Forty three years ago, on this day, May 19th, 1982, the House of Lords held a debate on “Coal and the Environment”
Earl of Halsbury (this chap – who introduced the amendment that became, well, Section 28) said the following
Take, for example, the problem of the glasshouse effect and so on—the rise of carbon dioxide —when nothing we do in this country can make very much difference to the carbon dioxide content in the world, but of course what the world does can make quite a big difference to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over this country. But the latest and most refined mathematical calculations—these have reached me only in the last few weeks, so they are stop press news—indicate that the atmospheric effects are a good deal more sophisticated than was originally thought. We may be going to be faced, for example, with much more in the way of local, than global, effects; there will be droughts in places where we are no longer accustomed to having droughts, and there will be floods where we are not accustomed to having floods. But all that lies a long way in the future.
Plant photosynthesis is at an optimum when the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is three times what it is. Maybe that is what the long-term historical average has always been and plants have adapted to it. Maybe we are merely living in a carbon dioxide world at the present time. The great storehouse of carbon dioxide is the sea, and the sea and the atmosphere interchange carbon dioxide—nobody knows the details. If the sea warms up, it emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if it cools down it absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Having absorbed it, it can fix some of it as coral, future limestone rocks and so on. If we want to know more about that we must study not the atmosphere but oceanography because the two interreact and we shall never understand the atmosphere until we understand the oceans or vice versa. It may be a rather strange conclusion to say that if you want to know about the glasshouse effect, do not bother about measuring the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere but study oceanography. It is an example of how one adjusts one’s priorities if one thinks in the right timescale.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Labour government had set up the “Commission on Energy and the Environment” in 1977. It decided its first report would be on Coal. Brian Flowers, its chair, was persuaded by John Mason to soft-pedal on the carbon dioxide atmosphere issue. By the time the report finally came out, the Conservatives were in charge, and CENE basically got buried. This parliamentary debate is against that backdrop.
What I think we can learn from this
Official reports and commissions of the Great and the Good might be worth reading or then again, they might not be worth a bucket of warm spit. It depends both on the official terms of reference and the unspoken (but still official!) ones.
What happened next CENE disappeared. The climate issue it ignored did not.
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:
May 19, 1937 – Guy Callendar’s carbon dioxide warning lands on someone’s desk
May 19, 1957 – LA Times asks “Is your smoke helping to melt polar icecaps?” – All Our Yesterdays
May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…
May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from the denialists. Sort of.