Categories
Australia

April 29, 1989 – Australian Science Minister takes to the airwaves on the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1989, the ABC radio programme the “Science Show” had this as its running line up.

The Science Show [Episode 658] – Reply to David Suzuki from Barry Jones; Greenhouse Effect Consequences; New Scientist Editor; Research Used for Biological Weapons; Lichens; Bopplenuts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had, from its first August 1975 broadcast, been alerting listeners to the threat of climate change.  Science Minister Barry Jones had been on the case too, and his “Commission for the Future” had worked with the CSIRO on a highly effective “Greenhouse Project.”  The Australian Federal Government was grappling with ‘what to do’… David Suzuki, the Canadian science communicator, was making frequent trips to Australia and had recently lectured on the Amazon.

What I think we can learn from this was that the late 1980s really was a burst of awareness/fear around climate change, but that people can only cope with so much fear and then they turn away, happy to be told that every little thing’s gonna be alright, even (especially) when they know that really, it won’t be…

What happened next

We turned away – the green groups were unable to maintain the momentum, sustain their capacity. It was always going to end like this. It’s how every story ends…Or has ended so far.  Who knows, maybe next time will be different.  Sure.

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: 

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
United Kingdom

April 28, 1959 – the Chadwick lecture offers a (brief) carbon dioxide warning

Sixty six years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1959 a doctor, Gordon Fair, talks about carbon dioxide as a possible long term public health issue during his Chadwick lecture, 

,

28 April 1959 NEW FACTORS IN MAN’S MANAGEMENT OF HIS ENVIRONMENT *

Especially Fluoridation, Air Pollution and Radiation 

by GORDON M. FAIR, HON. F.R.S.H.

Professor of Public Health Engineering, Harvard University, U.S.A.

I am deeply grateful to the Chadwick Trust for its invitation to deliver a Chadwick Lecture at the 66th Annual Congress of the Royal Society of Health.  Although the prevention of local or metropolitan air pollution is the most immediate concern of health authorities, the threat of possible future world-wide effects must not be overlooked. Most real is the accumulation in the atmosphere of the radioactive by-products of nuclear fission (see part IV of this paper) which could endanger life in all parts of the globe. More speculative is the possibility that the combustion of fuels and wastes may eventually build up the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere so fast as to influence world climate by creating the so-called “green-house effect”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that already in the United States, carbon dioxide buildup was being spoken of by public health personnel alerted to it as part of the general problem of air pollution, but also just reading a newspaper.  If you were a scientifically trained intelligent person in the 1950s who was reading American scientists and paying attention to science journalism in mainstream newspapers, you would have been aware of the potential problem of carbon dioxide buildup. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people have been talking about carbon dioxide buildup for longer than most of the five or six people reading this website will have been alive. And we have never managed to even get a cursory grip on what is a slippery, growing and ever more slippery problem that has always been wicked, then became super wicked and is now probably “hyper wicked”, whatever that means. 

What happened next  People kept talking about carbon dioxide build up as an issue and by the late 60s, it was more significantly on the agendas of biologists, clean air, folk, etc.  For all the good that did. 

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:

April 28, 1975- Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” story.

April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

April 28, 1997 – John Howard says Australia should not have signed climate treaty (UNFCCC) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 27, 2001 – only Australia cheering Bush’s Kyoto pull out.

On this day 24 years ago Australia’s status as a colony of the United States – an enthusiastic one at that – was confirmed for the (checks notes) gazillionth time.

“Washington has mounted a diplomatic campaign to deflect criticism of its repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, instead seeking support for its goal of broadening the UN climate change treaty to include developing countries.

And Canberra is Washington’s prize recruit in this campaign.

Asked in Wednesday’s Washington Post which countries backed him on greenhouse, President George Bush said “Australia [and Canada] said they understand why the US took this position”.

“However, the Canadian government has criticised the US for pulling out of the Kyoto process. Only Australia has provided uncritical support and is therefore Washington’s “prize recruit” in its campaign to kill the Kyoto Protocol, according to a report in the April 27 Australian Financial Review.”

Hordern, N. 2001. Bush wary of `kiss of death’ for backers in protocol pact. Australian Financial Review, April 27 , p.30.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that “settled” (invaded) Australia started life in 1788 as a dumping ground for convicts who couldn’t be hanged and/or sent to the American colonies.  The various colonies gained measures of self-government and in 1901 the Commonwealth came into existence, but Australia was still basically a colony.  Which was fine, but in 1942, after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, it was clear the Brits weren’t going to be able to defend Oz. So the Aus Prime Minister pivoted to the Yanks – needs must. And Australia has been, in all significant respects, a colony ever since. So it goes.

What we learn. Colonial subjects like to imagine they are free. Everyone wants to imagine they are free.

What happened next. The Australian political “elite” (never were scare quotes so relevant) have continued to be craven and pathetic on climate. Why should anyone expect anything else?

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: 

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

April 27, 2010 – Rudd says no CPRS until 2012 at earliest. Seals fate – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Soviet Union

 April 26, 1986 – Chernobyl

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 26th, 1986 reactor four at Chernobyl went kaboom (partial meltdown).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was precisely the wrong time for a nuclear reactor to explode, and the absolutely terrible response at the Politburo-downwards level versus the heroics on the ground, put the lie to “glasnost” and “perestroika”, and made Gorbachev’s efforts to change the Soviet economy and society that much more difficult. I mean, he was never going to succeed, but Chernobyl was, in retrospect, kind of a nail in the coffin. It also made the pro-nuclear because of greenhouse gas arguments that much harder to make.

What I think we can learn from this is that the intersections between politics, technology, economics, culture, you name it. They’re fantastically complicated, obviously or complex. And there are times when an accident wouldn’t matter that much. I would argue that Chernobyl was exquisitely timed, and so it came to pass.

What happened next

In September 1986 a Safe Energy rally in London was held – the anti-nuke sentiment grew…

The battles over whether Chernobyl caused hundreds of deaths, 1000s of deaths, 10s of 1000s of deaths goes on. 

The cultural response to Chernobyl is interesting. 

The Star Chernobyl by Julie Voznesakaya.

There is the Arkady Renko book. 

There is that bizarre Kenneth Royce book, Fallout. 

And there is the TV show Chernobyl, which I should watch sometime, 

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: 

April 26, 1992 – Ros Kelly abjures a carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

 April 25, 2000 – “Beyond Kyoto”  more meaningless blather by Australian politicians

On this day 25 years ago, April 25, 2000, the Federal Environment Minister, Robert Hill spoke at a meeting to the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in Washington, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Australia’s efforts to combat global warming’, 25 April 2000,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 372ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that Australia had extorted an extremely generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (Hill had received a standing ovation at Cabinet afterwards). But it had leaked in 1998 that Howard was only going to ratify the deal if the US did (up in the air, with the 2000 election forthcoming). So Hill had to pretend all was well. And people had to pretend to be going along with that. Rude not to.

What we learn. It’s all kayfabe, innit?

What happened next. The Supreme Court handed George W Bush the 2000 election. In March 2001 he pulled the US out of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Australian Prime Minister John Howard waited until World Environment Day 2002 before doing same. Why the delay? Probably just because he liked watching the greenies twist in the wind? For the shingles, in other words.

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
United Kingdom

 April 24, 2001 –  Early Blair blather about dodgy policies on climate

On this day, 24 years ago, a Blair minister tries to tell the actual experts that they are wrong….

“In the event, the initial auctions led to claims that reductions in emissions were not additional and an acrimonious controversy developed between the ENDS Report (which pointed this out) and the Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett. (Dieter Helm 2003) 14 Margaret Beckett letter to ENDS report contesting their point about additionality in the proposed emissions trading scheme”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Blair government was doing as little as possible about climate, still coasting on the emissions reductions from the closure of coal plants (and de-industrialisation). At this stage, climate was just another issue to be managed with the usual trickery and fakery (so much has changed in the intervening two decades!)

What we learn.  What was that Nick Tomalin said? They lie, they lie, they lie.

What happened next. In 2003, thanks to a RCEP report (RIP RCEP), the climate and energy policies began to seriously entwine, as they should have from 1988 onwards. The trickery and fakery continued obvs. I mean, what do you expect?

Also on this day

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Europe

April 23, 2009 – the EU Parliament says yes to CCS

On this day, April 23, 2009, the EU Parliament waves through another piece of the legal/regulator puzzle in favour of then white-hot CCS.  

Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the CCS bandwagon had been kicked into shape in the early 2000s, and while initially viewed as a dodgy technofix by many, the momentum for it had been built, including by people who Saw No Alternative.  Copenhagen was coming, and the EU needed to look like it was All Systems Go.

What we learn is that even ridiculous schemes (in every sense) will ‘win in the short term, if enough people bite their tongues, for various reasons of their own.

What happened next. The Global Financial Crisis made the numbers even suckier.  The Copenhagen conference ended in farce. The EU funding for CCS etc fell apart. The UK first competition fell apart. But here we are, sixteen years later, with CCS STILL as the Big Hope. What a species

Also on this day: 

April 23, 1954 – Irish Times runs carbon dioxide/climate story. Yes, 1954.

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

April 23, 2013 – Power Companies want Abbott to rethink Direct Action – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Germany

April 22, 1915 – First gas attack in World War 1

One hundred and ten years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1915,

On April 22, 1915 at 5 p.m. a wave of asphyxiating gas released from cylinders embedded in the ground by German specialist troops smothered the Allied line on the northern end of the Ypres salient, causing panic and a struggle to survive a new form of weapon.

The attack forced two colonial French divisions north of Ypres from their positions, creating a 5-mile gap in the Allied line defending the city. This was the first effective use of poison gas on the Western Front and the debut of Germany’s newest weapon in its chemical arsenal, chlorine gas, which irritated the lung tissue causing a choking effect that could cause death.

A British officer described the effect of the gas on the French colonial soldiers:

“A panic-stricken rabble of Turcos and Zouaves with gray faces and protruding eyeballs, clutching their throats and choking as they ran, many of them dropping in their tracks and lying on the sodden earth with limbs convulsed and features distorted in death.”

There was no technology to protect the soldiers from this new weapon; an operational gas mask was not available, so the Allied soldiers improvised with linen masks soaked in water and “respirators” made from lint and tape.

Stunned by their overwhelming outcome of the attack, the Germans tentatively advanced, losing an opportunity to exploit their success.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 301ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

First Usage of Poison Gas | National WWI Museum and Memorial

 See also How Gas Became A Terror Weapon In The First World War | IWM

The context was that the First World War, the great wars, or the war to end all wars, or whatever you want to call it, was bogged down already in trench warfare. So what do you do when you’re stuck? You innovate. What did the Germans innovate? Gas! 

Was this the first use of gas against humans? I’m not sure. Had it been tried out in the colonies? I don’t know.

What we learn is that ideas of polluted air as a menace had been around for a long time, and it appeared in science fiction, the weather as a nightmare, and now a deliberate man made (local) climate modification was happening 

What happened next? The Germans kept using it for a while, but it was a tricky thing, because when the wind changed, you would cause mayhem for your own troops (literal blowback). Then, after the war, people’s lungs were shot. See also that poem by Wilfred Owen poem Futility.

See also Thomas Hardy’s poem Christmas 1924,

‘Peace upon earth!’ was said. We sing it,

And pay a million priests to bring it.

After two thousand years of mass

We’ve got as far as poison-gas.

Murder apes. We’re not just murder apes. But mostly, of late, murder apes.

What happened next

See also Churchill’s suggestion of it as a cheap way of maintaining empire, and the Churchill Society’s inevitable attempt at explaining it away. Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?

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: 

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming – All Our Yesterdays

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Categories
Predatory delay Renewable energy

April 21, 1978  – solar power is unfeasible (cartoon)

Forty seven years ago, on this day, April 21st, 1978, a cartoon with a long afterlife appeared.,

See Snopes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were fierce debates within America about what “paths” should be taken, nuclear, coal, solar, etc. And this is just a cracking cartoon that does a really useful piece of work in explaining what’s going on. 

See also solar socialism, by Ronald Reagan as per this corking letter of August 20, 1981 in the New York Times.

What I think we can learn from this is that  cartoons can really cut through.

What happened next

Solar continued to be starved of funding and attacked until despite the fossil lobby,  it was mature enough to make nice fat profits.

see also “The Sun Betrayed”  “Review 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.

Also on this day: 

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

April 20, 2023 – tabloid smear job of climate activist – Hypocrite-Zealot Trap

Two years ago, on this day, April 20th, 2023, the Scum , sorry “The Sun” “newspaper” published a hit job on XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook (whose ‘what next’ essay you can read here). The “journalists” sprang a version of the hypocrite zealot trap on her because – gasp – she drives a car and she buys food. 

The context was that the Sun in 2007 had come within a whisker of endorsing strong climate action. Then head office had got cold feet. The split between the Murdochs on the climate issue among others, is famous, but until that is resolved, with the Dirty Digger being dug six foot under, the Scum will continue to be knuckle dragging on climate.

This is not to say that you have to endorse XR as a loyalty test. 

What we learn is that activists are always vulnerable to this sort of hat job. It is the hypocrite zealot trap. If you are anything approaching a normal human being in terms of your travel, your eating, your ”lifestyle” you will be accused of being a hypocrite because by raising your voice to say ‘we all need to change’ you’re lecturing other people about how they should live their lives.,

Whereas, if you are consistent, if you’re a vegan who doesn’t get in internal combustion engine cars, etc, then you are a zealot, but you’re still a hypocrite. If you’ve ever, for example, used or been able to been saved by the NHS. 

So this is a classic attempt to play the man, not the ball, or in this case, the woman, by people who, on some level, must know that their opponents are right and that they are wrong. They can’t cope with it so they revel in this sort of nonsense. 

It also should be said that it’s kind of a cyber equivalent of sticking someone’s corpse on a pike or their dead body and a gibbet. It’s to send a message to other people who were thinking about maybe sticking their head above the parapet. This is what will happen to you. 

What happened next

The state corporate attacks on climate activism continued, and escalated. By early 2025 their war of attrition had ‘succeeded.’

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: 

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 2009 – World has Six Years to Act, says Penny Sackett – All Our Yesterdays