Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 8th, 2007,
Environmental campaigners today claimed to have taken over a power station in Kent in a protest designed to stop the prime minister, Gordon Brown, from approving the UK’s first new coal plant in more than 30 years.
Just after 5am this morning, 50 Greenpeace volunteers entered Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. One group immobilised the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant and chained themselves to the machinery. A second group with enough provisions to last for several days, began scaling a 200m ladder up the chimney which they painted with the words “Gordon Bin It”.
Robin Oakley, a senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said the protest posed no risk to the energy supply.
“Taking one power station off the national grid will not lead to a blackout,” he stressed. “There is plenty of spare supply in the system.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was, as per previous blog post, on October 6, Greenpeace had been occupying things since its earliest days. Meanwhile, the Climate Change Act was going through parliament and all eyes were on Copenhagen the following year as one of the many “last chances to save the Earth.”
The specific context was that the UK government of Gordon Brown was trying to sell the idea of coal-fired power plants that were “capture ready”. Ed Miliband not having one of his finest hours….
What I think we can learn from this – some forms of symbolic non-violent direct action, well-timed and executed can “work.”
What happened next
In September 2008…
“Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during a protest over coal-fired power.
The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.
At Maidstone Crown Court Judge David Caddick said the jury had to examine whether protesters had a lawful excuse.”
The first CCS competition fizzled out in late 2011.
Coal was pushed out of the UK Grid from 2014 onwards. If Greenpeace and others had not acted, this would not have happened.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 7th, 1967,
Ruby Doris Smith-Robinson (April 25, 1942 – October 7, 1967)[1] worked with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from its earliest days in 1960 until her death in October 1967.[2] She served the organization as an activist in the field and as an administrator in the Atlanta central office. She eventually succeeded James Forman as SNCC’s executive secretary and was the only woman ever to serve in this capacity. She was well respected by her SNCC colleagues and others within the movement for her work ethic and dedication to those around her. SNCC Freedom SingerMatthew Jones recalled, “You could feel her power in SNCC on a daily basis”.[3]Jack Minnis, director of SNCC’s opposition research unit, insisted that people could not fool her. Over the course of her life, she served 100 days in prison for the movement.[1]
October 7 1967 Ruby Doris Smith Robinson dies – https://snccdigital.org/people/ruby-doris-smith-robinson/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was the Black Civil Rights movement was in full swing. It gave wider society so much (was an initiator for second wave feminism, anti-war, ecology, gay rights etc etc). But has of course been pacified and diminished in the history books.
The specific context was that life was never particularly easy for women of colour in these movements.
What I think we can learn from this – we should remember, celebrate and learn from these people
What happened next – exhaustion, co-optation and repression did what they always do – by the early 1970s, things were very different… (See Debbie Louis’ And We Are Not Saved).
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 386ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that Greenpeace had been doing this sort of stuff since its very beginnings in the early 1970s.
The specific context was that “global society” was in one of its periodic 3 year periods where elites had to pretend to care about climate change (see also 1988-1992, 2006-2009, 2018-2020). Greenpeace had a “Quit Coal” campaign ahead of the COP meeting in Poznan, Poland.
What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of stunts “work” on several levels, but don’t on a broader level – to paraphrase “you can’t climb onboard a social relationship.”
What happened next – Greenpeace kept going with this tactic, but the Arctic Sunrise – where they tried it out versus the Russians – gave them pause for thought.
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.
Policy uncertainty could cause essential investments to be deferred or distorted at a huge cost to consumers, business groups warn.
Major business organisations and energy users have urged federal and state governments to work cooperatively to map out a “strategic response to Australia’s energy transition and challenges” ahead of a meeting of energy ministers scheduled for Friday – warning that investment is at risk.
Murphy, K. 2016. Energy ministers urged to map out strategic response to renewables. The Guardian, 5 October.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 404ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was well, look at the previous day’s post. There’s all sorts of promises about getting hold of energy production, consumption, efficiency. You feel so powerful when you convene meetings. And then… what happens?
The specific context was that the Turnbull government was trying to pretend it would do something about climate change, to placate “green” Liberal voters.
What I think we can learn from this – “co-ordination problems” exist. So does incumbent power.
What happened next – The energy ministers all took that onboard, and Australia is now leading the way on emissions reductions. Oh yes.
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.
Ro Randall is one of the greats. You have probably never heard of her, but she is one of the greats. She is a retired psychoanalyst who has had super-useful things to say about the psycho-dynamics of community groups, climate change (see a review of her great novel about climate activism, hope, despair etc Transgression here and interviews with her at the foot of this post.
What makes this one interesting (to me), beyond her clarity and deployment of terms like “finite pool of worry [see here about contrary evidence for instead a finite pool of attention”] and bringing of her decades of knowledge and experience to the questions posed her, is that she is really trying to find out what her interviewers think and feel, and even being willing to suggest that they are seeing-but-not-seeing what is going on.
Randall’s comments on climate and the curriculum (a question the interviewers ask all guests, with varying degrees of success) are also very much worth your time.
Meanwhile, I listened to the “teaser” trailer for a new 4 part podcast series called Overshoot: Navigating a world beyond 1.5 degrees, which launches on Monday 6th October.
It will be interesting to see if they tackle the reasons for the failure – not of states and corporations: that is kind of obvious/inevitable – but the more difficult and distressing (because not inevitable) failures of social movements. We shall see (well, hear).
Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…
AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.
Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.
But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.
Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.
The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.
Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.
Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.
What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?
What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.
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.
It’s near midnight, and I’m holed up in a rickety hotel in Proserpine, a whistle-stop town on the northeast coast of Australia. Yasi, a Category 5 hurricane with 200-mile-per-hour winds that’s already been dubbed “The Mother of All Catastrophes” by excitable Aussie tabloids, is just a few hundred miles offshore. When the eye of the storm hits, forecasters predict, it will be the worst ever to batter the east coast of Australia.
I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. “In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions,” Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere. “Australia is the canary in the coal mine,” says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. “What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future.” (continues)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 391ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that Australia’s population was well-informed about climate change “then called “the greenhouse effect” in 1987-1990. But that awareness and concern did not translate into strong action.
The specific context was that Goodell had written a very good book called Big Coal – climate change is his beat. Meanwhile, the Australian policy elite had been tearing itself to pieces over a simple small measure – a price on carbon. Gillard’s minority government had just gotten it through when this issue of Rolling Stone hit the newsstands (are their newsstands anymore?)
What I think we can learn from this – we fucking knew.
What happened next. Gillard’s brave but utterly inadequate carbon pricing scheme was repealed in 2014. The emissions keep climbing, as does the kayfabe.
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
Goodell, J. 2011. The End of Australia. Rolling Stone, October 3.
Sixty four years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1961,
beginning of UNESCO conference – “Rome (October 2-7 1961), arranged by UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, to restrict the interest to climatic variations which have occurred since the latest glaciation, with particular attention to the period of the meteorological record. The reason behind this decision was no doubt the wish to talk about something which might conceivably have relevance to the nature and trends of the arid lands of to-day–relevance on the scale of economic planning, say, for a hundred years. (Sutcliffe, Nature No. 4808 December 23, 1139-40.”
And there was discussion of carbon dioxide build-up, as per this published in the Derry Standard.
“These warm years, with their economic implications, have led to a number of theories, notably one that man is changing the weather by burning fossil fuels and releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Unfortunately for the theoreticians, this rising temperature curve levelled off around 1940 and has now dipped.”
Behrman, D. 1961. Science Notes. The Derry Standard, November 21, p7
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that the International Geophysical year had got everyone thinking about the planet (its purpose) and what humans might be doing/might be able to do (make the deserts bloom etc). There had even been a UN resolution on weather modification and space.
The specific context was that some were beginning to talk about Carbon Dioxide – there had been the New York Academy of Science meeting in January 1961.
What I think we can learn from this is that we used to believe we could make a better world…
What happened next – Ritchie-Calder got more and more interested in carbon dioxide. He tried to alert people in 1963, and then seems to have put it on the backburner for a few years, before launching a second campaign in 1968…
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 amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that proposals to dump C02 in the deep ocean had been around since the mid-1970s, thanks to our friends at IIASA.
The specific context was that the IPCC was beginning work on its Special Report on CCS, and everyone was beginning to get excited…
What I think we can learn from this – that we always think we’re gonna “tech our way out.” We rarely do (though vaccines are pretty damn cool).
What happened next – CCS has been through several hype cycles since then.
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.
Concorde breaks the sound barrier for the first time.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was that the Sixties was the last decade where these sorts of techno-utopian dreams could be brought to “reality” without too much pushback from economics or civil society.
What I think we can learn from this is that if you were born in the 40s or 50s, then that sense of optimism/possibility is possibly baked into you, on some level, and you might be someone who resents the existence of limits and all those dirty hippies and snivelling scientists who turned out to be right about that.
What happened next – Supersonic transport never took off (sorry about that) in the way intended. The economics didn’t add up, and after a fatal crash, Concorde came back only briefly before its last passenger flight in October 2003.
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.
