Forty five years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1981,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 UK newspapers had been reporting on climate change intermittently since really the late 1960s/early 70s, and the Telegraph, which leaned right, had even had done a puff piece with German meteorologist Herman Flohn around the First World Climate Conference. The Telegraph wasn’t completely batshit at this point.
Thespecificcontext was that a study had appeared in Science magazine by James Hansen et al about CO2 build up, and the Telegraph was diligently reporting it.
What I think we can learn from this is that we shouldn’t judge today’s terrible so-called newspapers, as the metric of what they always were. They have been hollowed out, they have been demented. They were, they were right wing, but serious. You could still learn something from them, I suppose. You still can at the margins if you try really hard. Who’s got the time, though?
What happened next is that Hansen was punished by the Reagan administration, which took away a grant that had already been disbursed, meaning people lost their jobs, people who had relocated to take jobs. Hansen persisted, of course, and famously gave his testimony in 1988 that it was “time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect was here.” (Well, that wasn’t in his testimony, that was in his comments to journalists afterwards.) The Telegraph began a long, slow, painful slide into utter crass idiocy, not even a shadow of its former self.
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1997,
United States officials expect Australia’s maverick greenhouse position to be blown away in a “big bang” at the climate change convention in Kyoto, according to confidential reports by Australian diplomats obtained by the Herald…. The documents are confidential internal communications between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and Australian embassies.
They detail Australia’s desperate globe-trotting efforts to undermine the push for international agreement on binding, uniform targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, initially for developed nations.
In June, for example, one senior Canberra official went to Seoul and promoted the economic benefits of a “free ride” to South Korea – a key developing nation – rather than it having to face the high cost of any future emissions control regime. [Compare Exxon doing the same thing with China]
Hogarth, M. 1997. Why Our Stand On Climate Change Is Doomed. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August, p.1.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 US under George H. W. Bush had succeeded in eliminating emissions reductions, targets and timetables for rich countries from the text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Australia had gone along with that, probably quite happily. The administration under Democrat Bill Clinton had tried to take some energy efficiency conservation action with its BTU tax, and had been soundly defeated. Here we see Clinton at the beginning of his second term, after having given a speech in 1996 at the Great Barrier Reef, beginning to flex muscles ahead of COP 3, which was to be held in Kyoto.
Thespecificcontext was that the Australians were pursuing a particularly aggressive line against Australia having any discernible ambitious targets on emissions reductions. This was against the mood music that the Americans, especially under Senator Tim Wirth, as Clinton’s climate envoy were wanting to put forward, so the Clinton gang were talking about how Australia was isolated and would be more isolated and would suffer significant diplomatic consequences for its stance. And for whatever reason, the Sydney Morning Herald was going along with that wish casting.
What I think we can learn from this – occasionally the mood-music out of Washington is a better form of kayfabe (see, for example, Obama in 2014).
What happened next – Australia got an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, through exasperation and exhaustion at its intransigence.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1991,
There would be little point in Australia’s taking unilateral action to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a government report.
International consensus and concerted international action were needed if the greenhouse effect were to be addressed effectively.
The Industry’ Commission report, published today, “Costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”, examines the impact on Australian industry of an international stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1988 levels by the year 2000 and a 20 per cent reduction in those emissions by the year 2005.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about carbon dioxide build up from the late 60s onwards, and had adopted a wait and see strategy at various points.
Thespecificcontext was that in October 1990, in exchange for acceding to Australia, announcing a very hedged interim planning target around the Toronto proposal for a reduction in CO2 emissions of 20% by 2005 Treasurer, then-Treasurer Paul Keating had gotten the promise that the Industry Commission – a quasi-independent gang of growth-oriented intellectual thugs – would look at the greenhouse issue in the context of Australia’s economic performance.
By the time of the industry commission’s report coming out, Keating had quit government because Bob Hawke had reneged on a promise to step down in favour of Keating after the 1990 election, and was lurking on the back benches, biding his time. Graham Richardson, who had been Environment Minister, and then was butt hurt when he didn’t get the defence job he wanted was Keating’s leadership organiser (66 to 44 and “it’s enough”).
The Industry Commission report said the predictable things, and was a useful stick to beat advocates of action with because it was ostensibly independent and we were told that action was unnecessary and would be expensive blah blah blah – the usual.
What I think we can learn from this is that there is always one of these “don’t panic, no one needs to upset the applecart” reports coming out. Some work, some don’t.
What happened next Keating succeeded in toppling. Hawke in December 1991 and then Keating basically set fire to everything environmental that Hawke had proposed, including climate actions and Keating, in order to cover his ass, allowed waste minimization and recycling to stand in for actual policy.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2000,
One of the Federal Government’s key boasts on greenhouse gases that it is legislating so electricity suppliers must increase their power from renewable sources by 2 per cent by 2010 has been called a hoax.
According to industry estimates, growth is occurring at that rate anyway.
And the Opposition has been criticised for signalling that it will pass the Government’s Renewable Energy Bill in its present form, which allows burning wood from native forests to create energy to be taken into account in determining whether the target has been met.
At present, 10.7 per cent of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources. The bill would lift that to 12.7 per cent by 2010. The bill, which also applies to major electricity buyers, such as the aluminium industry, will go to the Senate later this month.
The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday accused Dr Sharman Stone, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, of issuing a misleading media release. It had said wind farms, solar-driven manufacturing, tidal power and energy from methane were “destined to become a growing part of Australia’s energy options” because of the legislation.
“This is the great renewable hoax,” the foundation’s campaign director, Mr John Connor, said. “It will be woodchip-driven stuff, and there’s basic problems … legislation which just won’t drive the kind of industries [we should] base the economy on.”
Clennell, A. 2000. Government Greenhouse Gases Boast A Hoax, Says Environmental Group. Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, p.8.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 Australian governments, state and federal, had intermittently made supportive noises in the general direction of renewables, but had usually not provided funding or significant financial incentives. My favourite example is how in 1994-95 a proposal for a carbon tax where some of the profits were hypothecated towards research and development of renewables was shot down by opponents within the Labor Party before it got to cabinet.
Thespecificcontext was in 1997 ahead of the Kyoto conference, Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard had, with some fanfare, produced a Safeguarding the Future policy, which included a promise of a 2% renewables per target for Australian electricity provision. Howard then slow-walked the policy implementation, so that it became a much smaller amount, and here we see various environmental groups pointing this out for all the good it did.
What I think we can learn from this is that at time of writing or narrating, John Howard is still alive, and there is still time to get him to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and other species, and he has very little defence, And standing next to him in the dock should be Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and most of all Anthony Albanese, Julia Gillard squeaks her way out by the skin of her teeth, but as well as these meat puppets, lots of industry figures whose names we barely know should also be in the dock as well and this will not happen.
What happened next LETAG. Vestas (LINKS)
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
I’m writing this as rain delays my departure for town. It is some of the first rain in months, and welcome.
Summer will end, and when it does, Prime Minister Andy Burnham will – I suspect – give the approval to one or both of the oil and gas projects that the extractors are currently salivating over.
It will be wrapped up in all sorts of casuistry, all sorts of presentational gimmicks (see my speculations on those – and the responses – here).
I could be wrong, the man may surprise me. We shall see.
Let’s assume he doesn’t. To me, then, the question is what is the real, the fundamental difference, on climate change, between him and Richard Tice of Reform, who recently said we should basically lie back and enjoy it?
What’s the difference? Anyone?
Richard TiceAndy Burnham
Sure, Burnham will look suitably sad, and perhaps even hug a few people whose homes have burned to the ground. He may loot the aid budget further to do some band-aid stuff in constituencies where some of his favourite MPs are vulnerable to a Green Surge.
But step back, think slightly longer term, bigger burning picture – what will the difference between him and Tice actually be?
Who knows, maybe this post will age like a glass of milk in a heatwave. Or maybe it’s the Burnham bounce that is the glass of milk…
Thirty nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1987,
MJ Elliott in the Legislative Council of the South Australian parliament
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 South Australian Parliament had been hearing about carbon dioxide build up intermittently since 1971, usually from figures in the right-wing Liberal Party.
The specific context was that by 1987 these statements were becoming more frequent, in the context of the 1985 Villach Scientific Conference and the CSIROs present at Division of Atmospheric Physics presentation to the Australian Environment Council in 1986 and the forthcoming greenhouse project of the CSIRO atmospheric physics people and the Commission for the Future.
What I think we can learn from this is that this politician was not at all lying. We had adopted a “wait and see” policy, even though from the mid 70s various scientists have been making point that a wait and see policy was not risk-free and in effect not acting in itself was an action, and it was an action in favour of increased risk.
What happened next is that in 1988 the issue exploded in the UK, the US, Australia and since then politicians have had to take a stance and most of them have chosen to pay lip service, though some especially on the right have delighted in “owning the libs” by saying they don’t actually care if there is indeed a problem, we will tough it out and technology will save the day.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
“This summer’s extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.
Hope the coming months bring a new wave of#Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction! “
This summer's extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.Hope the coming months bring a new wave of #Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction!
“We need actual movement building, not just constant mobilisations”
So what IS “Actual Movement Building” (AMB) and how is it helped and how is it hindered by “constant mobilisations”? There’s other work I should be doing (should have been doing for ages), so this will necessarily be brief.
What is a social movement?
For me, it is a network (thick multiple links) made up of individuals and groups all trying to move society (inc culture, politics, economics) in a certain direction. These individuals and groups have got knowledge (that they need – who has the power, what events/decisions are coming up etc) and skills (group maintenance etc) that matter, and know how to share their skills etc.
N.B. A “movement” is NOT a single organisation, no matter how big and gaudy its brand might be at a given time. (Yes, looking at you, “Extinction Rebellion” and all the people who glugged the Kool-Aid, who really ought to know better but were drunk on a momentary sense of relevance.)
What is “actual movement building”?
AMB is about strengthening yourself (more skills, more knowledge, more relationships), the groups you are part of (skills audit and plugging gaps [HOLDING DECENT MEETINGS, for example. Sorry for shouting, [not sorry]), minimising your group’s pathologies around recruitment and retention) and ALSO undertaking “services for the movement” – offering practical help, advice, constructive critique, encouragement, introducing individuals and groups to each other, etc etc.
Crucially, this takes willingness to face up to past and present failures. It can’t happen if you can’t or won’t see what is missing (as per James Baldwin – “not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced”).
All of this requires us to take the harder road, away from (only doing) the big symbolic spectacular stuff that gives a sugar rush and cooks your pancreas.
What does AMB require?
Time (which we don’t have, won’t have)
Expertise (which we don’t have, won’t have)
Space (“third spaces” where people can get together and think. NGOs sometimes have these, but in my experience expect the best part of the meeting to be taken up bending the knee to them).
Intellectual courage (which we seem to have as individuals, but not in collectives, not once we start policing each other.)
People willing to step beyond their “guard rails”, and with the understanding that there are bad ways to organise/act.
Other actors not deliberately getting in the way to fuck shit up. (they will always be there, always determined to stop progressive movements by any means necessary, from smears and demoralisation through harassment to all forms of violence.)
What are the barriers to AMB?
There are many barriers, but time and attention are short, so I will stick to three.
There are easier ways to feel “impactful”
We have an easier way of meeting our psychological needs – by doing the things that we know how to do – marches, petitions, camps, getting arrested – because we know how to do them (smugosphere).
Keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
The problem with constant mobilisations is that it’s like being on a fucking hamster wheel. Round and round, never actually getting anywhere, but jacking up on short-term hopium.
We don’t want to look into past failures. We just don’t. ESPECIALLY when we both should and COULD have acted differently back when it might have mattered..
“It’s a sad story, hard to tell —
Which one of us likes to talk about his failures?
I’ll tell the truth and nothing but the truth,
For if one does fail, there’s a touch of glory
In having tried at all.”
Book 9 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses “Achelous and Hercules”
Yes, but there’s not any touch of glory in doing the same thing over and over again when you know it is not going to work. And there is no glory at all in chiding people who point this out as “doomers” (looking at you, Julia).
The field is “stable” and the costs of new entrants – both organisations and repertoire of behaviour are prohibitively high.
See what happened to XR, when it tried to contest the Greenpeace-FoE duopoly!
More Fundamental Attribution Error-ly, the people “in charge” don’t have the willingness (ability?) or incentive to take a look at themselves and their organisations (see my blog post Cher, incentive structures and our inevitable doom, especially for the Carl Rogers at the end.)
To those who think we can break these chains, I ask who is the Agent of Change, the Modern Prince who are supposed to do this movement building?
“Established” activists, who know how the game is played and are winning at it. They can’t even see the need for innovation.
Burnout out/super-annuated activists who got out/were pushed out? Why? Where is their energy coming from, their credibility?
The utter newbies who don’t know what’s been tried, are new to everything and have no hinterland, who is taking their cue from the established activists?
The Alien “Activist Adjudicators” from Sigma IX? They don’t exist.
What is to be done?
Fucked if I know.
I have some various answers to the “little” stuff (how to hold meetings, how to hold film showings etc), but in terms of building and sustaining mass movements that avoid being co-opted, repressed, exhausted as we stare down both barrels of a loaded shotgun when Mother Nature has an understandably itchy trigger finger? Nah, that one is beyond me. But, you know, pay me some money for food and books, and I might come up with something.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 412ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 business lobbies have always regarded environmental concerns as at best an impediment, and at worst part of an International Communist Conspiracy. Business lobbies tend to be made up of today’s successful enterprises, the insurgents chasing new technologies and new production methods don’t have the financial muscle or the spare capacity to form effective lobbying groups, and if they do, that effective lobbying group will probably get taken over by the big powerful actors wanting to make sure that nothing happens.
In the early 1970s Milton Friedman had dismissed environmental concerns by saying that they would be solved under a regime of private ownership. Friedman was well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, and I can say this confidently, because he corresponded with William Barbert, and his correspondence was published in an issue of the CO2 Newsletter. And his Friedman doctrine had basically been “greed is good and everything will work out if we just let the rich people do whatever they think is best.” This is demented. This is hardly new, but it has been at various times convenient for people, not just the rich, to believe. Let me talk to you someday about how most academics are basically the equivalent of monks arguing about angels on the head of a fucking pin.
The specific context. So why did this happen in 2019. I think the Business Roundtable realised that they were doing themselves some reputational damage by failing to pretend to give a shit, and you get this, you get business lobby groups knowing that they have to look sane and reasonable if they want to be effective. See, for example, the Australian Mining Industry Council having to change both its tune and its name after it went in so hard against the Mabo decision on Aboriginal land rights in 1992.
What I think we can learn from this
xxx
What happened next
I’ll have to look and see if the Business Roundtable has suddenly endorsed Greta Thunberg. Somehow I doubt it.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
“Speaking to BBC Radio 5Live on Friday [15th August], he suggested approving the two plans could help “speed up the energy transition”.
Although he did not name the sites, Burnham said: “We won’t be able to stop using oil and gas for some time, that’s just a fact. The question is whether we can accelerate use of it so that we pay for the transition, and one thing helps the other… whether that extraction can be the bridge to the clean energy future we need, and bring it forward. It’s about a pragmatic approach to both of those.””
When (1) Prime Minister Burnham gives the approval to one (or both) of Rosebank and Jackdaw, his team will do its best to manage perceptions, and anger. The announcement itself will presumably be sandwiched between two ‘nice’ and ‘cuddly’ announcements. Probably one to do with animal welfare (something about maximum temperatures for battery farms, with maybe price controls on what vets can charge for pet care? idk – spitballing here), the other to do with heating bills and insulation. All this will be phrased as “sensible”, “pragmatic” “achievable” etc.
My guess is that the announcement itself will come at Labour Party conference, so additional pressure can be placed on any MPs who might otherwise be more tempted to run their mouths. This is slightly dependent on temperatures, of course – Burnham doesn’t want to be announcing these project approvals during another heatwave. Burnham will make sure that when he makes the announcement he is flanked by a couple of photogenic young apprentices (ideally women of colour) who will be getting Job and Training on one of those projects.
What will happen next?
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh will be endlessly scrutinised for any gritting of teeth during their support for this ‘difficult but ultimately sensible’ decision.
We will be flooded with the pundit class telling us how important to be “adult”, to “understand how politics works” etc. Much as they did when Peter Mandelson was announced as UK ambassador to the US.
The Telegraph and the Heil will have several full-page articles about how reality is impinging on Burnham, but while Miliband is around, there is still Peril.
The business lobbies pushing for this will I suspect be relatively low-key, not wanting to draw too much attention to their power. The gloating can be done behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the riff-raff.
The Climate Change Committee will put out some schrodinger’s cat of an announcement, carefully crafted so it can be read in any way that is useful to government, opposition etc.
The Chief Scientific Advisor will be unavailable for comment – either on holiday or being held at a secret location until the heat dies down a bit.
There will be denunciatory press releases and stunts (a “die-in” or three?) by a fairly broad coalition of green groups and groupuscules. Perhaps some Grim Reapers, “outside the Treasury, carrying empty harvest baskets and hessian sacks marked “WHEAT – FAILED”, “POTATOES – FAILED” and “CROPS – FAILED”, against a backdrop of drought-scorched crops.” (as per Edie, 2026).
The fact that Saint Andy was happy to get some nice publicity when signing the Fossil-Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty with Massive Attack and an academic will be dredged up (On June 5, 2025, since you ask)
The Compass outfit, which claims to bring red and green together, will once again be revealed as, well, pointless.
Green Party membership will get a noticeable bump, as people realise that they have met the new boss and he is the same spineless meat-puppet as the old boss, only with “better comms.”
The Conservatives and Reform will not punch the bruise too hard, I think. Ms Badenoch will release some screed – “We congratulate him for finally facing down the eco-loons who most days run his party”.
Reform will say that this is not enough, however, the Government should also be outlawing onshore wind and solar.
And the rest of us? We will take the blow with that same hollow-eyed, hollow-stomached sense of fear, despair and powerless that we’ve been coping with (or not coping with) for years or decades.
Once again we will learn that “pragmatic” means cowardice. As per the words of a brave anti-Nazi German called Manfred (2)
“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!”“Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”
(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)
And, somewhere, a tool-maker’s son will have some kind of wry smile…
But if the Labour party wanted naked pragmatism, frankly it could have stuck with Keir Starmer. It looks to Andy Burnham for something more: the courage to face up to difficult questions but also the political skills to sell difficult answers, and the emotional intelligence to manage the fallout. As this unnaturally hot summer fades into what may be an equally unnaturally wet autumn, we’ll soon know whether he can actually deliver.
Well, “if” – I hope he surprises me, obviously, but it would be a surprise.
Manfred had got out before the war. In 1944 he had volunteered to be parachuted behind German lines in a soldier’s uniform with the aim of gathering whatever intelligence he could, get captured by advancing Allied soldiers, and then spill the beans. The Gestapo etc knew about this – it was fantastically dangerous.
“Iceland’s Okjokull glacier commemorated with plaque”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49345912
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 412ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. 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 there had been warnings about shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels since the 1950s Those warnings had become more emphatic with each passing year as the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 climbed.
The specific context was Glenn Albeicht had invented the word solastalgia, which seems to fit here.
What I think we can learn from this is that humans are capable of mourning, not just the passing of their own species or other sentient species, but also of beautiful, long-lasting aspects of this wonderful planet that we are trashing because we know what’s at stake. We know that we have not been custodians or guardians. We have not obeyed the invocations to be careful, to be carers.
What happened next We weaponized and encouraged our worst impulses, and that is having consequences. We are in the Fafocene,
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
