Tag: Peter Walker

Categories
United Kingdom

February 24, 1971 – aims of the Department of the Environment

Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 24th, 1971, the aims of the then new United Kingdom “Department of the Environment” were laid out.

The aims of the Department included the renewal, improvement and protection of the environment. Its first priority, as defined in a speech by Walker on 24 February 1971, was to ensure the environment could be enjoyed by the population as a whole, especially those who lived in or experienced a bad environment at that time.772 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Department of Energy had been a Harold Wilson idea mooted in I think, late ‘69, early ‘70. There’d been a change of government thanks to the Tories unexpectedly winning the June 1970 election,, but the political and institutional momentum was behind the creation of a department for  environment.  

What we can learn is that it was in this period in the very early 1970s, that Western governments started to change the state apparatus to accommodate public and scientific concern about pollution. . So you’d get Departments of Environment in Australia and the UK and the same sort of thing in the United States. This is not to say that some of these issues hadn’t been tackled before. 

What happened next? 

Well, the Department of Environment kept on keeping on. It has changed name and shape over time – is currently called Defra.

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 24 1994 – the death of Abbey Pond 

 February 24, 2003 – UK Energy White Paper kinda changes the game (a bit).

Categories
United Kingdom

February 16, 1972 – Dept of Env boss “we can’t be complacent”

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, February 17th, 1972, the first UK Environment Minister says “we can’t be complacent.”

In February 1972, Peter Walker, the Environment Secretary, wrote to Edward Heath ‘about the problems said to be in store on a world scale as a result of conflicts between present trends in population and economic growth requiring greater and greater amounts of energy and natural resources’.31 ‘While much of the argument … is extreme, apocalyptic and naıve’, argued Walker, citing both the Limits to Growth and A Blueprint for Survival, the influential green manifesto written by Edward Goldsmith and which had been published in The Ecologist the month before, ‘I do not think we can be complacent about the issues it raises’. After summarizing a ‘creditable list’ of environmental policies, Walker nevertheless stressed that the dangers, if they occur, are sufficiently great that in my view a case has been established to justify the UK Government in taking part … in further work to broaden the existing analysis both in width and depth.

The immediate need would seem to be to decide on the most appropriate way, within Government, of handling the further work that is required … What seems necessary is a central capability, built round a Research Group, within Government … [to] work on the techniques on lines complementary to those being pursued by MIT and elsewhere. TNA CAB 164/1182. Walker to Heath, 16 February 1972. This important letter was copied to Alec Douglas-Home, Tony Barber, Willie Whitelaw, George Jellicoe, John Davies, Jim Prior, William Armstrong, Burke Trend and Lord Rothschild

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the environment conference in Stockholm, proposed by Sweden and then accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1968, was imminent.. Meanwhile, the Limits to Growth report was about to come out, and the Blueprint for Survival already had. There was the general aura of apocalypse.  

What we learn is smart people, powerful people were paying serious attention to these issues. It’s easy to blame them for not having done more or not having succeeded. Can we curse people from 50 years ago? Of course, we will be cursed in 50 years or in, in fact, in five years. 

What happened next 

The Stockholm Conference happened. And that kind of gave everyone an invitation to stop thinking about environmental issues, which they gleefully took. It’s no fun staring into the abyss.

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 16, 2005- The Kyoto Protocol shambles into futile existence, despite Uncle Sam’s best efforts

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”