Posts - Page 8 of 216 - All Our Yesterdays

March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 11, 2026
No Comments on March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

On this day, March 12, 1970,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was that the 60s had happened. Everyone was questioning, well, everyone, a few of the young, were questioning the myths that they’d been brought up on. One of those myths was of painless economic progress that would not damage the planet. By the late 60s, air pollution was getting so bad that this was mocked, and also oil pollution, for example, well, the Torrey Canyon, but also the more consequential Santa Barbara oil spill of January, 1969. LINK

The specific context was that people like Neil Young were just tapping into that sense of menace and danger.

Songs on the album were inspired by a screenplay written by Dean Stockwell and Herb Bermann also titled After the Gold Rush. The screenplay’s plot involves an apocalyptic ecological disaster that washes away the Topanga Canyon hippie community. Stockwell, a lifelong friend of Young, was also part of the Topanga Canyon artist culture of the time. Mutual friend Dennis Hopper encouraged Stockwell to write his own screenplay in wake of Hopper’s success with Easy Rider. Stockwell recalls writing the script:

Dennis very strongly urged me to write a screenplay, and he would get it produced. I came back home to Topanga Canyon and wrote After The Gold Rush. Neil was living in Topanga then too, and a copy of it somehow got to him. He had had writer’s block for months, and his record company was after him. And after he read this screenplay, he wrote the After the Gold Rush album in three weeks.^[10]

Young recalls coming in contact with the script in his 2012 memoir Waging Heavy Peace:

When I returned to Topanga, Dean Stockwell came by the house with a screenplay called After the Gold Rush. He had co-written it with Herb Bermann and wanted to know if I could do the music for it. I read the screenplay and kept it around for a while. I was writing a lot of songs at the time, and some of them seemed like they would fit right in with this story. The song “After the Gold Rush” was written to go along with the story’s main character as he carried the tree of life through Topanga Canyon to the ocean. One day Dean brought an executive from Universal Studios to my house to meet me. It looked like the project was going to happen, and I thought it would really be a good movie. It was a little off-the-wall and not a normal type of Hollywood story. I was really into it. Apparently the studio wasn’t, because nothing more ever happened.^[11]

After the Gold Rush – Wikipedia

In his 2012 biography Young reportedly gave a different explanation of the song’s origin and meaning, describing the inspiration provided by a screenplay of the same name (never produced), which apocalyptically described the last days of California in a catastrophic flood. The screenplay and song’s title referred to what happened in California, a place that took shape due to the Gold Rush. Young eventually concluded that:

After The Gold Rush is an environmental song… I recognize in it now this thread that goes through a lotta my songs that’s this time-travel thing… When I look out the window, the first thing that comes to my mind is the way this place looked a hundred years ago.^[4]

After the Gold Rush (song) – Wikipedia

What I think we can learn from this is that this song is an absolute banger. I listen to it all the time

What happened next Neil Young is still around!

Neil Young – Wikipedia

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:

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

March 12, 1963 – first scientific meeting about C02 build-up

March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up

Tags 1970

Australia

March 11, 2001 – Don Burke adverts

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 11, 2026
No Comments on March 11, 2001 – Don Burke adverts

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 11th, 2001,

The Federal Government is spending $3.9 million on an advertising campaign on greenhouse gases featuring celebrity gardener Don Burke, two months after criticism of its $3.6 million ad campaign on the Natural Heritage Trust.

In the ads, on prime-time television and in newspapers, Burke says: “I love greenhouses. Wouldn’t want to live in one, though … and that’s why the Commonwealth Government is doing something about it.”

“They’re investing $200 million a year to lower greenhouse gases. They’re working with over 300 major companies, helping them to clean up their act.”

He goes on to introduce 10 ways Australians can make a difference including turning off the TV at the power point, instead of using the remote, washing clothes in cold water and taking shorter showers.

The Opposition’s environment spokesman, Senator Nick Bolkus, said yesterday the ad campaign was an “outrageous abuse of taxpayers’ money”.

… The Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office confirmed the full cost of the advertising campaign was $3.9 million, with the ads to run for six weeks.

2001 Clennell, A. 2001. Pitched Battle Over Don Burke Ads. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March, p.5.

AND

CELEBRITY green thumb Don Burke yesterday defended his decision to promote the Federal Government’s anti-greenhouse gas policy on television, saying he was no apologist for the Liberals.

The Opposition and the Australian Democrats voiced concern over Mr Burke’s promotion of the Government’s approach to greenhouse problems in a $3.9 million print and broadcast campaign.

But Mr Burke, who did the job free of charge, praised the Government for making a start and said he would also support similar Labor efforts.

“I knew in doing this … the Opposition would come back with various statements. As I say, I’m not an apologist for the Liberal Party.”

Daily Telegraph, March 14, 2001 p20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a more ambitious carbon dioxide emissions reduction target than the governing Labor party, but this had not gotten them over the line; they very narrowly lost, and felt that they had been betrayed by green groups, especially the Australian Conservation Foundation. This exacerbated pre-existing suspicions and antipathy to all things environmental. In 1996 the Liberals had come back to power, and new Prime Minister John Howard had made it pretty clear that he had contempt for the issue of climate change and those pushing it. I could go on for days….

The specific context was that thanks to the Millennium drought and so forth, concerns about climate change were growing. And so as an attempt at perception management, Howard had used taxpayer money to do an advertising campaign fronted by then popular TV personality Don Burke, who did gardening shows.

What I think we can learn from this is that even assholes, or especially assholes, will use public funds to try and fool the public. It’s like that cartoon of the two fat men at the table, and one of them cuts off the tail of the dog nearby and feeds the dog its own tail. It’s actually worse than that, of course. Anyway…

What happened next the Don Burke controversy blew up because Labor and the Democrats (the Democrats still a thing) were not at all happy, and launched parliamentary investigations and so on. The Greens were just becoming a thing by then.

Burke himself, well, here’s Wikipedia:

He has been an outspoken critic of numerous environmental advocacy groups. From July 2005 to late 2008,^[3] Burke was the Chair of the climate-change-denying Australian Environment Foundation.^[4]

then revealed to be. Well…

An investigation started when journalist Tracey Spicer announced on Twitter that she was investigating the sexual harassment by powerful men in the Australian entertainment industry. Spicer said, “One name kept recurring – Don Burke”.^[8]^[9] On 26 November 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Sydney Morning Herald published a joint investigative piece containing claims that Burke had sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and bullied women throughout his television career. The report quotes alleged female victims, as well as both female and male witnesses, including David Leckie—the former head of the Nine Network, on which Burke’s programs aired—comparing Burke to American producer Harvey Weinstein.^[8] Kate McClymont, Lorna Knowles, Tracey Spicer and Alison Branley received a Walkley Award for their investigation.^[10]

Other former Channel Nine executives went “on the record” to comment on the allegations.

Sam Chisholm said, “Don Burke was a disgrace because of his behaviour internally and externally. This precluded him from ever becoming a major star.”^[11]

Peter Meakin said, “There was gossip about inappropriate language and he was incredibly demanding. If someone fell short of the mark, he would excoriate them. He was unforgiving.”^[11]

In response to the allegations, Burke released a lengthy statement which said he was “deeply hurt and outraged at the false and defamatory claims” and suggested the “baseless” claims were from former employees who “bear grudges against me”. Burke also stated that he has had a “life-long opposition to sexism and misogyny”.^[11]

Burke claimed to have self-diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome and, in a media interview^[12] following revelations about his alleged misconduct, said that these “genetic failings” were to blame for some of his conduct. In response, Autism Awareness Australia stated that Burke’s claim was “beyond appalling” and “gobsmacking”.^[13]

In the following days, many celebrities came forward to recount their observations of Burke’s sexist and offensive behaviour, including Susie O’Neill,^[14] Kerri-Anne Kennerley,^[15] Di Morrissey, Debra Byrne, Tottie Goldsmith, Amity Dry and Mike Carlton.^[16]

Following the interview on A Current Affair,^[17] one of the women sued Burke for defamation on the grounds that he said she had lied about the sexual harassment allegation and that she made the false allegation as part of a “witch hunt” during the interview. She lost the case on the grounds that Justice David Mossop did not find Burke’s denial in the interview was credible, so viewers would not conclude that she was a liar or part of a witch hunt, and thus was not defamed.^[18]^[19]

And the emissions kept climbing despite all the advertising campaign bullshit, Howard tried again in 2007 with “climate clever” adverts. But by then, he was toast.

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:

March 11, 1959 – Warmer Arctic Raising World’s Sea Level…

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

March 11, 1989 – warm words at The Hague, where the climate criminals should be sent…

March 11, 2008 – Australia’s ratification of Kyoto Protocol comes into effect

Tags 2001, Don Burke, John Howard

On This Day

On This Day – March 10: Congressional thinking (1988), stupid speech by stupid old powerful man (2010), RIP Sherry Rowland (2012), Florida governor versus reality (2015)

With the climate issue clearly about to break through, some congressional staffers have a think, organised by some big green campaigning outfits.

March 10, 1988 – Congressional staff (go on a) retreat on Climate

If you want to control, or at least confuse and disinform, then you must control the state broadcaster. So, you put loyal stupid people in powerful positions. They then give stupid speeches. And voila.

March 10, 2010 – ABC chairman gives stupid speech to staff

A great scientist and brave man, who faced prolonged interference in his work because he was right and industry didn’t like it.

March 10, 2012- RIP Sherry Rowland

When you are six years old or so, you learn that closing your eyes doesn’t mean other people can’t see you – that there is an actual reality. Republican governors get to be five or so their whole wretched lives…

March 10, 2015 – Florida governor denies banning words “climate change”

Cultural responses Interviews

Interview with Crawford Kilian, author of “Icequake”

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 9, 2026
No Comments on Interview with Crawford Kilian, author of “Icequake”

Crawford Killian, author of the 1979 weather-apocalypse novel Icequake, kindly answers some questions. You can find him here – crof@bsky.social

1. A bit about who you are – where you grew up, education etc

I was born in New York City but grew up in North Hollywood, California until 1950. The family moved to Mexico City so my TV-engineer father could put a TV station (Televicentro) on the air. Four years later we were back in the States and I went through high school in Santa Monica. Then an undistinguished four years at Columbia, return to LA, two years in the US Army—and then, after a couple of dull jobs, my wife and I moved to Vancouver to get the hell away from the Vietnam War. I stumbled into college teaching, loved it, got my MA, and taught for 41 years before retiring in 2008.

2. Do you remember when/how you first heard that human activity might alter the planet’s climate, and what you thought (of course, in the 60s it was maybe dust, or carbon dioxide, warming/cooling)

Theories abounded in the 1960s and 1970s, and I ran across one theory circa 1974 from an Australian scientist who argued that the West Antarctic ice sheet’s own weight was melting its base and the lubricating effect could collapse the ice sheet into the Southern Ocean—where it would reflect enough sunshine back into space to trigger a new ice age. Yeah, I know. You had to be there.

3. How did you come to write Icequake? How long did it take?

I put aside the SF novel I’d been working on for years, did a lot of research, and wrote two drafts of Icequake. A lot of it got written in longhand during endless faculty association meetings. All told, it must have taken about three years. The second draft clicked—published in Canada, Commonwealth rights sold to Futura, a UK publisher, US rights to Bantam, who also wanted a sequel. That was Tsunami, very much the runt of my litter.

4. How was it received?

Futura put a lot of effort into publicizing Icequake, and for a few dizzy weeks in the summer of 1980 it was outselling The Thorn Birds. It didn’t get much critical attention in North America, and Bantam didn’t put a real effort into it, but it did all right. A number of people who’d worked in the Antarctic thought it was pretty accurate, which I was very relieved to hear.

5. Have you re-read it since?

I re-read it a year or two ago, and thought it held together pretty well. Of course I’d accelerated the collapse into a matter of weeks, not decades, but it still seemed plausible. Well, except for the concurrent collapse of the ozone layer and the earth’s magnetic field! I’d set the story in the near future of 1985, so of course much of the technology is really dated…not to mention the sociology. I had a couple of women working at New Shackleton Station, great rarities in those days, but not so much in the present.

6. What have you been doing, these last almost-fifty years since it was published.

I’ve had a very pleasant half-century, thanks! As a full-time college teacher I could pay the mortgage while also writing SF and fantasy novels (and nonfiction books, and writing a weekly column on education for a Vancouver daily paper, the Province). I was able to teach a course in writing fiction based on my own experience, and several of my students went on to publish their own novels. I had fun exploring ideas, but none of my later novels made the kind of money that Icequake did. In the mid-1990s I’d tried to break out of genre, but the market was changing. After a couple of unpublishable novels I packed it in. No regrets—I was lucky to break in when I did. Since then I’ve written hundreds of articles on all kinds of subjects—mostly for the Vancouver online magazine The Tyee (https://thetyee.ca/Bios/Crawford_Kilian/ ). A lot of those articles are on climate change.

7. Complete this sentence. “A knowledge of just how long we’ve known about the problem of carbon dioxide build-up gives us…” (you can say “nothing” or “perspective” or whatever!!) …gives us confirmation that we are very, very slow learners.

8. Anything else you’d like to say.

There really was a bit of debate in the 1970s about the trend of the climate, and I then had no particular opinion one way or the other. But by the early 80s it was clear we really were warming up, and I made passing reference to it in one or two of my later novels. Icequake went out of print long ago (though it’s still available as an e-book. But the science keeps confirming the book’s basic idea—that the Antarctic ice sheets, however vast they may seem, are transient conditions and subject to change.

Tags Crawford Killian, Icequake

Australia Carbon Pricing

March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 8, 2026
No Comments on March 9, 2000 – Report on emissions trading

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 9th, 2000,

“On March 9 a report on emissions trading by Allen Consulting was released to the Victorian Government. Modelling various scenarios but excluding the effect of international trading, the report put the cost on carbon in the range of $42 to $148 a tonne.

Analysts point out that an international carbon market is inevitable, and that this will considerably reduce the price of carbon. Let’s hope it does. The Allen report also predicted percentage point declines in national GDP and employment.

Hordern, N. 2000. Greenhouse gas and the high price of hot air. The Australian Financial Review, 29 March, p.18.

AND

MELBOURNE, March 10, AAP – A compulsory system of trading of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia would be too expensive, according to a report prepared for the Victorian government.

The report on greenhouse emissions trading by The Allen Consulting Group said a domestic permits scheme would also be too complex.

However, the report recommended that Australia participate in an international trading system when an agreed model becomes operational.

“On balance, we do not support the imposition of a mandatory domestic emissions trading system in Australia,” the report said.

“The costs of permits under such a system may well be higher than those incurred later under an international system and could, therefore, lead to an unnecessarily high adjustment burden.”

Anon. 2000. Greenhouse emission trading plan too expensive – Aust report. Australian Associated Press, 10 March,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was that the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide had been around for a long time. There was even a mention of it in 1970 in a major Australian newspaper. But it really only kicked into high gear in 1988-89, Two attempts at introducing a carbon tax had been defeated, in 1990-91 and then, more dramatically, in 1994-95

Then attention had switched to the idea of emissions trading. And of course, the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed but not ratified – and it was still a hope that Australia would ratify it at this stage – was allegedly going to enable international carbon trading.

The specific context was … Allen consulting…. Well, the fact that it’s one of Geoff Allen’s babies should tell you plenty.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been dreaming up policy “solutions” to climate change, which don’t tackle the need for urgent, steep reductions, but allow people to feel that they are doing something, and allow those people and other people to get rich from All the consultancy fees, legal fees, etc.

What happened next. Well, after being gifted the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, in March 2001, George W Bush followed instructions from the actual president, Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of negotiating around the Kyoto Protocol, In June of 2002 John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, did the same.

Eventually an emissions trading scheme came into force in Australia, thanks to the skill of Julia Gillard and her need to negotiate with Greens and Independents, but that was swiftly destroyed by the wrecking-ball liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and here we are.

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

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 9, 1998 – First head of Australian Greenhouse Office announced – (Or “Infamous long AGO”)

March 9, 2005- Albanese says “ecological decline is accelerating and many of the world’s ecosystems are reaching dangerous thresholds.” #auspol

March 9, 2009 – Scientist tries to separate fact from denialist fiction

March 9, 2009 – Carbon price being weakened by lobbying…

Tags 2000, Allen Consulting, Victoria

Denial United Kingdom

March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 7, 2026
No Comments on March 8, 2007 – Great Global Warming Swindle

Nineteen years ago, on this day, March 8th, 2007,

Great Global Warming Swindle broadcast on Channel 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was that climate change had come alive as an issue in the summer of 2006 especially in the UK, thanks to various factors, including “Camp to Climate Action,” (which I was involved in), and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth. Therefore the backlash would have to begin.

The specific context was that the idiots who made the documentary had form. They had produced something in the late 90s called Against Nature that said, in effect, “Hitler was vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are at least Nazi-adjacent.”

What I think we can learn from this is that mud and shit will be flung by opponents of action towards stopping us killing ourselves more quickly than we otherwise might. This is especially the case if “stopping our killing ourselves quickly” involves cutting into the profits of rich white people and the so-called liberties of rich white people. It’s not just the rich, of course, I’m being tabloid here.

What happened next

The Swindle enabled middle class people who didn’t want to take a stand and change anything to say “Oh, well, there’s still doubt. Scientists are still not sure.” Blah, blah, blah.

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

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice?

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

March 8, 1978 – Minister for Science speaks proudly of Australia’s carbon dioxide monitoring…

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Tags 2007, actually worse than useless nutjobs, worthless nutjobs

Science Scientists United States of America

March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 6, 2026
No Comments on March 7, 1980 – Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Forty six years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1980,

Carbon Balance in Northern Ecosystems and the Potential Effect of Carbon Dioxide Induced Climatic Change

Report of a Workshop, San Diego, California, March 7-9, 1980

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822007443104&seq=7

and

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Carbon_Balance_in_Northern_Ecosystems_an/cb0JAQAAIAAJ?hl=en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was by about 1976-77 especially people within the senior levels of the United States science establishment – I’m thinking specifically of Alvin Weinberg, but it’s not just him – were really thinking hard about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up. So perhaps one of the key documents that I need to think about more is the August 1976 report from Oak Ridge.

Anyway, there had been the Miami Beach meeting in 1977 and now more and more conferences and meetings, scientific workshops, all in the hope that the politicians could be persuaded to take it all seriously. And at this point, of course, the idea of synfuels were still in the mix as a response to the second oil shock.

The specific context was that the first world climate conference had happened, and there was money from the Department of Energy for these sorts of workshops.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in 1980 to be taking action (as per the CO2 Newsletter).

What happened next. More meetings. The crucial event was the election of Ronald Reagan that basically put the kibosh on all the effort, or most of the political policy efforts within the US.

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

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate”

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Denial Science Scientists United States of America

March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Post author By drmarchudson
Post date March 5, 2026
No Comments on March 6,1996 – Michael McCracken testimony about “skeptic” scientists

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 6th, 1996,

“On March 6, 1996, Michael MacCracken submitted prepared testimony to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives. One part of that testimony addressed recurring criticism by the skeptic scientists of IPCC findings that corroborate increased atmospheric warming and attribute that increase to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 198

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The broader context was with the coming of the climate issue in 1988, the denial campaigns had cranked into gear. Initially it was attacks on James Hansen, but by 1989 it had spread thanks to outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, which had been set up to shill for Star Wars, the Space Defence Initiative, and outfits like Western Coal Association and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment.” Things had really cranked into higher gear in 1994-95 because the IPCC second assessment report was being produced, and the denialists needed to attack it and cast doubt on it as much as they could.

The specific context was that the Second Assessment report had come out in November of ‘95 and had included the fateful phrase that humans were already exerting a “discernible” influence on the climate. I think the wording had been suggested by Bert Bolin.

Anyway, here’s one of the good guys, Mike McCracken trying to educate congresspeople about scepticism, science, climate, etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that the denialist campaigns are partly about rich white men wanting to stay rich. They also provide a platform for superannuated scientists like Nirenberg and Seitz and Singer to feel that they are somehow still relevant when frankly they’re not – or certainly not relevant scientifically, but somehow manage to have an enormously pernicious influence for the future of our species.

Though, to be fair, even without the denialist campaigns, we would have probably still fumbled the ball. We’ll never know.

What happened next. The denialist campaigns kept going. Within a year or two, they’d found what they thought was “soft target” in their ongoing “Serengeti Strategy” – Michael Mann, and the caravan went on.

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

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial

March 6, 2002 – ABARE cheerleads Bush. Blecch

March 6, 2009 – first “Low Carbon Industrial Strategy” announced

March 6, 2009 – the UK gets its first “low carbon industrial strategy”