Costs and benefits of carbon dioxide. Nature 279, 1 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/279001a0
Bondi, H. David Davies’ editorship ends. Nature 283, 1 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1038/283001b0
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that Nature magazine had been reporting on CO2 build up, or at least mentioning it in passing, since 1964, and had editorialised that it was a ‘scare’ in 1971 under the editorship of John Maddox.
The specific context was that from the mid-70s onwards, there was a build up of awareness internationally, especially in Europe and the United States, about CO2 as a pollutant. And in April, as alluded to in the editorial itself, there had been a four day workshop on CO2 build up and societal impacts in Annapolis, Maryland. Among the British attendees were Crispin Tickell, who at that point was a consigliere for British European Commissioner Roy Jenkins, and Tom Wigley, who was head of the Climatic Research Unit.
And this is exactly the same time that obviously Margaret Thatcher is coming to office, and the report by the Interdepartmental Group on Climatology is working its way through the system. There’s no mention of the Nature editorial in the files I’ve seen National Archives, which does not, of course, mean that it was not discussed. It simply means that there isn’t a surviving minute of it.
What I think we can learn from this is
That intelligent people from the mid-late 70s were well aware of the CO2 build-up issue.
That our Lords and masters didn’t pay any attention and that they simply sought advice from the people who were going to tell them the things they wanted to hear
Or maybe they had the misfortune to go to the wrong advice-givers and would it have been different if they’d gone to CRU? I don’t know. We’ll never know. We can’t know history doesn’t provide those experimental points.
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 Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.’s are nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear. If global warming isn’t halted, devastating sea-level rises will be inevitable by 2100. So how did this virtual certainty get labeled a “liberal hoax” in the U.S.? Try the same tactics Big Tobacco used to deny the dangers of smoking.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that American journalists had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem for a very long time. One of my favourites is from the Chicago Tribune front page in March of 1982, but there are others.
And here we see Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey, among others, doing a magazine feature at a time when the Kyoto Protocol has finally been ratified, and there was clearly going to be an international process to replace it with something “better”, and at a time when the Bush regime had lost all credibility because of both international factors such as the resistance to the occupation of Iraq, and its useless response to Hurricane Katrina. It was at this point, nine months since New Orleans…
What I think we can learn from this. that there have been think-pieces in chin-stroking liberal magazines for a long time. but the question is always, “who’s going to make something happen?”, which is then a question of “who is going to mobilise what resources and find new resources and intervene how in ‘the system’ (man)?”
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.
Comprehensive plan for carbon dioxide effects research and assessment. Part I: the global carbon cycle and climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide
Technical Report · 01 May 1978 as cited in CO2 Newsletter Vol 1 no 1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that scientists had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a definitive fact since the late 50s. Through the 60s and into the early 70s, it had slowly built up momentum as “something to worry about.” In the mid 70s, that changed because of new science, a consensus that we were on the brink of a pronounced global warming, as per Wally Broecker in August 1975.
The specific context was that the Energy Research and Development Agency, which was transmogrifying into the Department of Energy, had funded by this stage, a bunch of studies into CO2 build up, some of which had been published, but most which had not. The obvious one is Oliver Markley.
And you see here in this scientist trying to figure out who should study what, or what should be studied, when and how, what assessments etc.
What I think we can learn from this. 50 years since the work began, and here we still are, 50 years later: “how many angels on the head of a pin.” The caravan should have moved on to “Why haven’t we been doing anything about it?” and perhaps even to “Why didn’t we do anything about it?” And here we are still not tackling those questions, because they would be way too painful.
What happened next. Well, the DOE and AAAS held a four day symposium in Annapolis, Maryland, April 2 to April 6, 1979 which should have been an important event for UK climate. Tom Wigley of CRU was there, as was Crispin Tickell, and there was an editorial, presumably by David Davies in Nature of May 1979, which we will come to in a couple of days.
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.
Forty years ago today, there’s another of those well-catered greenwash events…
INDUSTRY: CARING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
HRH, JOHN DAVIDSON, ANTHONY BIDDLE, BRUCE FALKINGHAM, JEREMY QUICKENDEN, PATRICK WEATHERILT, WILLIAM WILKINSON, BRIAN LETCHFORD, NICOLA LYON, JONATHAN FRANKLIN, JOHN HINCH, MARTIN HOLDGATE, MICHAEL SPURR, GEOFFREY LARMINIE, RICHARD LINDSELL, ANTHONY CLEAVER and WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE 30 April 1986
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the environment concerns had never really completely gone away after the early 1970s. Industry had created various astroturf and greenwashing initiatives at an international level, things like the WICEM that had been meeting in, I think, Versailles, I want to say, in 1984.
The specific context was that the ozone hole had been discovered. Amazon rainforest, deforestation, oil spills, fairly regular industrial accidents and disasters and so industry was always wanting to claim that it was a responsible corporate citizen, blah, blah, blah,
What I think we can learn from this is that you will always find politicians, especially on the right, but also centrists, which is pretty much everyone these days, are willing to play along with that, because that’s who donates the campaign funds, and that’s who provides the non-executive directorships once the party or the electorate finally tire of you.
What happened next: The greenwash really kicked into gear from sort of 1990 onwards. We need to think of greenwash and denial as two cheeks of the same arse.
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 nine years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997,
“The challenge for Australia on global climate change”, 29-30 April 1997: summary of proceedings
One of those chin-stroking talkfests organised by
National Academies Forum, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Australian Academy of Science, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Australian Academy of the Humanities, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, 1997.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that the Australian political elite had been warned about carbon dioxide through the 70s and 80s, and had chosen to ignore it until it couldn’t really be ignored any more, in ‘88. After an initial signal of willingness to be proactive and constructive, they had fairly quickly retreated into the asshole position that they hold today.
In 1995 they had grudgingly signed on to the Berlin mandate – meaning they would come to the third COP (in 1997) with some plan for emissions reductions, and then had decided that they were not going to do that under new Prime Minister, John Howard. And most of 1997 was taken up with the Howard Government, sending diplomats around the place to try and get “differentiation” (an exemption for Australia).
Anyway, these sorts of conferences and seminars and events were happening because middle class people and so-called intellectuals want to believe that they are contributing to the betterment of the species and of its future. This is how they sleep at night, because having to admit that they were passengers on a train straight to hell would offend their amour-propre.
The specific context was that it was obvious that the Prime Minister (John Howard) was scientifically illiterate and a climate denier who was doing everything he could (which was a lot) to fuck shit up (to use a technical term). “Awks” as the kids used to say.
What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been doing yakkety yak on climate for a very long time, and we will continue to do yakkety yak.
What happened next: Australia got an insanely generous deal at the Kyoto conference, an emissions reduction quote, in quotes of 108% actually closer to 130 once you took into account the land clearing clause, the emissions kept climbing. Australia’s fossil fuel exports kept climbing. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 kept climbing. And after a certain delay, the despair and the fear of people who can read the Keeling Curve began climbing as well.
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.
In a 1987 meeting between UK climate scientists organised by DoE and NERC, it was considered “crucial that the UK supports truly global and multi-disciplinary approaches to studying the climate system. Clearly, the potential local impacts of any suggested climate change are of paramount importance to the UK but we must guard against any suggestion that climate-change issues can in general be studied from a parochial regional viewpoint. Regional studies should be conducted with proper regard being paid to results stemming from a global approach.”
Rapporteurs’ draft notes, ‘Man-made Climate Change: Planning the UK Research Strategy’, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, 28–29 April 1987. Provided to the authors by David Carson.
Citation for published version (APA): Mahony, M., & Hulme, M. (2016). Modelling and the Nation: Institutionalising Climate Prediction in the UK, 1988–92. MINERVA, 54(4), 445-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9302-0
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that after the Villach conference, and with the Met Office making more and more of a noise, it became obvious that sooner or later, carbon dioxide build-up would hit the policy agendas, and these sorts of meetings were presumably happening through ‘86-87.
The specific context was that the Conservatives had put carbon dioxide build-up in their manifesto for the 1987 election, and things were beginning to move. A bit.
What I think we can learn from this is that before Thatcher did her u-turn, responsible people were beginning to think about what the state response should be.
What happened next: In September 1988 Thatcher gave her pivotal speech at the Royal Society, and then it was on for young and old…
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.
Sixteen years ago today, a dickhead Australian prime minister sealed his fate by showing that all his fine words about climate as a “great moral challenge” were empty PR. Turd.
Ten days ago I went to the latest in a long long line of excruciating activist events (1). I wrote a cathartic blogpost which was liked by about half the people who read it (i.e. it was liked by two people).
Catharsis is fine, but then the question comes up – what should we expect of big organisations that act (whether they understand that or not) as a Keystone Species (2)?
Before you say, yes, I know that it is dodgy af to import ideas from biology/ecology into discussions of human activities, but hey, a) we all do it and b) life is short – so here goes.
Keystone species have a ‘disproportionate’ role in the shape/size/day-to-day actions of the ecosystem they function within. Not ‘deliberately’, because (most) creatures don’t (most of the time) have intention beyond eating/avoiding being eaten/fucking. But if you have enough of the keystone members, then they create a kind of dynamic stability (3).
So, there used to be a phrase (perhaps still is?) “check your privilege” , which sought to remind people that they often walked around with advantages that shaped the social interactions they took part in (4). Anyway, privilege applies not just to us white able-bodied middle-class hetero men but also to organisations. If you are a big outfit, that has been around a long time, and has got a media profile you have a kind of ‘heft’, a kind of – well, privilege. Crucially, you may not feel this, because there are always budget worries, always policybattles you are losing because you are outnumbered and outgunned by the lobbyists for the EFTAs (Evil Fuckers Trade Association). You are always being smeared by stenographers to power in the right-wing press. It doesn’t FEEL like privilege, but then that’s the point – it never does.
So, after a decade and a half of having seen these Big Outfits put together various events and claim to be “building a movement” while absolutely failing to do so, I’ve grown a little cynical (see also “smugosphere”, the smugotariat, “emotacycle”, “ego-fodder”, “potemkinclusivity”, Sophisticated Hopium Ignoring Trajectories, etc).
The purpose of this blog post is to outline five things Big Outfits could do to be better keystone species. I am not expecting any of this to happen (see below). If two of the five happened, that would be quite amazing. I reckon if four of these happened, it would be transformative within that Big Outfit’s wider ecosystem (while still, obvs, merely being deckchairs-on-the-Titanic of a global ecosystem being apocalypsed by hairless murder apes with opposable thumbs).
So, drum-roll please.
Set a good example
Obvious, huh? In practice this means –
Start meetings on time. Nothing screams “unserious hippy” like unexplained delays to start-times, especially if you then cry off the advertised activities because of “lack of time.”
Don’t waste time with endless blandishments and self-promotions. If you have specific information to impart then a) the internet and b) some dead-tree format leaflets for those who don’t use the internet.
Keep your promises (so, to choose an example entirely at random, if you advertise something as a Q&A, then do a Q&A. This is not rocket-science
Avoid cringe displays of emotional virtue-signalling. Especially in situations where first nations peoples are being shat on from a great height.
Make sure that when you create an event, you are making it easy for new relationships to form, for new “weak ties” (as per Granovetter) to form.
That is to say, make it possible for various individuals to find each other on the basis of their shared interests, age, geography.
Obviously there are dangers here which need managing. Women, especially, will worry about being compelled to engage with strangers (esp male) who may then get the wrong idea. If you open a space for these relationships to form, you also run the risk of various political sects and groupuscules to try to recruit during your events. These are not, however, insurmountable difficulties.
Big Outfits could lead by example (see above) by designing events so that they are not (always) the goddam centre of attention, sucking up all the oxygen and attention. They could keep comments by their staff and guests to a reasonable length and then then implement the design effectively (there’s no point designing an event and then – because of the lack of skill/awareness of the facilitator/compere – you revert to the bullshit).
So, for example, between the end of speeches at a Q&A and opening the floor to questions you could give people two minutes to compare notes/hone questions etc and then ‘accidentally’ select some – gasp – women to ask two of the first three questions.
There is also a crying need for structured skill-audits and skillshare events, so that people who have skills can share them with people who want them, and organisations that realise they have either a single-point-of-failure or an absolute gap can get help to plug those gaps.
Big organisations could investigate/invent/borrow/steal ideas for better events (marches, rallies, meetings etc) and test them out. Big organisations are more likely to be able to take people a little bit outside their comfort zones.
This would require some courage (not selected for within most formal organisations, obviously) but would set the tone – that responsible innovation is essential.
Remember the past
We live in a perpetual present, where the lessons of yesterday are forgotten, and ancient victories (the fucking Franklin Dam? Really? Invoking that in 2026? WTAF) are stripped of their context and turned into myths.
Part of the problem for social movements is that so much of what happens is never recorded, or recorded and then lost. Memories shift, fade, and useful tactics and tools have to be endlessly re-invented. Big Organisations could at least try to be a repository for broader memory work.
There are costs (not-insurmountable) and dangers, but without memory we are living in Punxsutawney without remembering the day before. That ain’t no comedy, it’s a tragedy.
Practically – this could mean digitising old posters and content, doing periodic oral history interviews. These may not hit the dizzying heights of ‘academic’ practice, but srsly, who gives a damn – is it USEFUL?
Help people and small organisations think about the future(s)
Big Organisations could do better “horizon scanning” for the current trends, so that smaller groups/individuals get the opportunity to think strategically.
Periodic workshops involving scenarios, role-plays etc. Yes, most of the people who come will be the usual suspects, but not all of them, and in any case, skills and knowledge can percolate.
These – and it isn’t an exhaustive list – all these amount to “services to the movement.”
They are things that individuals and small organisations struggle with (or don’t even try to do).
What “we” – as social movements/civil society/a species killing itself – require is a) the repeal of some laws (mostly laws of physics) and
b) Big Outfits within the “movement” to do things that the smaller organisations – and individuals – can’t do. If they don’t do them, then these things won’t get done and you don’t have a movement, just a bunch of Brownian motion billiard balls, going nowhere fast.
The problem is – well, imma just quote myself:
It comes down to what your definition of “movement” is.
If you believe, as Adam Bandt and his colleagues seem to, that a movement is a bunch of people from a Big Organisation, jetting in from their HQ and standing on a stage, offering “hope,” authenticity and validation to ranks of people who are sat mutely in rows, wanting their (begging) bowls filled up, then Friday was another success in a long line of successes.
If you believe, as I and a few (many?) other people do, that a movement is made up of individuals, small groups, large groups, pulling mostly in the same direction, as frenemies, helping each other out, learning from each other, sharing ideas and resources, then Friday night was another catastrophic shit-show/missed opportunity in a world that can’t afford any more missed opportunities.
What is to be done?
They (the Big Outfits) are not going to do any of this themselves. There is no money in it, it’s not in their direct short-term interest, and those running the show have built careers on being on the stage doing the right talking and public displays of emoting.
So, if we want these big organisations to act as decent keystone species, then sorry, but it has to be persistently and insistently EXPECTED of them. Publicly. (I know, I know, “activism about activism” – as if we have time for this shit… But also, as if we can get anywhere useful without this shit. We truly are caught in a trap…)
Apply what pressure you can. Explain that you will not be participating in ego-fodder events. Privately – and publicly – call out exploitative and extractive behaviour by Big Outfits. Offer practical suggestions – training, etc etc – for how to do things better.
But dammit, this is so hard. Knowing that everything is falling about. That no matter what we do, Punxusatawney is getting warmer.
None of this will happen. It is a stupid fantasy. We are all going to die horrible premature deaths. Oh well.
Footnotes
Living where I normally do, I don’t have many opportunities for “hate attending” (a variation on hate-following).
(2) As per wikipedia –
A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance. The concept was introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf and lion, are also apex predators.
The role that a keystone species plays in its ecosystem is analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch. While the keystone is under the least pressure of any of the stones in an arch, the arch still collapses without it. Similarly, an ecosystem may experience a dramatic shift if a keystone species is removed, even though that species was a small part of the ecosystem by measures of biomass or productivity. It became a popular concept in conservation biology, alongside flagship and umbrella species. Although the concept is valued as a descriptor for particularly strong inter-species interactions, and has allowed easier communication between ecologists and conservation policy-makers, it has been criticized for oversimplifying complex ecological systems.
NB These should NOT be confused with foundation species. Thanks to HS for the distinction, which I will try to follow-up in a different post.
(3) If we’re abusing ecology (and clearly I am) we could argue that civil society organisations have become “functionally extinct” after 45 years of neoliberalism. That is, there are still isolated shell-shocked individuals staggering around, but they don’t “do” the things they used to. But that’s another blog post.
(4) At which point, as a white hetero able-bodied man I can say “I did, it’s still there, and it’s fabulous!”).
(5) Very non-complete list of blog posts about this here –
Forty eight years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1978 – Australian carbon dioxide measurements from a ground based station at Cape Grim begin.
Tanks were immersed in liquid nitrogen to condense the air (Fig. 7), under ‘baseline’ conditions (strong onshore winds) in these 35 L stainless steel tanks, commencing mid 1978. The first tank filled was CG260478, CG reflecting its Cape Grim origin, filled 26 April 1978, and remains intact in the Air Archive at Aspendale today
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that accurate measures of CO2 in the atmosphere had begun in 1958 with Charles Keeling as part of the International Geophysical Year, Roger Revelle had managed to carve out some money. (We now know that Keeling had done CO2 measurement for the oil companies in 1954 thanks to the work of Rebecca John,)
The specific context was that Australian measurements of CO2 had begun in the early 1970s – they were initially from equipment attached to aeroplanes, TAA, commercial flights. However, something more permanent was required. So we should remember as well that from September of ‘77 there was an increase in awareness of the CSIRO scientists around atmospheric pollution by carbon dioxide.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty.
What happened next: Cape Grim is still measuring CO2 to this day. There was a conference on Philip Island in December 1978. There was a CSIRO symposium in Canberra in 1986, which got coverage in the Canberra Times. In 1986 the greenhouse project stuff started kicking in.
So where will the files for the commission for the future be and the greenhouse project and so forth? That would be quite. A good National Archives of Australia, find
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.
Yesterday [April 25, 1989] Mr Tony Blair, Labour’s energy spokesman, went on the attack with a letter to the Prime Minister, challenging what he termed the “miserable record” of Mr Cecil Parkinson, the Energy Secretary, on energy conservation.
Hunt, J. 1989. Greenhouse Effect Warms Tempers. Financial Times, April 26, Pg. 10
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that UK politicians had been aware of the climate issue for (at least) ten years by now. The smart ones, that is. So, quite a small minority.
The specific context was that in September 1988 Margaret Thatcher had conducted one of her u-turns and declared carbon dioxide build-up a problem worth turning into an issue. People had tried to take her at her word, and she had revealed herself to be what she always was.
Anyway, on the day April 25, 1989, she had held a full-day seminar, with various technical experts from ETSU etc, briefing her and her Cabinet colleagues (including several who couldn’t be bothered to stay awake – literally).
What I think we can learn from this is that Blair was trying to get an attack line out there for journalists who were writing about Thatcher’s seminar, so they could quote him for “balance.”
What happened next: Blair? Don’t know. Faded into obscurity. Or so about a million Iraqis would have wished…
