Tag: Margaret Thatcher

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1989 – Michael Buerk asks Thatcher if she’s a friend of the Earth

Thirty seven  years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1989,

‘Mrs Thatcher, looking back over your life,’ the BBC’s Michael Buerk asked, ‘are you really a  friend of the earth?’ The Greening of Mrs Thatcher, broadcast on 2 nd March 1989, BBC Two logo

BBC Two

First broadcast: Thu 2nd Mar 1989, 20:30 on BBC Two England

The Greening of Mrs Thatcher From No 10 Downing Street Mrs Thatcher talks to Michael Buerk.

Prime Minister for ten years, Mrs Thatcher and her Government’s environmental record hasn’t won her many bouquets. This weekend she hosts a major international conference on saving the ozone layer, when that record and her commitment will be on the line. She says that the Tories are the real ‘friends of the earth’, but is she genuinely committed or just chasing the Green vote?

Tonight she talks for the first time about her own attitude to the environment, and what her new initiatives could mean for Britain and the rest of the world. 

Research MARK FIELDER

Outside broadcast director IAN PAUL 

Producer AMANDA THEUNISSEN 

Editor PETER SALMON BBC Bristol

TV Interview for BBC1 Nature | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Thatcher had been briefed on carbon dioxide build up in 1979 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashton, and had replied with an incredulous you want me to worry about the weather? This didn’t stop her using the possibility of a greenhouse effect to say nice things about nuclear power. Marc, if you haven’t already put the Tokyo and Venice G7 meetings on your search for list at National Archives, do so now and Thatcher had continued to largely ignore carbon dioxide build up as an issue, even though it was there in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto. 

The specific context was that  thanks to nudges from people like Crispin Gickle in 1988 Thatcher had given a surprising speech at the Royal Society, and so kicked off concern about Carbon Dioxide build up. However, the green organisations had challenged her to do something meaningful, legislatively, and she had not been interviewed by Michael Burke on whether she was, quote, a friend of the earth. UNQUOTE, she said the following, x, y, z. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that people like Thatcher are were capable of doing what’s called a reverse ferret completely. U turning on their position. And that’s what happened in this case. 

What happened next she kept giving nice features about carbon dioxide build-up without ever pushing through any meaningful action by Her Majesty’s Government, and she was toppled in November 1990 shortly after giving another speech at the second world climate conference in Geneva. 

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 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder 

March 2, 1956 – IGY oceanography meeting on “clearer understanding”

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
United Kingdom

January 12, 1989 – Thatcher ponders linking aid to preventing deforestation

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, January 12th,1989 – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meets with her Foreign Secretary and others to discuss climate policies- 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the UK is, historically, a huge polluter. Of course.

The specific context was that Thatcher had set off the “Greenhouse Effect” discussion among policy types in September 1988, with a speech to the Royal Society. (Scientists had been trying for years to alert politicians).  Some (James Goldsmith etc) wanted to try to link foreign aid to reduced deforestation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was opposed, and eventually won the day.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to know what went on, you can read the memoirs, but you just have to wait for the archives to open, without ever trusting those archives to give you a full/accurate picture.

What happened next

The proposal to tie aid to stopping deforestation did not get past its opponents, who included the FCO.

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: 

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda  

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom

December 13, 1984 – Thatcher warned about climate change. Again.

On this day 41 years ago, the Chief Scientific Advisor, B.N. Nicholson wrote a report which included this –

The predicted changes in climate accompanying increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases will have widespread and possibly catastrophic impacts on agriculture, energy supply and demand, sea-defences etc.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, 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 by the early 1980s climate scientists were pretty sure that there was a quick (in geological terms basically instantaneous) warming on the way. Not that anyone in “power” seemed to give a damn.

The specific context was that Thatcher had already been warned about carbon dioxide build-up by her previous Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth. Meanwhile, by 1984 it was becoming obvious to scientists who could add up that there was serious trouble ahead.

What we learn.  There were plenty of warnings – our “leaders” did not lead.

What happened next. Thatcher was finally convinced in 1988, and the next phase started – one of empty promises.

Also on this day

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over” – All Our Yesterdays

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Australia International processes

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997,

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases,

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, handshakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

But Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, did not appear. To the disappointment of conservationists, he decided to send his Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill.

On Monday [23rd June], Howard was meeting his hero and mentor, the former British prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Woodford, J. 1997. Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, June 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC was due to be held in December. Rich countries were supposed to turn up with emissions reductions pledges.  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was really not up for that…

What I think we can learn from this is that John Howard is a terrible human being. But one who was enabled by other terrible human beings.

What happened next.  Australia managed to extort an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto, and Howard STILL refused to ratify it.

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: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

May 9, 1989- Tony Blair says market forces can’t fix the greenhouse effect…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 that nice young Tony Blair has an opinion piece in the Guardian. It includes the immortal lines

“From the moment Mrs Thatcher took up the greenhouse effect she has been at risk. Market forces cannot solve it. Indeed, they may have caused it.”

And later

“It is wholly impractical to solve the greenhouse effect through increased reliance on nuclear power.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Margarat Thatcher had performed an astonishing reverse-ferret in September 1988, and brought “the greenhouse effect” onto the political agenda. Then,her bluff was called by various NGOs, who threw down a thirty point “green gauntlet” in November. It was obvious she was all mouth and no trousers. Labour had to have a response, and this was it…

What I think we can learn from this is political parties are always seeking out – or responding to – “issues” thrown up by social movements, the media.

What happened next. A few weeks later Blair would be rubbishing the idea of any carbon taxes.

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

Blair, T. 1989. People switch on to the age of the green light-bulb. The Guardian, May 9, p.9

Also on this day: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
United Kingdom

November 20, 1988 – Will Thatcher pick up the Green Gauntlet? (spoiler: no, no she won’t)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 20th, 1988,

“To ask the Prime Minister what response she plans to make to the 30 point plan for environmental improvement in the United Kingdom set out in “The Green Gauntlet” document launched collectively by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on 20 November.” [1988]

“The Green Gauntlet” – Hansard – UK Parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the green groups in the UK had collaborated! This was not entirely unusual, but the breadth and depth of this collaboration was beyond average. They’d produce a wish list they called the Green Gauntlet that they threw down in front of Margaret Thatcher who had after all, just made a big noise at the Royal Society about the biggest experiment that we were conducting. And so it was a question of “was that all hot air, or would she actually do something about the green gauntlet?” I think we all know the answer.

What we learn: If you’re a politician at a national level at least, and you make big bold pronouncements, don’t be surprised if various green groups try to hold you to your word. And so it came to pass.

What happened next, Thatcher kept on giving nice speeches. She held a Cabinet meeting in April of ‘89, all about CO2. Her government shat on the idea of the Toronto Target. She made another nice empty speech at the United Nations General Assembly in November ‘89. And a year later, she was gone. 

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: 

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

November 20, 1973 – “Is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Disintegrating?”

November 20, 1974 – BBC airs “The Weather Machine”

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989, UK Prime Minister Thatcher speech to UN General Assembly

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 14 months previously, Margaret Thatcher had stunned everyone by making a speech about global warming to a gathering of the Royal Society in Oxford. And this had really moved the conversation on “the greenhouse effec”t and what to be about it onto a much higher level. But she’d actually committed the UK to very little despite her special one day Cabinet meeting about the greenhouse effect April 1989. And here, we have her making nice flowery speeches at the UNGA. 

What we learn is that she was a consummate politician. 

What happened next, a couple of days later, environmental analyst Tom Burke pointed out that there was “a hole in the policy layer”(which is quite a fun title, but you have to put it in the context of the ozone). And he pointed out that the UNGA speech had half an hour of flowery rhetoric, but nothing concrete, nothing specific. And so it came to pass that nothing specific or concrete was done. 

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
Commonwealth Sea level rise United Kingdom

October 17, 1987 – CHOGM meeting at which Margaret Thatcher has climate “brought home to her”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 17th, 1987, in Vancouver, a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting took place, and other leaders (especially the small island states) tried to bend UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s ear on the problem of climate change.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since 1985, scientists have been trying to warn politicians. Low lying nations and so forth were paying attention because they could see the writing on the wall or the waves washing over the seawall. And Thatcher by her own account, copped an earful at this Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. For all the good it did – it would be almost another year before she would give her speech at the Royal Society

What we learn is that you have to tell ideologues the same thing many many times before they’ll pay any attention. And God what a stupid species we are. 

What happened next? Yeah, you’ve got the explosion of interest in 1988.

In 1989, the CHOGM lot received Martin Holdgate’s report, which had been commissioned at Vancouver.

https://thecommonwealth.org/news/archive-holdgate-report-climate-change

Shridath Ramphal, then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, who commissioned the report from an international expert group at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Vancouver, Canada, in 1987, described the threat of climate change in his foreword as “truly global in its implications”.

He said: “If the Earth is to warm by even the most modest of the various projections, there could be far reaching, long term implications for natural ecological systems, farming, the design of major energy and water projects and for low lying areas that could be affected by rising sea level.”

The Holdgate report called for a “major international initiative” to establish “global responsibilities” for preventing unmanageable rises in the world’s temperature. It also spelt out practical steps which poor and small countries like Guyana, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Pacific islands, could take to monitor their changing environment.

 You’ve got the November 1989 Male declaration about sea level rise. You then have the toothless 1992 UNFCCC (the climate treaty).

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: 

October 17, 1973 – the coup at the Australian Conservation Foundation

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?”

October 17, 2009 – Maldives cabinet meets underwater

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Kingdom

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1990, the Times ran a big story about Thatcher settling for a “stabilise UK emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels” target, but calling it “tough.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been fights over emissions reductions for rich nations. In 1989, an energy minister, Lady whoever or Baroness whatever had nixed that {LINK}. But the negotiations were coming and the UK would need some sort of position. SDtabilisation target looks like a winner, even if it wasn’t adequate scientifically(that’s never stopped people before and it didn’t on this occasion).

What we learn is that there were intense tussles and battles in that period of the 80s, ‘88 to ‘92. And this was one of them. 

What happened next Thatcher was gone in six months. And the stabilisation target made its way into the UNFCCC treaty.

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 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes

Categories
United Kingdom

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 8th, 1988 there was a documentary about “the greenhouse effect”, a good seven months before Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did her u-turn and Big Speech at  the Royal Society.

This documentary report by Horizon examines the devastating effects of the Greenhouse Effect (earth’s temperature rising) and how man is causing it.

S1988E06 The Greenhouse Effect

February 8, 1988 BBC Two

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that more and more people were getting wise to the climate issue. It was popping up in the media in scientific journals, et cetera. Etc. And it was exactly the kind of issue that prestige BBC documentary television needed to be making. 

What we can learn from this is that Thatcher’s remarkable speech in September 27, 1988 looks less and less like prescient or like leadership, and more and more like scrambling to catch up ground that was getting away from her. 

What happened next? In June of ‘88, American scientist James Hansen gave his famous testimony and the conference in Toronto, the changing climate happened. And the policy window properly opened. 

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: 

Feb 8, 1965- All the way with LBJ – first President to say “carbon dioxide is building up”

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians