Home Blog Page 30

The Most Disliked Leaders in the World

Source: Buda Mendes / Getty Images

Public approval of country leaders declines when everyday issues become a disruptive problem for too many households – namely the increasing cost of living due to inflation. (Here is what Thanksgiving dinner will cost this year thanks to inflation.)

Rising prices for everything from groceries to gasoline has led to protests across Europe and other parts of the world, signaling that the global public is outraged at their democratically elected leaders because they have been unable to control the rise in daily expenses.

Some critics have blamed unjust and unregulated profiteering by multinational corporations – especially energy companies and food producers and sellers – for the alarming increase in the cost of living, which leaders have also been unable to stop.

Whether or not world leaders could have prevented inflation, many today face high disapproval ratings. In fact, 18 of the world’s democratically elected leaders, who preside over 1.12 billion people, have disapproval ratings of between 48% and 75%. Sixteen of these leaders also have negative net approval – the percentage-point spread between those who approve and those who do not – from -1 to -57 points.

To identify the most disliked leaders in the world, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the recent weekly survey on global leader approval ratings from polling organization Morning Consult, which collects survey data in 22 countries. Data was collected from Oct. 19-25, 2022. Only the 16 leaders with negative net approval ratings are ranked here (net approval was rounded to the nearest point).

Notably, the guy with the highest approval rating among these unpopular country leaders is Brazil‘s President Jair Bolsonaro, who recently lost his reelection bid in an Oct. 30 runoff.

Among these 18 disliked elected leaders, 13 have negative net approval spreads in the double digits, including U.S. President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol. (Here is the final approval rating of every president since Harry Truman.)

New U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has a narrow 2-point negative net approval, an improvement from his time as head of the country’s treasury, when his net approval hit a career low in April of negative 18 points in an Ipsos poll. If Brits do not see an improvement at the kitchen table soon, Sunak’s net approval spread will undoubtedly widen.

Here are the world’s most disliked leaders in the world.

Click here to read our detailed methodology.

Why Biden’s Indonesia climate deal works better than ‘loss and damages’

Source: exnucboy1 / Flickr

In today’s issue:

— Turns out the best climate news of the week didn’t come from Egypt; behind Biden’s Indonesia deal
— For all its bluster, China is the only major polluter actually cutting emissions
— A big battery acquisition by BlackRock shows renewables M&A is picking up
— International Energy Agency’s new coal emissions report shows 9,000 plants still need to be closed

Turns out the biggest climate news of the week didn’t come from Egypt. President Joe Biden took the climate mojo with him from the United Nations climate summit to Asia over the weekend, first thawing relations with China and now sealing a big investment in Indonesia’s transition from coal.

The $20 billion deal for the U.S., Japan, Canada, and the European Union to invest in Indonesia’s shift to renewable energy from coal is far superior to the “loss and damages” reparations African nations are pushing for at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt in that it involves profit, opportunity, and financial deadlines.

A similar deal was done in South Africa last year and the Indonesia deal will serve as a template for other reported discussions tied to countries such as India and Vietnam. While a chunk of the money will come from loans and grants, which will likely not have returns of any kind, there is equity involved, too — which is why some of the $20 billion will be coming from financial institutions and not government treasuries.

Critics were quick to jump on the deal as being woefully insufficient to handle the true cost of retiring Indonesia’s coal plants, which is likely to be closer to $600 billion. But that is not the point. The world is stuck on how to find a funding mechanism for wealthy countries to help smaller and poorer ones deal with the ravages of global warming, particularly around reducing coal power. The International Energy Agency said today that more than 9,000 coal plants remain open worldwide, including more than 1,900 in the Asia Pacific region not including China. Reparations are not viable. Investing is the answer.

From what we can tell, Biden’s success in Bali with both Indonesia and China is reverberating loudly around Sharm El-Sheikh. Whether it will influence negotiations there remains to be seen. But more public-private deals like this, which measure and reward progress in reducing emissions and shifting to renewables, are the answer.

More insights below . . . .

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

France to double solar capacity with ‘delicious’ plan for parking panels

Source: imagedepotpro / iStock via Getty Images

Ooh la-la! The French have a delicious solar plan for le parking!

My daughter and I both love a small French pickle called a cornichon. So much so that I order them in bulk — 12 jars on a cardboard tray. Boy, are they tasty!

Adding in a small way to the joy is that the jars come with a plastic contraption that, as the pickles are eaten, can be pulled up so you don’t have to fish around at the bottom of the container for the tiny treats. It’s so neat!

OK, so the French can be annoying with their bureaucracy and sluggish ways, but they sure do come up with some good stuff sometimes (including, of course, the food and wine). Latest evidence: a new rule that will require all large parking lots to be covered by solar panels.

The legislation, just approved by the French senate, requires the panels in existing and new car parks with space for at least 80 vehicles, with the owners of car parks with between 80 and 400 spaces having five years to comply…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

The Most Destructive Storms in US History

Source: Chris Graythen / Getty Images

Residents along the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina faced hurricane-force winds and life-threatening storm surge this week after Hurricane Ian made its first landfall west of Fort Myers, Florida, on Wednesday. The Tampa Bay and St. Petersburg areas are also experiencing severe flooding and hurricane winds. 

Many of the region’s more than 4 million residents live in low-lying neighborhoods that are vulnerable to storm surge. According to the American Red Cross, more than 33,000 people sought refuge in 260 evacuation shelters across Florida to escape Ian on Wednesday night.

Hurricane Ian follows after a series of recent horrific climate disasters. Since the start of June and the hurricane season, unusually heavy monsoon rains caused historic floods in Pakistan, Hurricane Fiona brought destruction to Puerto Rico and Atlantic Canada, the worst drought in 500 years started wreaking havoc in Europe, and unprecedented heat waves dried up rivers in China, affecting 900 million people.

Due in large part to atmospheric warming caused by emissions from human activities, once-in-a-life-time weather events are occurring regularly and with increasing frequency all around the world, including the United States. (These are countries facing the worst climate emergencies.)

According to a July study by international scientists in Nature Climate Change, the annual number of cyclones forming globally is decreasing significantly under global warming. However, the intensity of tropical storms is rising, and some are moving at slower speeds, elevating the risk of damage to coastal communities. And while enforcing building codes, investing in hurricane resistant design techniques, and other infrastructure improvements can help mitigate storm damage — there is no such thing as a hurricane-proof home. 

Of the 51 most costly storms in U.S. history, 28 – including the top 10 – have occurred in the last 20 years. Based on recent estimates that Hurricane Ian has already caused over $100 billion in damage, the Category 4 storm is likely to also rank among the most costly tropical cyclones in U.S. history. Hurricane Katrina, which caused over 1,800 fatalities and $186.3 billion in damages to New Orleans and the surrounding area in August 2005, is the most costly storm in U.S. history. (Find out if Hurricane Katrina is among the deadliest billion dollar natural disasters in U.S. history.)

To identify the costliest U.S. tropical cyclones, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the cost of hurricanes throughout history, estimated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Both the inflation-adjusted (using 2022 consumer price index) and unadjusted cost of each storm came from the report. The estimated number of deaths associated with each storm was obtained from news reports.

Click here to see the costliest U.S. tropical cyclones in the US.

Emboldened Biden doubles down on climate agenda for COP27 visit

Source: Photo by Drew Angerer / Getty Images

Emboldened by a better-than-expected performance by Democrats in Tuesday’s midterms, as well as Thursday’s bullish inflation numbers, President Joe Biden plans to arrive at COP27 in Egypt Friday with a plan to require almost all federal contractors to slash emissions to within limits tagged by Paris Agreements of 2015.

It’s a significant expansion of Biden’s climate agenda, though the plan calls for the contractors themselves to simply cut their direct greenhouse, so-called Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Investors reading the tea leaves of what this could mean for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s upcoming climate disclosure rules might infer the government is setting the stage for the SEC to also leave out requirements for indirect emissions, or Scope 3, which have become controversial on Wall Street.

Renewable stocks, which on Election Day rose amid speculation the Democrats would do better than most polls predicted, soared this morning as signs that inflation is moderating and more voting returns indicating the Democrats might be able to hold the Senate attracted funds to solar companies in particular. The Invesco Solar ETF $TAN leaped almost 7%. The ETF is up more than 19% in the past month.

Whether Biden and climate czar John Kerry might use this week’s momentum to commit to some form of funding mechanism for compensation for small countries fighting global warming will be the key question in Sharm El-Sheikh as Biden arrives. Most delegates at the summit aren’t holding their breath, but this has been a week of surprises and Biden seems keen to push his luck.

More insights below . . . .

As fund managers boost shareholder voting power, climate pressure suffers

. . . . A drive by large fund managers such as BlackRock $BLK to allow shareholders of their funds to vote individually on climate resolutions at big companies will end up diluting the power of shareholders to force change on global warming at their holdings, not increase power as the fund managers are hoping, writes Mark Hulbert. The interesting take comes as the big managers increasingly are trying to distance themselves from looking overly pro-environmental in the face of political backlash against their businesses from red states. In this case, the plan to grant shareholders more freedom to vote how they want looks set to backfire. . . .

Read the full column

A selection of this week’s subscriber-only insights

. . . . African financial institutions aren’t counting on a lot more than talk from wealthy nations at COP27 in Egypt this week to discuss “loss and damage” funding for smaller countries fighting global warming. Eighty-five African insurers banded together this week to announce their own, $14 billion funding facility to protect small communities from the ravages of flood and fire. In addition to being necessary, it’s a crafty move by the hosts of COP27 to apply pressure to countries like the U.S. and China to cough up financial reparations for the damage their own emissions cause. . . .

. . . . Is the renewables cat out of the bag? Regardless of any remaining uncertainties around the U.S. midterm elections, Al Gore says at COP27 that whatever politicians in different countries want to opine on, “we’re seeing business and investors and markets move toward solutions for the climate crisis.” Read more. . . .

. . . . Earlier this week, news of a standoff between wind developer Avangrid and the state of Massachusetts came to a head after the company said it wanted to renegotiate its terms to build and offshore facility. Part of the problem, Avangrid said, was rising interest rates. They are not the only one. Read more here. . . .

Editor’s picks: New global emissions data; Nicole heads north

Hurricane Nicole: late in the season but still unwelcome

Nicole became a Category 1 hurricane just before landfall along Florida’s Atlantic coast Thursday morning, but has weakened to a tropical storm as it moves north. Parts of the state are still trying to recover from Hurricane Ian a little over a month ago. Forecasters say coastal flooding, strong winds, flooding rain and tornadoes are expected along the Southeast coast. Heavy rain, strong winds and even tornadoes are possible in the rest of the East on Friday and Saturday. It’s the latest in the season that such a storm has hit Florida and could rank among the strongest storms to hit the U.S. so late in the season. The Weather Channel reports Nicole was just the fourth November hurricane to landfall in the mainland U.S. in records dating to the mid-19th century, and the first to do so in 37 years.

World Cup emissions reviewed

Qatar and FIFA say the largest source of emissions for the 2022 men’s World Cup soccer tournament will be travel — mostly the miles flown from overseas, making up 52% of the total emissions for the event. According to a report for The Associated Press, construction of the stadiums and training sites and their operations will account for 25%, while operating hotels and other accommodations for the five weeks, including the cruise ships Qatar hired as floating hotels, will contribute 20%. “For years, Qatar promised something else to distinguish this World Cup from the rest: It would be ‘carbon-neutral,’ or have a negligible overall impact on the climate,” the AP says, but experts are skeptical of the processes being used to account for emissions. In an official report estimating the event’s emissions, Qatari organizers and FIFA projected that the World Cup will produce some 3.6 million metric tons of CO₂ from activities related to the tournament between 2011 and 2023.

Global costs of extreme weather attributable to climate change

Extreme weather events have significant adverse costs for individuals, firms, communities, regional, and national economies, according to a Center for Economic Studies working paper titled The Global Costs of Extreme Weather that are Attributable to Climate Change. The authors use Extreme Event Attribution methodology to aggregate the global economic damage from extreme weather events that is attributable to anthropogenic climate change. According to the abstract, integrated assessment models are substantially under-estimating the current economic costs of climate change. Authors: Rebecca Newman, Reserve Bank of New Zealand; and Ilan Noy, Victoria University of Wellington.

Words to live by . . . .

“We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator. Our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.” — António Guterres, secretary-general of the UN, speaking at COP27.

As fund managers boost shareholder voting power, climate pressure suffers

Source: hapabapa / iStock Editorial via Getty Images

(Mark Hulbert, an author and longtime investment columnist, is the founder of the Hulbert Financial Digest; his Hulbert Ratings audits investment newsletter returns.)

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (Callaway Climate Insights) — Many climate-friendly investors have the naïve belief that the goals of E, S and G always point in the same direction.

They don’t. Not infrequently, the pursuit of one of this trio of ideals will go against one or both of the other two.

One such occasion is the growing debate over enabling fund and ETF investors to vote the shares they own indirectly in corporate proxy contests. Allowing them to do so would seem to be the very essence of shareholder democracy and good corporate governance. Yet it also will have the unintended consequence of reducing the pressure that climate polluters would otherwise receive from shareholders.

Consider BlackRock’s $BLK Voting Choice” program, which gives the firm’s “clients — who are the true owners of the assets we manage — the option to engage much more directly in proxy voting.”…

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

Clean tech stocks rally hangs on Democrats chances to retain the Senate

Source: rarrarorro / iStock via Getty Images

In today’s issue:

— Stocks traditionally favor a gridlocked Congress, but a recent rally in cleantech rests on Biden’s agenda moving forward
— Lou Del Bello at COP27: Can a ‘loss and damage’ deal be done in time to prevent a global financial crisis because of climate change?
— Ken LaRoe: The need to finance climate adaptation grows with each passing storm
— Here come the ESG hearings on Capitol Hill (if the GOP takes the House)
— Private equity investment in electric vehicles soared 50% in the third quarter, and is threatening last year’s record

Stocks on Wall Street traded higher this Election Day, extending a thin rally on expectations the Republicans will make enough gains in Congress this week to force gridlock on President Joe Biden’s last two years of office. One of the most reliable traditions on Wall Street is that stocks usually rise after midterms reset the process.

But one sector, the cleantech sector, is hanging onto slim hopes that the Democrats retain the Senate, as the major spending tied to Biden’s signature climate agenda, the Inflation Reduction Act, will depend on a guiding hand from the left preventing legal and administrative obstacles being thrown in its way.

In trading earlier today, these stocks were jumping, led by SunPower Corp. $SPWR , Energy Recovery $ERII , and Albemarle Corp. $ALB , before diverging as the uncertainty of Election Night approached.

As our own Mark Hulbert wrote two weeks ago, clean tech stocks have demonstrated a surprisingly close correlation to the political polls for Democratic Senate candidates in the past several weeks, suggesting that investors are nervous about the climate plan. In no scenario will the opposition be able to kill the plan, as it won’t have the support to override a Biden veto. But there are lots of ways to stall it in its tracks.

As it’s likely that we won’t have a firm answer on the Senate for a few days — or in the scenario of a Georgia runoff, weeks — stocks may bounce around for a time. But soon, investors will have a clear idea where the bull market is for the next two years: either the clean energy stocks or more rallies in oil companies. For the climate, as for Democracy, there’s a lot at stake tonight.

More insights below . . . .

‘Loss and damage’ financial movement erupts at COP27

. . . The United Nations annual climate summit, COP27, opened in Egypt this week with a historic agreement to discuss financial reparations for the first time for poorer and smaller countries hurt by climate change. Lou Del Bello, our partner from the Lights On newsletter in India, is on the ground in Sharm El-Sheikh and argues that while a deal remains elusive the prospect of a global financial crisis caused by climate change is adding more urgency to the talks this year then ever before.

Read the full story

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

America’s Largest Military Bases

Source: usnavy / Flickr

The U.S. military is not only considered the most effective fighting force in the world, but also among the largest. While there are nearly 160,000 active duty U.S. military personnel deployed abroad and on ships at sea, the vast majority of American troops are stationed at bases within the United States. 

There are hundreds of military bases across the 50 states and Washington D.C., home to nearly 1.2 million active-duty service members and their families, according to the Department of Defense’s report Demographics Profile of the Military Community. These domestic military installations vary considerably in personnel capacity, and many of them have populations equivalent to that of a mid-size city. (Here is a look at America’s 25 military cities.)

Using DoD military demographics data for 2019 – the most recent year of comprehensive data by base – 24/7 Wall St. identified America’s largest military bases. For the purposes of this story, only bases housing active-duty military personnel for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and DoD were considered.

The number of active-duty military personnel stationed at the 26 military installations on this last ranges from just over 10,000 to nearly 50,000. Including military family members, some of the bases on this list have populations exceeding 100,000. 

The Army is the largest branch of the U.S. military by headcount, and the majority of bases on this list are Army bases. Five bases on this list are under the purview of the U.S. Navy, including the largest naval complex in the world. Meanwhile, the Air Force and Marine Corps have two bases with over 10,000 active duty service members each. 

Many of the bases on this list will be familiar to military men and women and their families, as they serve as basic training sites. The Army uses Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for boot camp, and each ranks among the largest bases in the country. Boot camp locations for the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also appear on this list. (Here is a look at what it takes to be in 16 of America’s elite military forces.)

Other bases – including several bases larger than those used for basic training – serve a variety of functions, including operational support, maintaining deployment-ready forces, and continued advanced training.

Click here to see America’s largest military bases.

How celebrity plays its part at COP27

Source: Jack Taylor / Getty Images

What if, instead of Michael Bloomberg announcing at COP27 on Monday a new plan to help 25 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America phase out coal by 2040, it had been touted by, say, a little-known Indian multibillionaire?

Well, it might have made a few headlines in India, but it’s unlikely it would have made The New York Times and other high-profile news outlets, as did Bloomberg’s announcement.

Yes, big names matter when it comes to news, and climate news is no exception. Microsoft $MSFT magnate Bill Gates, for instance, got headlines (including on Callaway Climate Insights) when a company he founded, TerraPower, announced its plans for a new type of compact nuclear reactor. And the same for initiatives from his Breakthrough Energy Ventures, which backs several green-related initiatives. Meanwhile, you could be sure that Britain’s King Charles III, who already grabbed coverage (including here) with his pre-COP27 confab at Buckingham Palace, would have made a splash had he made his way to Egypt.

Subscribe to Callaway Climate Insights to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.

‘Are You There COP27? It’s Me, Margaret’: Remembering Margaret Thatcher, the original UK climate leader

Source: William Lovelace / Getty Images

(Justin Sharon is a longtime freelance writer. After working at Merrill Lynch for many years, he transitioned to financial journalism. Among other subjects, he also authors a monthly column about British soccer.)

NEW YORK (Callaway Climate Insights) — Sometimes, the stories with the greatest historical staying power are those initially exiled far from the front cover. So it was on Nov. 9, 1989, when The New York Times buried an item deep in section A17. The column was, moreover, the sole news article on that particular page, with the unfortunate Amazonian tree that was felled to produce it largely giving its life for an advertisement alerting readers to a 20% to 50% off sale at the Fifth Avenue flagship of Lord and Taylor.

That iconic Lord and Taylor location is long gone, along with every other brick and mortar outlet of a proud institution that once billed itself as “America’s oldest store.” The building was bought in 2017 for $850 million by WeWork Inc., of Adam Neumann infamy, whose shares have slid about 75% since its ill-fated initial public offering. Standing the test of time rather better than both companies, however, was the oratory that all-too-briefly briefly captured the Times’ attention.

“Thatcher Urges Pact on Climate” read the headline. Its opening paragraph set the tone: “Warning that global warming could cause devastating floods and food shortages in wide areas, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain called on the United Nations today to complete by 1992 a treaty that would require action toward stabilizing the world’s climate.”

The Old Grey Lady actually felt compelled to explain to its readers exactly what the Iron Lady meant by “greenhouse gasses” when she warned the General Assembly of their dangers, so novel was the phrase. The speech’s impact didn’t linger long in our cultural conversation, though.

Perhaps because, in a twist of fate, 27 miles of Berlin concrete began crumbling on literally the very day the feature ran, quickly demoting Thatcher’s comments from the collective consciousness. (“Today’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chips paper.” as the Brits say).

And yet, only 24 hours before the unofficial end of the Cold War, Thatcher’s far-sighted environmental observations can arguably now be seen as the opening salvo in the coming conflict against a warming world. Margaret Hilda Thatcher, doyenne of the right, may seem an unlikely ESG trailblazer. Toward the end of her tenure at 10 Downing Street, however, she became the first world leader to openly warn of the accumulating dangers of climate change. In an era when talk of glasnost, rather than global warming (as it was then called) filled the air, Thatcher looks surprisingly clairvoyant on the issue.

Given Rishi Sunak’s recent flip-flop on attending COP27, which has taken him to the skies over Egypt only after a road-to-Damascus conversion, his predecessor’s prescience is worth revisiting. (Part of the generational cohort known as “Thatcher’s children,” Sunak was somewhat ironically born in the same year she gave her iconic “U-turn if you want to” speech).

To recap for younger readers: Thatcher was the United Kingdom’s woman for all seasons. She rose to power after the country’s “Winter of Discontent” in 1979 and was ousted three months after the long hot summer of 1990.

Interestingly, in a harbinger of coming heatwaves, August 1990 still supplies two spots on Britain’s list of all-time top 10 highest temperatures.

What Winston Churchill once said of a contemporary at the beginning of the 20th century applies equally well to the figure who led the Conservative Party at the end of it. Namely, by setting the political agenda, she “Made the weather.”

As the first — and still only — prime minister with a science degree, Thatcher certainly prided herself on being studiously well-informed about meteorological matters. This, even as her ideological soul mate in the White House was causing a stir for seeming to imply that trees caused acid rain.

(To be fair, the ‘80s were an altogether less enlightened age, as I still vividly recall from a teenage trip to New York’s Metropolitan Museum. No sooner had we shot a family photograph featuring the Temple of Dendur in the distant background than a hyperventilating security guard confiscated our camera, adamant that the flash would do irreparable damage. He relented only after my Cairo-born father politely pointed out that, having emerged unscathed from exposure to the baking hot Egyptian sun for 2,000 years, the structure would likely survive a split second’s illumination from our circa 1984 Kodak Instamatic).

Against this backdrop, and at a time when terms such as the “ozone layer” had only tentatively entered the lexicon, Thatcher gave a series of groundbreaking speeches addressing the emerging issue of climate change. The first, in September 1988, was delivered to Britain’s national academy of sciences. In it, she warned The Royal Society that “a warming effect of one degree Celsius per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century.”

Alas, posterity has rather relegated this speech to the back burner also, deeming it not even the most consequential address she gave that month. (A distinction generally reserved for her presentation in Bruges, Belgium one week earlier, which set Britain on the long road to Brexit with its zinger that “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”)

Two weeks later, at the annual Tory Party conference, she again alluded to the dangers of “a kind of global heat-trap and its consequences for our climate.” At that aforementioned UN meeting the following year, Thatcher declared “What we are now doing to the world … is new in the experience of the Earth. It is mankind and his activities that are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.” She added that “The problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.”

Fast forward 12 months, in her final days as prime minister, Thatcher told assembled delegates at the Second World Climate Conference in Geneva that “the threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks. It can be more insidious though less visible. 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.”

Beyond speechifying, Britain’s first woman prime minister also convened a Downing Street seminar on global warming in April 1989, attended by eight cabinet members and several prominent experts. And she was instrumental in opening the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the spring of 1990.

To be sure, her climate record wasn’t perfect, and critics contend that Thatcher’s interest in the subject waned after leaving office. Yet with the planet warming at a 33% faster clip in the past decade than during the 1990s, when she resigned, Thatcher’s warnings from yesteryear carry renewed resonance.

Jonathon Porritt, director of environmental organization Friends of the Earth during the Thatcher era, may seem an odd ally. Nonetheless, even he said that “Before Mrs. Thatcher started to talk about the ozone layer and climate change, lots of people said: ‘These green issues are just for tree-hugging weirdos. But if Mrs. Thatcher’s saying something like that — there must be something in it’.”

Seen in the context of her times, the lady who eschewed U-turns was remarkably ahead of the curve.

Popular Posts