was that the Limits to Growth report had come out, the Stockholm Conference was coming up, and harrumphing was what Sensible People were doing. It is always “punch a hippy” day, isn’t it?
What I think we can learn from this. To hell with these assholes.
What happened next. The harrumphing continued. The old white men could never admit they were wrong – their world would implode. As to the actual world burning, well, what of it?
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.
Melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely unstoppable, two new papers published Monday indicate. That means the sea level rise projects by 2100 will need to be revised, closer to 3 feet of sea level rise.
2014 WAIS collapse unstoppable? The Collapse Of The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is ‘Unstoppable’ http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-results-2014-5#ixzz3GhJp14z6
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that concerns about the stability of the West Antarctic glass sheet dated back to 1973 possibly earlier. Before that there had been sort of speculation, “what if the Antarctic melts?” About the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, you have, I think, Hughes in ‘73 and then the famous paper by John Mercer in Nature in January of 1978.
What I think we can learn from this. it’s a slow motion suicide in geological terms. We might call ourselves Homo sapiens, but that’s about as reliable as the words “new and improved” on some washing detergent.
What happened next. Well, here comes the 21st Century, warmest day ever in the Antarctic and the ice sheet melt is just baked in now, and we’re going to see surges in sea level rise that are going to be, frankly, highly entertaining.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The IPCC has published the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). On Monday, the summary for policymakers of the SRREN has been approved by government representatives for IPCC member countries at the 11th Session of Working Group III co-chaired by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
2011 IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources May 12th, 2011
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was renewable energy as a substitute for fossil fuels. Because of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions had been spoken of for many years. There had been various mostly inadequate, all of them mostly inadequate, some of them entirely inadequate schemes to promote renewables.
Meanwhile, in 1990 the IPCC had delivered its First Assessment Report. Since then, it had delivered various other reports on mitigation technologies, etc, etc.
The specific context was that it was very clear that the global response to climate was going to be net zero. The Copenhagen deal accord, which was supposed to replace Kyoto, had been useless, and so if you were bothering to read in 2011 a report about the importance of renewable energy, well, good luck to you.
And of course, these reports don’t/can’t really anticipate non linear-growth and when renewables are going to kick in. So you have the over-supply of solar PV by Chinese factories. You have the enormous growth in offshore wind, and official reports about how long energy demand will continue to grow and how slow the uptake of renewables will be are always it seems overtaken by events.
What I think we can learn from this. We are a dumb species, for all our technology.
What happened next. Renewables finally kicked in in the 2020s. If you get a magnifying glass you might even see the impact on the Keeling Curve, the only measure that matters.
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 11th, 2001, the Bush administration does what assholes always do…
“In a letter of 11 May 2001 The White House asked the US NAS for assistance in identifying the areas in the science on climate change where there are greatest certainties and uncertainties. The NAS was also asked for its views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the IPCC summaries. An answer to the request was expected in early June, i.e., within less than a month. The NAS quickly appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irving, CA, and a well-known researcher in atmospheric chemistry (and president of the NAS since 2005). Its report was ready in June…”
(Bolin, 2007) Page 179
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been offering detailed warnings about carbon dioxide build up as a threat that must be responded to immediately since, well, really, let’s say 1979 the Charney report. And politicians had been nodding and then doing nothing.
The specific context was that George W. Bush, the son of HW, had on the campaign trail in 2000 said that CO2 would need to be regulated. In March of 2001, shortly after his inauguration, and after the Supreme Court had handed him the 2000 presidential election. Bush had pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.
So Bush needed to do – or to be seen to do – something on climate change. And here he reverted to the classic tactic of calling “for further research” as a delaying tactic. So it’s not denial which will rile liberals, but it is that sort of soft “ah, we need further research. (We are responsible. We’re not rushing into anything, even though the time for that action has long passed.) It is still, if not catnip, then acceptable as a talking point for lots of centrist pundits who can then talk about sober statesmanship and who should be on the panel and what its terms of reference should be, and all the rest of it. Meanwhile, the planet burns.
What I think we can learn from this. The old tactics keep working. Because civil society never learns, never pushes.
What happened next. The National Academies of Science came back with the same report that they’d been coming back with since 1989 when Bush’s dad had been a new president. And they had said, it’s real and we really ought to do something about it, and nothing was done.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 10th, George Bush says he will hold a conference.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was thatAmerican politicians had been warned about the climate threat since the late 70s. Under Reagan/Bush between 1981 and 1989 these threats had been largely ignored until it was no longer politically feasible to do so on.
The specific context was that in August 1988 on the campaign trail, George H.W. Bush,feeling vulnerable on environmental issues, because his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, had a record to stand on, proclaimed that he would call an international conference on climate change in his first year in office.
The other specific context is that – he – Bush had been caught trying to suppress the scientific and alter the scientific assessment of a NASA scientist, James Hansen, and so was needing to do some reputational repair.
What I think we can learn from this is that when leadership was needed, we got Bush instead.
What happened next. The conference was finally held in 1990 and somebody somehow “forgot” in inverted commas, to invite the head of the IPCC, Bert Bolin.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989, Crispin Tickell tried to move things along.
Boston Globe, May 10 1989.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Tickell was a career diplomat. In 1975 he had done a sabbatical at Harvard University and wrote his thesis on Climatic Change and International Affairs. He could see what carbon dioxide build-up would do to geopolitics. He tried repeatedly to get Margaret Thatcher to be concerned about the question. Eventually, in 1988 he succeeded.
The specific context was that in the second half of 1988 the problem had become an issue. Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Society in late September 1988 that was, in effect, the starting gun for international diplomacy. The administration of George H.W. Bush, however, was dragging its heels.
What I think we can learn from this. There was a chance to fix this – or if not actually fix it, then manage it. To buy us extra time. Instead we went lead head and lead foot off the cliff. Oh well.
What happened next. The US threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries was in the text of the Climate Treaty. This threat worked, the targets and timetables weren’t in, and we have spent the last 34 years trying to get them in.
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.
recent climate updates published by Australian scientists
a way forward out of our Climate and Nature Emergency through a rapid energy descent, simpler lifestyles and restored relationships with our planet and each other
opportunity for a group discussion
When: Wednesday 20 May, 2026
Where: St. Mary’s Hall, Glenelg Catholic Parish, High St, Glenelg
“All three networks on May 8, 1989 did greenhouse effect stories based on Senate sub-committee hearings in which NASA scientist James Hansen told Senator Al Gore that he had been ordered by the Bush administration to change the conclusions in written testimony regarding the seriousness of global warming.”
Sachsman 2000:5)
And
“More specifically, on 8 May 1989, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed that it had altered the Congressional testimony of NASA’s James Hansen, thereby weakening his conclusion that enough was known about the phenomenon to justify immediate action. The Whitehouse defended this action by claiming that it wanted to avoid the appearance of policy disagreements within the Administration. The political fallout from this episode was considerable, not only within the United States but also internationally.”
Rowlands (1995) Page 76
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been warning politicians and had mostly been simply ignored. But from 1988 onwards, ignoring came with costs.
The specific context was that James Hansen had given testimony to a Senate Committee on 23rd of June, 1988 and this, as much as anything else, had set the ball rolling. Happy dogs. But new president, George H.W. Bush was opposed to an environmental agenda. I think it’s fair to say, despite his promises on the campaign trail. And here we see evidence of Hansen’s testimony being altered and sidelined, and this being exposed by Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore.
What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re a politician, you can ignore people, but actually actively changing their words… well, someone is going to leak it, and you’re going to get in hot water.
What happened next. Hansen decided just to go back to doing his science, understandably, but he changed his mind in 2005 and has since then been an incredibly effective, active scientist and advocate for action. Bush continued, and scuppered the chance of any strong response to the climate threat by threatening to boycott the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries were in the treaty on climate that was up for signature. This worked. Targets and timetables for rich countries were taken out of the text. And here we are.
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.
But it was rather by luck than design that FoE’s first action, the return of bottles to Cadbury-Schweppes’ offices on Saturday 8 May 1971, achieved phenomenal publicity and launched FoE onto the public’s attention. As Weston remarked “The bottle dump event was really a media coup for FOE. That style of political activity had not been seen in Britain before and was, until then more associated with the American system of pressure group politics” (Weston 1989: 35).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that concern about pollution, resources running out, overpopulation, etc, were all growing steadily in the late 1960s helped by the Torrey Canyon oil tanker disaster, and then the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Earthrise photo, etc, various pollution incidents.
The specific context was that in the UK, the main environment group at that time was the Conservation Society, but it was small-c conservative, and didn’t want to do eye-catching stunts. Therefore there was an ecological niche for other actors. And here we see Friends of the Earth doing a brilliant publicity stunt, leaving lots of empty bottles that would otherwise go to landfill en masse outside Downing Street. Very visual, very obvious.
What I think we can learn from this is there is a time when these sorts of stunts will work. You have to look at what’s happening within the broader social system.
What happened next. These stunts have diminishing returns. “Hippies protest,” @man bites dog”, but as late as 2006 loads of coal were being dumped outside Downing Street by Greenpeace.
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, May 8th, another ignored warning,
Canberra – Pressure mounted on the Australian government on Tuesday to resume international climate change talks after a report by a government agency foreshadowed a dramatic surge in temperatures in the next 70 years.
Australia’s key government research organisation, the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), predicted a drier and hotter Australia, with average temperatures rising by up to six percent by 2070.
“Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases are the culprit,” head of CSIRO’s atmospheric research group Peter Whetton said in a statement.
Cox, G. 2001. Overheating Australia needs ‘wake-up call’. IOL 8 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists have been warning about carbon dioxide build up for a very long time. There had been warnings and warnings and warnings. There had been the Brian Tucker monograph 1981. In the same year, there had been the secret Office of National Assessments report on fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect. From 1986 the Australian Environment Council, and onward and onward, but none of it had landed.
The specific context was that the Millennium drought is ongoing, and the IPCC Third Assessment Report has come out but none of it is going to really shift the dial, because little Johnnie Howard is a scumbag.
What I think we can learn from this is that we as a species, struggle with the long-term, we struggle with collective cognition, shall we say? And it was more comfortable simply to ignore the truth, especially if everyone else was doing it.
What happened next. More warnings, more please. Reminds me of this cartoon by the late great John Kudelka – “Is this thing on?” Oh, my Lord.
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.
