Categories
Vatican City

May 24, 2015 – Is the Pope an environmentalist? Why yes, yes he is.

Ten years ago today, May 24th 2015, the Pope weighs in to the climate debate

Laudato si’ (24 May 2015) | Francis

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 401ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Jorge Mario Bergoglio had been Pope since March 2013. The Paris COP, the latest “last chance to save the world” conference was coming up in November.  

What I think we can learn from this is that everyone knew, was warned. And here we are.

What happened next. The Pope kept banging on about it, right up to his end. The new Pope will probably do the same. There is, however, such a thing as “too late.”

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: 

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate” – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Science Sweden Uncategorized

May 24, 1954 – Swedes study the climate…

Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1954,

24 to 26 May 1954 – Eriksson, “Report on an informal conference in atmospheric chemistry held at the Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, May 24-26, 1954,” Tellus, 6 (1954)  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the question of carbon dioxide build-up had returned to prominence with the 1953 presentation by Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting.  The Swedes had a lot of expertise in this field, and prestige (Carl Rossby etc). 

What I think we can learn from this is that from the early 1950s good scientists were looking at this and going “hmm.”

What happened next.  According to Weart (1997) they set up carbon dioxide monitoring stations and just got noise because there were too many forests nearby.

Rossby died too young. The baton was picked up by Bert Bolin and others.  For all the good it did us, at a species-level.

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: 

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate” – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Academia

The Fafocene

The Fafocene. You may not know it, but you are living in it.  

[Update – see also “Affect and the Fafocene: kayfabe, hypernormalisation and Leonard Cohen”.]

The last 12 thousand or so years, since the end of the last ice age, have been not too cold, not too warm, and we ended up with agriculture, industry and all the nice things. This period has been dubbed the Holocene.

(Check out interview with David Pope here)

More recently, various types of scientists have pointed out that our agriculture, industry and all the nice things have gotten so big that human activity has started to actually shape (and shake)  the entire planet – which is pretty wild, when you think about it. This period has been dubbed the Anthropocene.

The term is controversial, because peoples on the pointy end of the agriculture, industry etc are keen to point out that the responsibility for the damage done in/by the Anthropocene is #NotAllHumans, and they propose alternatives like Capitalocene, Plantationocene and Chthulucene (I am not making this up). As the Australian band the Hoodoo Gurus used to sing “What’s my cene?

Well, recently (April 2025, it seems) somebody came up with Fafocene, which I think mostly closes down the debate.

More specifically, this

FAFO, for those of you who have been living on Mars (don’t tell Elon, it will spoil his whole day), stands for Fuck Around and Find Out – meaning first there are actions, and then there are consequences  (Check out Jim Croce’s song Leroy Brown).

So you get diagrams like this

Now, of course, climate change is represented by the Keeling Curve 

Also, check out my tattoo!

or rather, the carbon dioxide build-up part is represented by the Keeling Curve. Methane is another story.   And more broadly, the Anthropocene is (much) more than “merely” boiling ourselves alive – check out all those graphs in The Great Acceleration.

But for now, Fafocene does the job (although we should always remember that other animals we ‘share’ this planet with have been living (and then not living) in the Fafocene for a long time, and that it is indeed #NotAllHumans….

Update May 25 2025 – have just been alerted to this fantastic article, which went up on Thursday 22nd…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 23, 2006 – David Attenborough finally comes out on climate

Nineteen years ago, on this day, May 23rd, 2006  David Attenborough was interviewed on Ten O’Clock news about his acceptance of climate science, ahead of the showing of a two part documentary.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? are two programmes that form a documentary about global warming, presented by David Attenborough. They were first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 24 May and 1 June 2006 respectively.

Part of a themed season by the BBC entitled “Climate Chaos”, the programmes were produced in conjunction with the Discovery Channel and the Open University.

Are We Changing Planet Earth? – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Attenborough had maintained a studied silence on the question of carbon dioxide build-up.  This had been spotted by the likes of George Monbiot – 

Since 1985, when I worked in the department that has made most of his programmes, I have pressed the BBC to reveal environmental realities, often with dismal results. In 1995 I spent several months with a producer, developing a novel and imaginative proposal for an environmental series. The producer returned from his meeting with the channel controller in a state of shock. “He just looked at the title and asked ‘Is this environment?’ I said yes. He said, ‘I’ve spent two years trying to get environment off this fucking channel. Why the fuck are you bringing me environment?’”

I later discovered that this response was typical. The controllers weren’t indifferent. They were actively hostile. If you ask me whether the BBC or ExxonMobil has done more to frustrate environmental action in this country, I would say the BBC. 

We all knew that only one person had the power to break this dam. For decades David Attenborough, a former channel controller widely seen as the living embodiment of the BBC, has been able to make any programme he wants. So where, we kept asking, was he? At last, in 2000, he presented an environmental series: State of the Planet.

It was an interesting and watchable series, but it left us with nowhere to go and nothing to do. Only in the last few seconds of the final episode was there a hint that structural forces might be at play: “Real success can only come if there’s a change in our societies, in our economics and in our politics.” But what change? What economics? What politics? He had given us no clues.

David Attenborough has betrayed the living world he loves | George Monbiot | The Guardian

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been so poorly served by the mass media. But then, the mass media is not there to raise the awareness of the masses, now, is it?

What happened next

In 2017 I killed off David Attenborough in this article.

As of May 2025 Attenborough, at 99, is still going.

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.

References

Hudson, M. 2017. 2019: How we blew it again. Peace News, 

Monbiot, G. 2016. Rare Specimen – George Monbiot

Also on this day: 

May 23, 1977 – President Carter announces Global 2000 report… or “Let’s all meet up in the Global2000”

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

May 23, 2000 – Deputy Prime Minister versus Greenhouse Trigger – All Our Yesterdays

May 23, 2012 – wicked problems and super-wicked problems all around…

Categories
Australia

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger…

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 2000,

Industry started a strong campaign against the Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill’s, proposed greenhouse trigger yesterday. This follows a fiery Cabinet discussion on Tuesday [23rd] over new greenhouse measures proposed by the Senator.

The Federal Cabinet is understood to have reached a clear understanding on Tuesday that no extra greenhouse requirements should be imposed on the proposed $1billion Kogan Creek power station in Queensland.

It rejected a memo from Senator Hill that the project be forced to invest in greenhouse-abatement projects to offset its own emissions. However, a spokesman for the Environment Minister said the Cabinet had not made a final decision.

2000 Taylor, L. 2000. Industry adds its weight to oppose greenhouse move. Australian Financial Review, 25 May 25, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the lead up to the Kyoto COP in late 1997 Prime Minister John Howard had been forced to make some public promises about climate action.  He’d then done everything he could to drag his heels/slow things down.  But the pressure was still there, and there was another election coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that Australian politicians have been trying to do as little as they can get away with for a very long time.

What happened next. The greenhouse trigger was defeated – god forbid that Ministers would have to take a credibility hit to wave through dodgy projects every time a dodgy project came along… Soon, they’d have no credibility left…

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Australia

May 22, 1989 – Greenhouse plebiscite mooted

On this day 36 years ago, it was reported that the Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson said there might need to be a referendum….

The Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, has floated the idea of holding a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues such as the greenhouse effect.

He raised the idea at an environmental conference at the weekend.

Dunn, R. 1989. Plebiscite mooted. Australian Financial Review, May 22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in early 1989 everyone was running around talking about climate change. The denialists hadn’t got their act together properly yet (that would come) and neither had business (which traditionally waits anyway, to see if these things burn themselves out).

What I think we can learn from this is that it was obvious to people then that there would be opposition from state governments and that log-jams would be the norm.

What happened next. There was no referendum (and probably a good thing, because they usually fail in Australia). And there was opposition from state governments and that log-jams were the norm.

xxx

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: 

May 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
Podcasts

Podcasts/interview/book alert – Sarah Schulman on AIDS, activism, the fantasy and necessity of solidarity etc

If you are looking for earned activist wisdom, about what solidarity is, what tenacity and courage are, then I have good news; Sarah Schulman.

Here’s an interview about her new book

Here’s the details of her new book, the Fantasy and Necessity of Solidarity.

Here’s an interview with the New York Times podcast, where she points out that solidarity is about the infrastructure of dissent/resistance in the future, not solving the problem in the here and now.

Here’s a 2022 interview with Novara Media about a host of things, including her 2012 book “Gentrification of the Mind.”

I have downloaded a bunch more podcasts and will add them to this list once I have listened.

As per the Wikipedia entry, Schulman has written a lot of novels etc, and I also need to look at those and her ACTUP oral history project.

Update 22 May 2025

Here’s an interview with the folks at How to Survive the End of the World

And with the Los Angeles Review of Books

(you probably only need to listen to one of these two – lots of overlap, understandably).

Here is an insightful and critical review of the book, also at the LARB by Joshua Gutterman Tranen.

And here is a blistering blog post from someone who is, ah, not a fan of Schulman’s (writing) style, while agreeing with the basic premises of “Conflict is not abuse” – or at least the steelman version of it.

https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/conflict-is-not-abuse-review-wow

Categories
Religion Vatican City

May 21, 2024 – the Pope warns again

One year ago, on this day, May 21st, 2024, Pope Francis (RIP) says that climate change is the  road to death.

“The destruction of the environment is an offense against God, a sin that is not only personal but also structural, one that greatly endangers all human beings, especially the most vulnerable in our midst, and threatens to unleash a conflict between generations” (Address to COP28, Dubai, 2 December 2023). This is the question: Are we working for a culture of life or for a culture of death? You have answered that we must heed the cry of the earth, hear the plea of the poor, and be attentive to the aspirations of the young and the dreams of children! We have a grave responsibility to ensure that their future is not denied them.…

The 46 less developed countries – mostly African – represent only 1% of global CO2 emissions, whereas the nations of the G20 are responsible for 80% of those emissions. The refusal to act quickly to protect the most vulnerable who are exposed to climate change caused by human activity is a serious offence and a grave violation of human rights….

In light of this planetary crisis, I add my voice to your heartfelt appeal.

First, there is a need to adopt a universal approach and a rapid and resolute activity capable of effecting changes and political decisions.

Second, there is a need to invert the global warming curve by efforts to decrease by a half the rate of warming within the brief span of a quarter-century. Likewise, there is a need to aim for global de-carbonization and the elimination of dependence on fossil fuels.

Third, the great quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be eliminated through an environmental management programme that will span several generations.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 427ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Pope Francis had been banging on about the issue for a while (see, for example, is 2015 Laudato Si).

Laudato si’ (24 May 2015) | Francis

What I think we can learn from this. None of this matters. Every significant spiritual, cultural or “intellectual” leader has spoken. None of it has made any difference and you’re terminally naive if you expected it would. The “wake up, sheeple” model is wrong, has been proven to be so again and again. So it goes.

What happened next.  Pope Francis died in April 2025. The new Pope, Leo XIV, is on the same page, fwiw. 

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: 

May 21, 1971 – Marvin Gaye asks “What’s Going On?”

May 21, 1990 – “The Big Heat” documentary – All Our Yesterdays

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”

Categories
Podcasts

Podcast Review: Tipping Point on The Limits to Growth. LISTEN NOW FOR THE LOVE OF GAIA

Podcasts come in all shapes and sizes. Short, pointed and single-header stuff (take a bow Alex Steffen). Looooong, not quite as insightful as it thinks it is, single-or-multi-header (you know who you are – as in, if you think this is about your podcast, it probably is).

Rarely do you come across a podcast that hits the trifecta

a) about a really important topic

b) not a second shorter or longer than it needs to be

c) super use of archival audio.

The Tipping Point series, a three-parter on the origins, reception and after life of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth report is all of those and more. LISTEN TO IT NOW FOR THE LOVE OF GAIA.

It is what popular education should be, but so often isn’t.

Would I have put a bit more in there at the beginning about previous efforts to raise environmental alarm? Yes, but thank goodness I was not running the podcast, because it would have dragged the whole thing down. There could be a different podcast about that, the “before the Limits to Growth” – from, say, Malthus, through Vogt and Osborn to Carson and on to Ehrlich. That I would listen to. For now, though…


LISTEN TO IT NOW FOR THE LOVE OF GAIA.

Categories
United States of America

May 20, 1970 – NUC Symposium on Environmental Preservation

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 20th, 1970, the Navy Undersea Research and Development Centre (NUC) held a symposium…

“If the greenhouse effect manifests itself as a result of continued burning of fossil fuels, there is little doubt that it would be catastrophic.”

NUC Symposium on Environmental Preservation, 20-21 May, 1970 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822031466642&view=1up&seq=7&skin=2021&q1=greenhouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the carbon dioxide build-up issue had been steadily growing, especially since the 1965 message to Congress by Lyndon Johnson and the report at the end of the same year by the PSAC.

What I think we can learn from this is that by 1970, carbon dioxide as an issue to keep a serious eye on was becoming embedded in scientific circles. What a species we are.

What happened next.  By the late 1970s the significant uncertainties were gone. But the elite politicians did not act. In 1988 the issue broke through.

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: 

May 20, 1959 Times of India letter about Teller and CO2 – All Our Yesterdays

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang

May 20, 1976 – UK World Trends committee chair worries about the weather… – All Our Yesterdays

May 20, 1977 – Australian Prime Minister says “coal, not solar” is the future

May 20, 1990 – “Ironing out the Greenhouse Effect”

May 20, 2010 – climategate keeps delivering for denialist