Yes, certainly both Ted Heath (in 1973) and Margaret Thatcher (1984-85) had their time of conflict with the British Nation Union of Mineworkers.

At the time, and probably even now, almost all international statesmen were scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could gain credibility on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. Mrs Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and had perhaps read and understood the early papers being written on the subject.

At her personal instigation, the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. The Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group .

Was Mrs Thatcher genuinely concerned for the environment or were her motives more cynical and led by her desire to underminine the NUM? I guess the answer would depend on whether or not you are an admirer of Mrs T.

The story goes like this: The Iron Lady’s government wanted a energy-independent Britain. Britain has abundant coal, but coal mining is controlled by the unions. Mining more coal meant empowering the unions and the Labor Party. One adviser had an idea: Promote nuclear over coal because the CO2 from coal will lead to global warming.

Remember, the radical environmentalists were very powerful in Europe in those days and nuclear power, whether nuclear plants or nuclear bombs, were both unpopular. The Thatcher government begins to promote nuclear power as earth friendly, but accidentally makes coal and other fossil fuels into villains.

Any truth to that story?

I would say that it would be more accurate to say that mining is a dirty industry in which accidents sometimes happen, ocassionally fatal.

Certainly in the UK at least mining compares favourably with other dirty industries in which people are killed such as construction and agriculture.

It’s been said above that Chernobyl was a human failure and I would argue that most mining accidents (indeed most accidents full stop) fall into the same category.

If just a fraction of the effort and funding put into the global warming industry had been used to fund “clean coal technology” the problem might have been solved already.

For example compare these two stories:

EUR 71bn windfall profits for EU power companies http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hXPjoKoHGD__NG2b6ztf-19WcJOQ

EUR 750m Scottish Carbon Capture Project Cancelled
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/25/oilandpetrol.news

Why bother even “peeking” for oil when there’s massive amounts of completely risk free money to be had?

Sorry I haven’t turned up the ad, but thanks for causing me to go back through some of my old stuff. I have Smithsonians going well back into the 70s and I kept a few of the news weeklys covering Nixon’s impeachment and resignation, so I had a good stash to go through.

As I said, I didn’t do you any good, but it was interesting to read about African drought back then. No whining about global warming, but lots of realistic reporting about the failure of governments to provide the basics for their people. Kind of different.

And oh, I did see one of the possible causes of the drought as being colder ocean temperatures(!). No blaming of mankind, just matter-of-fact comments about changing weather patterns.

REPLY: John, Thanks for the reports!

Just because Teller, maybe suggested the idea 35 years ago does not make him an AGW crusader. He was a well known anti hysteria crusader on environmental issues. I am sure he would be amazed that anyone would put him in the category of alarmist. He simply doesn’t fit.

Oppenheimer was obviously very popular in the scientific community, and because Teller was seen as responsible for his downfall, he was much criticized.

It is also very clear that on the merits of the specific case of his testimony Teller was right, Oppenheimer was dangerously wrong, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great guy just wrong about Soviet intentions, infiltration etc.

No one ever even mentions that. I assume all the dead matter that sinks, the pressure, etc., etc.

I have a new theory: Peek oil: we find it wherever and whenever we take a peek.

Well, yeah.

The damn thing didn’t have a containment vessel. (And if it had, we’d surely never have heard about the whole affair.)

The nukes they built outside the bloc all had containment vessels, but they didn’t bother with at least some of their domestic plants.

Mike

A HISTORY OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
by: Alice L. Buck
July 1983
http://www.atomictraveler.com/HistoryofAEC.pdf

The Breeder Reactor

In addition to predicting dramatic increases in megawatt capacity, the Commission’s 1967 report on civilian nuclear power reaffirmed the promise of the breeder reactor for meeting long-term energy needs, and gave the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) the highest priority for civilian reactor development. A major boost was given to the program four years later by President Richard Nixon. In his “clean energy” message to Congress on June 4, 1971, the President called for the commercial demonstration of a breeder reactor by 1980, stating that “The breeder reactor could extend the life of our natural uranium fuel supply from decades to centuries, with far less impact on the environment than the power plants which are operating today.“

Reorganization

James R. Schlesinger took over the helm of the Atomic Energy Commission in August 1971, as its twenty-fifth year as an agency was drawing to a close. American troops were still in Vietnam and anti-war protests were widespread. The Nation faced increasing demands for energy, a leveling out of domestic oil production, limitations on coal use due to environmental concerns, inadequate natural gas supplies, and field delays in the licensing and construction of nuclear power plants. The rapid growth in atomic energy activities in the previous decade and changing perspectives in nuclear technology clearly pointed to the need for a substantial reorganization of the Commission’s operational and regulatory functions. For nearly a quarter of a century the Commission had focused research and development toward responding to national defense requirements, funding and developing new uses for atomic energy, and fostering the growth of a competitive and viable nuclear industry. The next few years would see increasing attacks on the Commission’s role as a regulatory overseer of the nuclear industry, particularly in the areas of quality of product and public safety.

Calvert Cliffs Decision

The Nixon Administration believed that nuclear power, as an environmentally “clean” fuel, could help the Nation produce the increasing supply of energy needed for the future. On the other hand ponderous licensing procedures – and increasing environmental considerations lengthened the time necessary to bring nuclear power plants on line, and increased costs to the industry, and ultimately to the consumer. As Commissioner Doub informed the Atomic Industrial Forum in October 1971, the Commission harbored no illusions as to the magnitude of the task of trying to match “the capabilities of a dynamic and complex technology to the urgent energy and environmental needs of the county.“

The Commission’s Last Days

Schlesinger left the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1973 to become head of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was succeeded as chairman by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, a marine biologist from the state of Washington who had been appointed to the Commission by President Nixon in August 1972. The first woman to be chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Ray took over at a time when the Nation was faced with the monumental task of reconciling energy needs, environmental concerns and economic goals. More importantly for the Commission, criticism had begun to mount against an agency that regulated the very same energy source that it helped to produce and operate.

Also it should not be forgotten that, irrespective of CO2, coal IS a dirty polluting industry which does kill people.

There is another aspect to the Earth/Moon system, which was pointed out by, I think, Isaac Azimov, in an article published many years ago. First aspect of the oddity is that the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the Moon is almost four times greater than the attraction between the Earth and the Moon, while the reverse is true for all other satellites. The second is that while every other satellite in the Solar System has an orbit around the Sun that has, for almost half of the time, a negative radius of curvature relative to the Sun. On the other hand, the Moon’s orbit round the Sun has a varying radius of curvature, which is always positive. In other words, Azimov’s postulate was that we do not have a satellite, but a sister planet.
Just thought you might be interested in this little oddity.

Don’t these to comments complement each other?

If you look at coal under the microscope, you can almost always see evidence of plant fossils.