Month: January 2022

Categories
Activism Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

1972, Jan 14: “A Blueprint for Survival” hits the headlines

[Update 31st January – see foot of this post for comment by David Taylor]

On Friday 14th January 1972 a bombshell report, ‘A Blueprint for Survival,’ was released onto an increasingly worried world. Produced by the team at The Ecologist, it laid out not just the environmental and social problems, but also offered – the clue is in the name – a blueprint for survival.

Fifty years is a nice round number for reflecting, and this 30 page report [pdf, word.doc] is designed to help with that.

It explains little of the background to the report – the world it entered, who wrote it, how it was received

It doesn’t go into a great deal of detail about what the Blueprint actually says – read it yourself!

It does however talk about what happened next – what the media response, and the political response was [spoilers – scientists warning of trouble ahead will be derided as scare-mongerers, the public’s attention span is short, it’s really hard to ‘capture the moment’ – to do so you need absorptive capacity up the wazoo].

For any Doctor Who fans out there – there’s mention of two classic Pertwee stories.

It then talks a bit about the longer-term, and the birth of the “Ecology Party” (now known as the Green Party), before turning to some of the lessons we might learn around

  1. Abeyance
  2. Absorptive Capacity
  3. Arrogance

Would love to hear people’s comments

Comment received on 31st January 2022 by one of the people behind the excellent “Green History UK” website.

I’ve read your article and it’s got loads of good perspectives. Hopefully we can add that to the site as well.

I trust you won’t mind if I draw your attention to one or two issues where I have a different perspective:-

  1. The founders of PEOPLE always wrote the name in capitals, not lower case.
  2. They did not, initially call themselves a ‘political party’.  If you look at the early PEOPLE literature you will see that they were always just called ‘PEOPLE’. On some occasions (as on the material advertising the Jigsaw Conference) they referred to themselves as a ‘movement’. . Lesley W had researched the issue and found that you didn’t have to be a ‘party’ to contest an election, so they weren’t. It was others, particularly journalists, who referred to them as a ‘party’, because they contested elections. This later led to PEOPLE referring to themselves as both a ‘movement’ and a ‘party’.
  3. In that it intended to contest elections Movement for Survival was as much a ‘party’ as PEOPLE. The two movements had similar strategies.  This isn’t surprising as PEOPLE arose directly from Survival. The similarity wasn’t just because PEOPLE took over Movement’s box of contacts. The PEOPLE founders were also supporters of Movement and the Whittakers, in particular, had been meeting with Teddy throughout 1972. Teddy told me back then how delighted he was to have found a group of professional people (estate agent, solicitors) to take over Movement. There was no formal handover but the reality was that PEOPLE grew directly out of Movement, and took it over. There is a widespread misconception (reinforced by repetition) that the modern Green Party began when PEOPLE was publicly launched in February 1973. This ‘fact’ was one of the answers in a recent Mastermind quiz. The truth is that Survival’s launch, in the January edition of the Ecologist magazine, marked the actual beginning of the global movement of green parties.
  4. You describe Goldsmith as ‘authoritarian’. During his time he was labelled many things -all of them wrong really. There were no good labels for what he was espousing. This is understandable as he was originating a new political philosophy and it didn’t fit comfortably into any of the existing categories. You describe Blueprint as promoting ‘radical de-centralisation’. I think this phrase better describes Teddy’s outlook. He was, after all, a big admirer of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin…

Thank you for what you’re doing. We need this history!

Very best,

David (Taylor)

Categories
UNFCCC United Nations

2005, January 13: UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

On this day, 17 years ago, the UN Secretary-General called for “decisive measures” on climate change. 

“PORT LOUIS, MAURITIUS, 13 January — The United Nations Conference convened here to address the economic and environmental vulnerabilities of small island developing States opened its high-level segment today, with Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling for ‘decisive measures’ against climate change and a global early warning system in the wake of last month’s Asian tsunami disaster.”

[Link]

What happened next.  Oh, lots of decisive measures.  And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you, in Sydney.

Why it matters. People keep investing hope in these international processes, as if someone is gonna arrive to save them. God help us all (see what I did there?). What Annan could have said was “The UNFCCC process is a farce. The lack of targets and timetables in the Framework Convention – because of Uncle Sam doing what Uncle Sam always does – means it’s a relentless talking shop.  Probably in 16 years they’ll still be holding ‘last chance to save the planet’ meetings. I mean, wtaf.

Categories
Science United States of America

1983, Jan 12: RIP to the “master organizer in the world of science”, Carroll Wilson

Jan 12, 1983 – RIP Carroll Wilson, “master organizer in world of science” (and early climate connector)

On this day, in 1983, a man died who you’ve almost certainly never heard of, but is one of the many who tried – ultimately unsuccessfully – to raise the alarm over 50 years ago.

 “Wilson then turned to larger issues, pioneering a new format for studying and publicizing major scientific problems in world development. In 1970, for the first study, he assembled a multi-disciplinary group that produced, in one month, Man’s Impact on the Global Environment. The study was an important catalyst of debate within the U.S. on the greenhouse effect and other major environmental consequences of technology, including the SST. The following year Wilson brought together 35 atmospheric scientists from 15 countries in Stockholm to produce Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate.” 


(Text here. Hyerlinks added by me)

Here’s a four page article  on him, which has him as crucial midwife to the Limits to Growth report – 

“The chain of events which led to the book began when Carroll Wilson introduced Jay Forrester, S.M. ’45, head of the System Dynamics Group at M.I.T., to the Club of Rome – an independent, international forum for the “great issues.” Forrester saw that the problems of growing complexity considered by the Club of Rome lent themselves to computer modeling. He produced two models and one of his collaborators produced a third on which some of Forrester’s colleagues based The Limits to Growth.”

And here is a jpg of an obituary which calls him “a master organizer in the world of science”.

Why it matters – we should pause to remember the efforts of the Revelles, the Bolins, the Wilsons and others. It wasn’t for lack of warning from scientists that we stuffed this one up.  And hoping that another scientist will turn up, with just the right graph, and just the right tone of voice, is at best stupid. At worst it is a wilful refusal to be a citizen.

Categories
Agnotology United States of America

1964, Jan 11: The Merchants of Doubt have work to do

On this day, January 11, in 1964 the  Surgeon General of the United States Dr. Luther Terry, M.D., published the landmark report Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States. 

It sparked national and worldwide anti-smoking efforts.  But of course, as documented in the “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Stephen Conway, the tobacco industry was waaay ahead of the curve, having started highly effective campaigns to cast doubt on the science, and then to reframe it all as “personal responsibility”. Sound familiar? It should: the subtitle of the must-read Oreskes and Conway book is “How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”.
Why it matters. This “agnotology” (the creation of ignorance) has been a staggeringly successful tool of predatory delay.  And “education” is no defence.  In fact, those who’ve received “good” educations are often more vulnerable to insidious propaganda and careful framing than those who did not have the right clothes, accent, habitus to get through the obstacle course and win the prizes. If educated people (including the author of this blog) had gotten off – and stayed off – their asses in the early 90s, we might – just might – not be looking down the business end of 4 degrees by the end of the century. Oops

Categories
Weekly updates

Weekly Update #02 –

Welcome to week 02 of All Our Yesterdays., a day late (#AuspiciousStarts). The reason is that I used my AOY time/energy yesterday on finishing the draft of a Big New Report, which I will release on Friday.

Good news this week in terms of various people saying nice things about the project, AND contributing to it in the form of guest posts (waves at Chloe, Hugh, Prakash and Grace). If all goes well, there should be four guest posts this month, and that seems like a good baseline (from which to grow). Secondly, have continued to add events to The Database (from which future posts will come).

Aim is 2000 Twitter followers by the end of the year. Moved from 50 to. 63, which is, ah, mild.

What you may have missed in the last week on the site

What I’ve been reading/watching/listening to

Would you believe the Schwarzenegger/Belushi film “Red Heat.” And the Michael Mann actioner “Heat.” Neither of which have owt to do with climate change, despite the titles.

What’s coming up in the next week on the site

Posts about Carroll Wilson, Kofi Annan, Propaganda and that Blueprint…

What’s coming up in the next week in the real world

50th anniversary of Blueprint for Survival

More horror. That’s what the theme of 2022 is – “more horror”

Categories
Manchester United Kingdom

1974, Jan 10: Clean Air call for #Manchester

Chartres, J. (1974). North-west pollution control sought.

The Times 10 January, p4.

On this day in 1974, the Times reported that “A unified system of control over all forms of pollution, including smoke and aircraft noise, is called for in a report issued… today. It follows a three-year study in the Greater Manchester area.” [this one]

Why this matters.  

Catastrophically bad air quality is not new. There have been bans (unenforced) on the burning of “sea coal” in London waaaaaaaaay back in the day (1500s), and the foul air of the industrial cities had been seen as a sign of progress and virtue (but not perhaps by those who had no choice but to breathe it). 

With the Clean Air Act of 1956 – and technological developments – the sheer amount of visible crap in the air was decreasing. But it’s not just the stuff you can see that matters.

From the early 1970s the “local” concerns started to join up with global ones. Then it became about acid rain, then ozone – and finally, the biggie that we are not fixing.   

What happened?

Not much, because here we still are. And Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is probably going to develop a serious case of the cold feets about the (already weak) “Clean Air Zone.”

Groups you can get involved in

British Lung Foundation

Concepts

Impact Science (versus production science)

Categories
Australia Politics Predatory delay

1995, Jan 9: “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

On this day in 1995, as part of its war to head off a carbon tax, the fossil fuel lobby released a report claiming that Energy Efficiency would be a better better bet than the (dreaded, to them) carbon tax being proposed by the Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner.

1995 Gill, P. 1995. Energy efficiency outstrips gains of carbon tax: study The Australian Financial Review 9th January

It was part of a flurry of “the sky will fall” reports that said even the mildest of carbon taxes would cause untold economic devastation to the Australian economy (a tactic still being used, because, well, it works).

Why this matters – we need to remember that the rhetoric of “efficiency” and clean green growth to head off even the mildest of reformist measures and regulation is a favoured and time-honoured tactic of those who don’t want anyone to get between them and their supply.  See Jeremiah Bohr’s 2016 Environmental Politics article for how the alleged “free-marketers”  square that circle.

What happened next: The carbon tax proposal was defeated, and morphed into “emissions trading schemes”. These waxed and waned, and a national one was finally introduced in July 2012. It was promptly axed by the next government and down (under) to this day, the very mention of it is enough to send shadow climate change ministers into a whiter shade of pale.  

Further reading

Bohr, J. (2016) The ‘climatism’ cartel: why climate change deniers oppose market-based mitigation policy. Environmental Politics, Vol. 25, 5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1156106


See also

Jevons Paradox

Ecological Modernisation

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America Weather modification

1958, Jan 8: “The masters of infinity… could control the world’s weather”, says LBJ

On this day in 1958 future President Lyndon Baines Johnson was speaking at the Democratic Caucus

“From space,” declared Johnson at the Democratic Caucus in January of 1958, warning of the technologically and scientifically superior Russians, “the masters of infinity could have the power to control the earth’s weather, to case drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the level of the sea, to divert the Gulf Stream, and change temperate climates to frigid” (Howe, 2014:27).

Why this matters – this sense of paranoia and fear, that matters might be beyond our control, and that we must redouble our efforts to be In Charge –  is, I fear, what is behind the coming push for geoengineering “solutions” as a kind of last throw of the dice. It’s good to remember that weather modification predates concerns about atmospheric build up of C02, and that the same types of people have been advocating both (this is not to say that there aren’t well-intentioned ‘progressive’ types who want a better world and don’t see a way out of the mess that doesn’t involve more god-technology japes).

What happened next?

As president, Lyndon Johnson gave a “Special Message to the Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty“ which included the prescient lines

“Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places”. This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Entire regional airsheds, crop plant environments, and river basins are heavy with noxious materials.”

This was in February 1965  though, while LBJ was tag-teaming the USA into the thousand year long invasion of Vietnam, so the sentences possibly didn’t get the attention future generations might have hoped they would.


See also

Jan 1st: blog post – Control the weather before the Commies do…

Further reading

Monbiot,, G. (2006) No Quick Fix on Paul Cruzen

Wasser, A. (2005) LBJ’s space race: what we didn’t know then. The Space Review, June 20.

Categories
Activism Australia Coal Gender

2013, Jan 7: Paper (briefly) wraps rock. But coal wins in the end… #auspol

On this day in 2013 an activist called Jonathan Moylan sent out a fake press release, purporting  to be from a major Australian bank, saying it was withdrawing funding for the Whitehaven Coal mine at Maules Creek. The share price briefly plummeted.

Why this matters – this issue became part of the culture wars over coal and climate in Australia, in the lead up to the 2013 federal election that saw the ALP swept from office after only 6 years. The Coalition has been in charge ever since, regularly toppling its own leaders while exacerbating the climate crisis through a … well, it’s an ugly ugly story.

As for Moylan, well he escaped a jail term.  [These sorts of non-violent direct actions are now even more illegal than they were. We can expect to see a lot more of them between now and the breakdown(s).]
And the mine? Well, what do you think?

Categories
Economics of mitigation Predatory delay United States of America

1971, Jan 6: the whiff of sulphur (taxes) and 20 more years of #PredatoryDelay

On this day 51 years ago the idea of – gasp –  putting a tax on something that was causing environmental damage (cuh-razy communist idea) was kicked around within the Nixon administration.

We know this thanks to a really great book called Behind the Curve, by Joshua Howe, which looks at the climate issue before it became famous (see review in Environmental Politics here [paywalled]).

“As early as 1970 the Nixon administration considered levying a tax on SO2 tied to energy production from coal.”

(Howe, 2014:148)

And the footnote has it – John C. Whitaker to Ken Cole, memorandum, Jan 6 1971 “Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Charge,” memo for John B. Connally [sic] Jr. secretary of treasury, Nov. 11 1971. The tax was never implemented, in part because the Office of Management and Budget showed that it would work too well, taxing SO2 emissions out of existence before the program could generate enough revenue to meet Nixon’s pro-business political goals. (Howe, 2014:244) 

Why this matters – we are told that this is all impossible to do anything about – over-emphasised complexification, as part of the predatory delay.  Of course, climate is a much bigger/wider issue than acid rain, and carbon (in the form of fossil fuels) is far harder to replace in the production chain than CFCs or sulfur.  But the basic point – that you can put up taxes on things you are trying to discourage, as long as you think about/do something serious about  the distributional effects on the poorest and most vulnerable – should be entirely uncontroversial. As we will see, this has not been the case.

What happened next?

It would be another 20 years before anything substantive got done about sulphur in the US, with the 1990 Clean Air Act.  The question  of whether emissions trading mattered, or whether technological developments independent of a price-on-sulphur has given academics, activists and policymakers something to write and talk about too. 

Further reading

Bohr, J. (2016) The ‘climatism’ cartel: why climate change deniers oppose market-based mitigation policy. Environmental Politics, Vol. 25, 5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1156106

Brigham Daniels, Andrew P. Follett, and Joshua Davis, The Making of the Clean Air Act, 71 HASTINGS L.J. 901 (2020). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol71/iss4/3

Gabriel Chan, Robert Stavins, Robert Stowe, and Richard Sweeney (2012) THE SO2 ALLOWANCE-TRADING SYSTEM AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990: REFLECTIONS ON 20 YEARS OF POLICY INNOVATION. National Tax Journal, 65 (2), 419–452


Lohmann, L. 2006. Carry On Polluting: Comment and analysis in New Scientist. The Cornerhouse, 2 December.