Climate, technology and chaos Blog

I have shown that, for at least three years, Baroness Thatcher had a consistently pro-active, public approach to climate change. This needs more elaboration by reportage of her behaviour in Parliament, and through the legislation she supported, but it could be possible to argue that her position got stronger as she went along. Despite uncertainties in our knowledge, she stated that: it was better to be precautionary; it was wise to listen to scientists; governments had to act and make policy; economic action should not destroy the environment and the future prosperity of our grandchildren; economic growth could help fund the changes; we all had to act together, and; prosperous countries had to help less prosperous countries avoid the mistakes ‘we’ had made.

However by her 2002 book Statescraft she had retreated from all these positions. The problem is to explain the path she followed.

This post will start to study the transition by briefly mentioning a few speeches from the period after her Prime Ministership, and then look at her 1993 autobiography The Downing Street Years. Another post will consider Statescraft, as this post is long enough, already.

The general argument is that she was becoming concerned that environmentalism and climate action was socialist in orientation, and that rather than propose a neoliberal and non-socialist solution, she began to retreat away from plans for action, into a hope that largely unregulated markets would solve the problem. There was to be no inhibition to economic growth or corporate liberty. This was not the only response she could have taken.

In the long run, it appears that neoliberalism cannot deal with environmental catastrophe, without losing its prioritising of corporate liberty and support for established corporations. The theory is so restrictive that it does not have enough ‘solution generating’ capacity for the neoliberal world to survive.

Some Post PM Speeches

A speech the ex-prime minister gave to the South African Institute of International Affairs, is short, but clearly presents one problem for the later Thatcher’s relationship to environmental policy, namely the issue of economic growth. She begins by acknowledging the importance of international action and the reality of climate change. She is not yet dismissive of this. But there is another more important reality to be acknowledged.

There is much to be done to tackle the causes of climatic change and to curb pollution. And it requires action at the international level. At least as important, though, is for individual countries and communities to take pride in and conserve their own particular environmental legacies and treasures.

Perhaps the most important truth we should bear in mind, however, is that conservation of whatever kind is costly: and so wealth must be created to pay for it. It is, therefore, a romantic myth—and indeed a dangerous falsehood—to claim that economic progress must result in environmental destruction. 

22 May 1991

It is perhaps surprising, then, not to hear claims that representative governments must regulate to ensure that ‘economic progress’ and wealth creation is not destructive to the environment we need to survive, or is compatible with such environmental survival. Such a point seems to have been more amenable to her in the past. But if her neoliberalism is biased towards maintaining corporate liberty to do whatever they like at any cost to others then perhaps it is not.

A post-autobiography speech in San Paulo, Brazil, makes a similar argument, even diminishing Brazils efforts to conserve what have been called the ‘lungs of the world’:

It is our task to help people out of poverty to a more rewarding and fuller life. And impressed as I am by the efforts that Brazil is making to conserve its ecological heritage and indeed the world’s environment through effective management of the rain forest, I am not one of those who thinks that we have to give up on growth and dash the hopes of those who depend on it for a better future.

16 Mar 1994

The speech goes on to attack wealth redistribution which

involves high taxation and sometimes confiscation, both of which penalise the very effort and talent that we need to build up more business, thereby providing more jobs and creating more wealth.

16 Mar 1994

In a speech to people at Leningrad State University, while stating the importance of international action, comes down to blaming socialism for the problems.

all the nations of the world have a duty to to tackle the threats to our environment. There is much to be done to deal with the causes of climatic change and to curb pollution. And it requires action at an international level. But we also must observe that it is the socialist countries which geared their industries to meeting production targets rather than to satisfying customers, unfree systems which neither respected human rights nor nature itself, which are the principle culprits. And it will be the advanced technology and the new wealth generated by free enterprise which will provide the means of restoring the world’s environment.

29 May 1991

A talk to Japanese youth, shortly after the speech in South Africa, makes similar points.

It is only in recent years that we have begun to understand how seriously we have together upset the balance of nature. Acid rain, the threat to the ozone layer, global warming—these are problems which have to be overcome by international cooperation. And never has the international community worked together more closely than in meeting the threat to our global environment.

But the point I would most like to make to you today is that sound science, not sentimentality, must be the basis of our approach. And the system best able to develop that science, most willing to apply it and best able to generate the wealth required to pay for it is free enterprise. Green socialism is no more an answer to the world’s environmental needs than was the smoke-stack socialism of Eastern Europe which poisoned our rivers, disfigured our buildings and rotted our forests.

5 Sep 1991

It appears that she is starting to consider that maintaining the neoliberal economic system is more important that maintaining the ecological system, and that the system as a whole will ideally solve its own problems through wealth generation. Science should not clash with neoliberal priorities. This ‘invisible hand’ of God fantasy, is something we have learnt is idealism at best, delusion at worst. Baroness Thatcher appears to be polarising the environmental debate, for her own rhetorical and thinking purposes, so that a complex discussion is reduced to a dispute between: a) total ‘green’ control, and stifling of prosperity (‘smokestack socialism’), and b) leaving the environment to unregulated markets. This is not a logical, practical, or inevitable division. It is certainly not the only position which could be taken. While it apparently makes clarity, it seems to be an unrealistic, or unreal, clarity that obscures reality.

The Autobiography: The Downing Street Years (1993)

Her Autobiography must have been being written in the late years of the her rule and more or less immediately immediately after her loss of the leadership of the Conservatives on the 28th November 1990. It usually takes quite a while to prepare a book this thick, with possible legal consequences, for publication. Consequently, the contents may be earlier than some of the speeches quoted above, and could be more moderate. The Conservatives continued in government under John Major, until Labor gained government in 1997 under Tony Blair. So it was addressed to a still Tory UK.

The relevant section of the book is entitled ‘Science and the Environment.’ It is only a few pages long.

It begins:

“In 1988 and 1989 there was a great burst of public interest in the environment. Unfortunately, under the green environmental umbrella sheltered a number of only slightly connected issues”

p.638.

She separates these issues into four:

1) “concern for the local environment… essentially and necessarily a matter for the local community”

2) “overdevelopment of the countryside” [but this is simple] “If people were to be able to afford houses there must be sufficient amounts of building land available…”

p.638

There is a slight contradiction here, as point 2 does not imply a particular respect for local environments, or for allowing the community to make descisions which conflict with the interests of developers, but it is a difficult position. If you support, what others call over-development, then you cannot support local control. The Baroness sides with developers, does not push the issue, and possibly is unaware of the problem.

3) “standard of Britains’s drinking water, rivers and sea.” [This is actively being remedied as can be seen by the] “return of healthy and abundant fish to the Thames, Tyne, Wear and Tees” and

4) [Atmospheric pollution]

p.638-9

She feels it necessary to separate issue 4 from the others as follows:

“I always drew a clear distinction bewteen these ‘environmental’ concerns and the quite separate question of atmospheric pollution. For me the proper starting point in formulating policy… was science. There had always to be a sound scientific base on which to build – and of course a clear estimation of the cost in terms of public expenditure and economic growth foregone.”

p.639

In this book the Baroness appears to consider the possibility of foregoing economic growth to solve a problem, or cost to the taxpayer – not perhaps as desirable, but as possible. It seems the cost should be known in advance for planning purposes, and to help judge actions, and not because some any cost will be considered too great for action. She is indicating politics is about practicable balance.

She then talks about science in general. There are two problems with science funding in the UK:

1) [Too much funding is directed at defence] and
2) “too much emphasis was being give to the development of produces for the market rather than to pure science… As someone with a scientific background, I knew that the greatest economic benefits of scientific research had always resulted from advances in fundamental knowledge”

p.639

In this passage she appears to be identifying with ‘pure’ scientists, and her past career/education. The example she gives is also illuminating, and indicates her sense of participation in the scientific process.

“It was, for example, the British Antarctic Survey which discovered a large hole in the ozone layer… I took the closest personal interest as the scientific evidence was amassed and analysed.”

p.640

This progresses to the problem of climate change, and the whole passage should be quoted at length.

“‘Global Warming’ was another atmospheric threat which required the application of hard-headed scientific principles. The relationship between the industrial emission of carbon dioxide… and climate change was a good deal less certain than the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion. Nuclear power production did not produce carbon dioxide – nor did it produce the gases which led to acid rain.. However, this did not attract the environmental lobby towards it: instead they used the concern about global warming to attack capitalism, growth and industry.”

p.640

We here see the beginning of a problem… The science was not absolutely certain as to the intensity of the effect, something she admitted earlier, but then she also admitted the effects could be worse than predicted. However, the environmental lobby was apparently attacking the basis of neoliberalism.

She does not give any examples of these attacks on “capitalism, growth and industry”. The Soviet Union had collapsed so they were not promoting any effective position at all. China would not release its first “National Climate Change Assessment Report” until 2007, and while this needs more research from me, was not interested in the early 1990s – certainly it seems unlikely China would have been interested in attacks on growth and industry. As far as I can tell the attacks are also not coming from Labor in Australia, Bill Clinton and the Democrats in the US, or Labour under Neil Kinnock or John Smith. The so-called ‘Climate Justice Movement’ is usually said not to arise until 1999 or later. Nuclear energy has been a subject of dispute since the 1950s: it is not loved by everyone other than environmentalists. So these attacks, other than anti-nuclear movement (which was usually not an attack on capitalism, but on the use of radio-activity), were not mainstream and they were unlikely to affect policy.

Later in the book she writes about nuclear power and the need for it, and the cost to the taxpayer and electricity customer, with little sign of hesitation.

I felt it was essential to keep up the development of nuclear power. The real cost of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources is often overrated. Coal-fired power stations pour out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and no one has yet put a credible figure on what it will ultimately cost to deal with the resulting problem of global warming.

p.684

Here she can admit a cost for not dealing with climate change. She remarks that using nuclear energy would lead to higher charges for customers, but “This was tolerable if not popular.” The costs of decommissioning nuclear power meant they had to be “removed from the privatization” of electricity, and the costs of the decommissioning born by the taxpayers (p.685).

This shows that Mrs. Thatcher’s neoliberalism can run to interference in the economy and added prices to consumers, if it seems necessary for the nation or, if one is less kind, it is necessary to support an established industry, or the selling off of public goods to the private sector. The point is, that whatever the interpretation, Thatcher did sometimes believe the government (and consumers) can absorb costs if necessary for a project’s success.

Despite these reservations about the possible actions of unnamed environmentalists, she worked on her Royal Society speech for two weekends, and expected significant coverage as it was important. So we can assume that speech reflected her considered views and was meant to be widely heard and discussed.

In her autobiography, she quotes one abridged passage from that speech:

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself…..

In studying the system of the earth and its atmosphere we have no laboratory in which to carry out controlled experiments. We have to rely on observations of natural systems. We need to identify particular areas of research which will help to establish cause and effect. We need to consider in more detail the likely effects of change within precise timescales. And to consider the wider implications for policy—for energy production, for fuel efficiency, for reforestation…. We must ensure that what we do is founded on good science to establish cause and effect.

p. 640-41.

She removes references to greenhouse gases “creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability,” possible sea rises, high temperatures in the 1980s (now exceeded), the report of the British Anartic Survey, action taken against Acid rains, and “half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution remains in the atmosphere”. But the general message remains.

In the prepared speech, there is a line about the brightness of the TV lights stopping her from seeing her audience. But as she said in her book:

“it is an extraordinary commentary on the lack of media interest in the subject that, contrary to my expectations, the television did not even bother to send film crews to cover the occasion”

p.640

Given that the BBC was a supposedly leftwing black beast; if they did not come, it hardly leads us to think that Climate change was a source of much interest to the left, or the subject of much leftist agitation at the time. This suggests that Thatcher was, to some extent, reacting to a phantom – but this requires more research. What groups had annoyed her or who had warned her of the problem?

Going back to her earlier discussion on science and environmentalism, she concludes that her policy on the global environment:

“went to the heart of what differentiated my approach from the of the socialists… economic progress, scientific advance… themselves offered the means to overcome threats to individual and collective well being. For the socialist each new discovery revealed a ‘problem’ for which the repression of human activity by the state was the only ‘solution’.. The scared landscape dying forests, poisoned rivers and sick children of the former communist states bear tragic testimony to which system worked better, both for people and the environment”

p.641

So without her presenting any evidence of the reality, or social power, of the dire connection of socialism and environmentalism, she was possibly becoming aware that climate change policy could be used to attack neoliberalism and her record. One possible explanation is that she was becoming aware that her record was not showing the success she had imagined, and its attraction was wearing thin, but that is purely speculative.

However, this imagined (?) anti-neoliberal movement presumably could provide neoliberals with an incentive to show how a reliance on capitalist ingenuity and adaptability, could deal with the problem. There was no need for complete retreat. Economies have rules, and realities that businesses have to deal with so we would expect capitalist to adapt to new rules, which might prevent ecological destruction and maintain economic growth. Thatcher’s Neoliberalism still has a way forward to climate action. Why, indeed, should she let these unnamed ‘socialists’ take the high ground, especially if she supported the better system?

She has not yet retreated from recognition of the problem, or the need for a solution, but a pathway of retreat is possibly being indicated, and it comes directly from her assertion of neoliberalism.

As we shall see in the fourth of these posts, after some period of retirement, Margaret Thatcher argued that she was not that into climate change action. But there are recurrent, and obvious themes in her talks as Prime Minister. These speeches, and one TV interview, cannot be dismissed as a mere phase as they stretch from September 1988 to November 1990. I am making little commentary here, mainly just quoting her. More examples could be found in these speeches, and more in other speeches; this is not an attempt to be definitive. Apologies to everyone not that interested in a frustrating history.

From the brief analysis of the previous speech we can take several Thatcherian themes

• We have to live with nature (life is fragile)
• Humans are degrading the environment and that can destroy civilisation
• Take science seriously
  • IPCC is great
• Recognition of complexity, non linerality, uncertainty
• Economic growth important but must be bounded.
• Action is difficult but must be taken
  • Government spending
  • recycle waste
  • control emissions
  • conserve country
  • replant forest
  • research
  • Foreign Aid

So let us see how these work in other speeches by her.

We have to live with nature (life is fragile)

the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other.

27 Sep 1988

Protecting this balance of nature is therefore one of the great challenges of the late Twentieth Century

27 Sep 1988

We, who have inherited so much, must hand on a safe, secure future to our children and to their children; to all who come after us. As I said earlier this year: “No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease.”

8 Dec 1988

we realise that once you start to fiddle about with the Earth’s balance, you are in danger. 

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

We must hand on the title deeds of life to our grandchildren and beyond. That is our obligation. We here resolve to make it our duty.

7 Mar 1989

Humans are degrading the environment and that can destroy civilisation

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

27 Sep 1988

the assumption we have made that the atmosphere somehow would not change and what Man could do was very small compared with it—it is not very small any more! It is having an effect upon it and we have a duty to future generations and therefore, we must look very carefully because it can have two enormous consequences: climatic change—we do not know what consequence—and if it gets warmer parts of the ice cap could melt and the waters could come right in and cover certain parts of the land.

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

We rightly set out to improve the standard of life of the world’s peoples but we have now realised that we could be undermining the very systems needed to maintain life on our planet.

7 Mar 1989

carbon which was fixed in the ground as coal, oil and gas and was there over millions of years is being released back into the atmosphere over a matter of decades. We are changing our planet’s environment in new and dangerous ways.

6 Dec 1989

We have cared too little for our seas, our forests and our land. We have treated the air and the oceans like a dustbin. We have come to realise that man’s activities and numbers threaten to upset the biological balance which we have taken for granted and on which human life depends.

6 Nov 1990

It appears from the above that, as PM, recognised the general problem of ecological destruction, through the unintended consequences of economic (and other) action.

Take science seriously

the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade [this is probably a misprint] would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope.

27 Sep 1988

Scarcely a week goes by without reading or hearing of some new discovery. We learn more about the linkages between different aspects of atmospheric chemistry, between the chlorofluorocarbons and the greenhouse effect.

7 Mar 1989

science holds the key to the solution of the problem, as well as to its definition.

7 Mar 1989

On the broader front of global warming, we have had the scientific report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
This brought together the wisdom and scientific expertise of several hundred of the world’s best scientists. They gave us an authoritative view of the implications for the world’s climate of the enormous increases in carbon dioxide which are reaching the atmosphere year by year:
From our cars,
From our factories and our power stations,
Figures we cannot ignore.

27 Jun 1990

We know, too, that our industries and way of life have done severe damage to the ozone layer. And we know that within the lifetime of our grandchildren, the surface temperature of the earth will be higher than at any time for 150,000 years; the rate of change of temperature will be higher than in the last 10,000 years; and the sea level will rise six times faster than has been seen in the last century.

4 August 1990

The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

6 Nov 1990

This last comment indicates her identification with scientists as well as politicians. This does not seem a casual idea for her.

Complexity, non linerality, uncertainty, unintended consequences

The fact that half the carbon dioxide generated by the industrial revolution is still in the atmosphere gives some idea of the size of the problem. And we’re still adding three billion tonnes a year. To ignore this could expose us to climatic change whose dimension and effects are unpredictable. So energy efficiency is crucial. 

8 Dec 1988

There are still many uncertainties about it. For example, we have a lot more to learn about the mechanisms of ozone creation and destruction and about the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on living organisms.

7 Mar 1989

Now, the damage to the environment comes from the actions of millions of people conducting peaceful activities which contribute to their health, their well-being and their work in agriculture or industry, activities in other words which are perceived as beneficial.

7 Mar 1989

The real dangers arise because climate change is combined with other problems of our age: for instance the population explosion; — the deterioration of soil fertility; — increasing pollution of the sea; — intensive use of fossil fuel; — and destruction of the world’s forests, particularly those in the tropics.

6 Nov 1990

Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest.

6 Nov 1990

Conservatism and the environment

Conservatives are not only friends of the earth, we are its trustees. But concern for the environment is not, and never has been, a first priority for Socialist governments. As we peel back the moral squalor of the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, we discover the natural and physical squalor underneath. They exploited nature every bit as ruthlessly as they exploited the people. In their departure, they have left her chocking amidst effluent, acid rain and industrial waste. …

31 March 1990

Capitalism is not the enemy of the environment, but its friend and guardian. As more people own property, so more people have an incentive to protect it from pollution.

This we have learned from experience and no more so than in the last ten years in Britain. So much of the wealth created by a flourishing economy has been ploughed back directly into measures to protect and enhance our environment. 

In the last five years, we have cut the level of lead in our air by half…. from October this year, all new cars will have to be able to run on unleaded fuel.

This is not the record of a Government with no time for the environment. We stand for clean streets, clean rivers clear seas, fresh air, green acres.

31 March 1990

Economic growth important but must be bounded.

The future of the community demands that business does not try to prosper at the expense of the environment…. That means that the chemicals and other materials we use must be disposed of in a way that safeguards the environment. It also means we must heed the dangers posed by the greenhouse effect.

8 Dec 1988

who has yet looked at the true costs of coal and oil if we must ultimately separate the greenhouse gases they produce and prevent them from going into the atmosphere

6 Dec 1989

There are no simple economic mechanisms to govern countries’ behaviour in this field. The action we must take must harness the market and run with the grain of human nature. It was not regulation but the decisions of millions of individual consumers and the response of industry’s research and commercial initiative which has led to the development of ozone-friendly products, bio-degradable plastics and phosphate-free detergents

6 Dec 1989

Like the Garden of Eden to Adam and Even, anything which is given free is rarely valued. This is especially true of the global environment which mankind has used as a dustbin for decades.

6 Dec 1989

Action is difficult but must be taken

In the past when we have identified forms of pollution, we have shown our capacity to act effectively. The great London Smogs are now only a nightmare of the past. We have cut airborne lead by 50 per cent.

27 Sep 1988

Mr President, the evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the International Community, do about it?

8 Nov 1989

we already have a £2 billion programme of improvements to reduce acid rain emissions from our power stations. We shall be looking more closely at the role of non-fossil fuel sources, including nuclear, in generating energy. And our latest legislation requires companies which supply electricity positively to promote energy efficiency.

8 Nov 1989

Our task as governments is this—
It is to follow the best advice available, To decide where the balance of evidence lies, And to take prudent action.

27 Jun 1990

Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world’s environment will be the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community.

4 August 1990

The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

6 Nov 1990

Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it’s sensible to develop alternative and sustainable and sensible … it’s sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it’s sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it’s sensible to tackle the problem of waste.

6 Nov 1990

Promises are easy. Action is more difficult. For our part, we have worked out a strategy which sets us on the road to achieving the target…. We now require, by law, that a substantial proportion of our electricity comes from sources which emit little or no carbon dioxide, and that includes a continuing important contribution from nuclear energy

6 Nov 1990

I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later

6 Nov 1990

We must work together

The thing that emerges from this is that none of us can do it alone. What we could do alone would have some effect, but a small effect, and the world is getting together. There is a United Nations Environmental Protection Group which is very good and this is something that has to be pursued through that.

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

The problems will only be solved by common action and every country must play its full part and every citizen can help

7 Mar 1989

It was Immanuel Kant who said that it is often necessary to make a decision on the basis of knowledge sufficient for action but insufficient to satisfy the intellect. Let us therefore do what makes sense in any event, such as conserving tropical forests and improving energy[fo 11] efficiency. In parallel, we must intensify our scientific efforts to model and predict climate change. A new centre to do just this is being established in this country.

6 Dec 1989

Costs are inevitable

we have to do the things on environment because we have a duty to do so and most of us wish to improve the environment in any event. It cannot be done without a cost. We have to take the nitrates out of water—that will be an extra process which will cost money, but we must have the safe water—and we have to do more on the coasts and that will cost money. We have to take the sulphur out of coal—that will cost money. The answer to the greenhouse effect is, of course, to have more nuclear and if we have more nuclear, all the technology is known to look after the residual nuclear waste, that too costs money but you do not get the greenhouse effect from that. 

So you cannot talk about improving the environment without being prepared to pay for the purer water and the better electricity without damaging the environment.

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

the costs of doing nothing, of a policy of wait and see, would be much higher than those of taking preventive action now to stop the damage getting worse. And the damage will be counted not only in dollars, but in human misery as well. Spending on the environment is like spending on defence—if you do not do it in time, it may be too late.

4 August 1990

Research

Britain will continue to play a leading role in trying to answer the remaining questions, and to advance our state of knowledge of climate change. This year, we have established in Britain the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research for this purpose.

6 Nov 1990

But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can’t repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river.

6 Nov 1990

Foreign Aid

So yes, we have a duty. We have to make progress. The Third World wants to make as much progress as we have, but we now have to look at how we are going to maintain that particular atmosphere which supports life, which supports the chain of animal life as well. Absolutely vital. That is why I came out with your quote.

We do not have a freehold. We have a lease of life and at the end of that lease we pass it on to the next generation.

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

[We give] £40 million a year to Bangladesh. I said: “Look! It is no earthly good going on relief because they have got floods. We have to get together with all of the countries in the area to try to get the soil back up there, the trees back up there, the silt from the rivers!”

You have to be careful how you do this because those countries are sensitive and you have to say: “Look, there is a problem! Please can we help!” Not: “You have got to do this, that and the other!” but “Please! Can we help? If you need help to do these things, we will put our aid to do those things!”

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

if you do not keep the trees and the forests, you do not get the rain; and also, you do not get the carbon dioxide used up, so immediately we have been talking about this on a much bigger scale and we and our Overseas Development Association are giving some of our aid to those countries who are prepared to keep their tropical rain forests.

30 Dec 1988 Interview for Frost on Sunday

the new technologies and substances which are becoming available should help others to avoid the mistakes which we in the highly industrialised countries have made

7 Mar 1989

it is the duty of the industrialized countries to help them obtain and adopt the substitute technologies which will enable them to avoid our mistakes. And an important part of that will be to help them financially, so they can meet the extra costs involved.

27 Jun 1990

A Colleague’s Comment

Recently, another now ex-leader of the Conservatives had this to say about Thatcher:

[She was] better qualified than any other politician to understand climate science and to foresee the likely course of climate change if left unchecked…. [Her] concerns led to her becoming the first leader of any major nation to call for a landmark United Nations treaty on the issue…

Four years later, as Environment Secretary, I played a small role in ushering that UN treaty into existence at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Its resolutions did not require countries to commit themselves to specific reductions in emissions, but it was significant because it was the first step….

It is important to stress that it has never been a Conservative value to be ‘anti-science’. When climate scientists speak, we should listen.

Putting one’s fingers in one’s ears and denying the problem is not a rational response. The only pragmatic approach is to listen, evaluate and act.

The fact is that we have time to avoid the worst excesses of climate change, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will keep impacts at manageable levels.

The good news is that in Britain, we are cutting our emissions effectively and doing so is certainly not harming our economy….

This summer has shown that Margaret Thatcher was correct. We are conducting an experiment with the atmosphere and it is a dangerous one.

Thirty years ago Margaret Thatcher warned of man-made global warming. Daily Mail 16 August 2018.

Even this short collection of remarks shows a degree of dedication and realism towards the climate problem, and possibly bode well for the future – indeed had Thatcher not been deposed, and had she continued in this way, we might be considerably better off than we are now – but after her loss of office, her position ground to fixity and refusal, although it has to be recognised that the UK has a much better position on recognising the consequences of climate change and ecological destruction than Australia, Canada, or the US.