Seventy years ago, on this day, May 18, 1953, the American weekly magazine Newsweek ran a snippet about the ‘carbon dioxide is building up and we should watch out’ statement of Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union (see May 5)
Newsweek; New York Vol. 41, Iss. 20, (May 18, 1953): 75 https://archive.org/details/sim_newsweek-us_1953-05-18_41_20/page/74/mode/2up?view=theater
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that two weeks previously, Gilbert Plass had made some very eye-catching statements at the American Geophysical Union that had been picked up and broadcast. This is the first report by Newsweek that I can find and it was followed shortly after, by something from Time.
What I think we can learn from this
This is the moment in which the carbon dioxide theory of climate change really starts to enter into popular discourse. The context was that people were sure the world was getting hotter. It was a question of why.
What happened next
Plass did his scientific work and in 1955/56 released papers about the carbon dioxide theory of climate. There was a further paper in Scientific American in 1959. There’s a direct line between Plass and Guy Callendar with whom Plass corresponded.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The weekly interviews resume! A couple of weeks ago I met a wonderful person at a very good public meeting. She kindly agreed to answer some questions…
a) Who are you? Where were you born, where did you grow up and when did you first start to think that there were serious environmental problems ahead? Was it a book, a TV show, a friend?
I am a baby boomer, born in 1947 in Adelaide.
b) When did you first become aware of the climate element of the environmental problems, and how.
I had assumed that one day I might have a child or two, but when a colleague introduced me to books he was using as resources to teach geography in 1971, I started reading them: The Club of Rome’s ‘The Limits to Growth’ and ‘The Population Bomb’ amongst them. Paul Erlich visited South Australia around that time and has been several times since on speaking tours and, each time, I have been to hear him. He is utterly inspiring, and he was absolutely correct in his predictions in the late 1960s, for which he was derided at the time.
c) You mentioned that you chose not to have children because of the population crisis. That must have struck a lot of people as crazy, back then. What sorts of responses did you get. Given that you were only a woman, in an intensely patriarchal society, presumably a lot of the responses involved telling you you’d change your mind, that you were being hysterical etc etc?
I subsequently married the above mentioned colleague and we decided that, knowing what we knew, it would be irresponsible of us to make more people. At that time the ZPG movement was quite strong in South Australia, and we hoped that it might result in some sensible population policies from our government. It didn’t!. It fizzled. And since then I have been gob-smacked to go to environmental rallies where I see youngish couples trailing a swarm of children behind them. Don’t they understand that you can’t have a small footprint if you make more feet?! Several of our friends also realised, in the 70s and 80s, that population was a serious issue, but all of them eventually bred, leaving us on our own to bear the comments and criticism, such as being labelled selfish!!!!! Personally, I can’t think of an unselfish reason for having children. In fact, we both joined a short course being run by a woman doing research for her PhD on ‘voluntary child-free couples’. Most of the participants said they would probably have children, many of them saying they wanted to have someone to look after them in their old age!!!! They deserve to have their children migrate to the moon!
d) We don’t seem to have made a lot of progress, as a species, on these problems. What do you think are the reasons for that, and what is there that we could/should still do differently?
No. We haven’t made a lot of progress on population. I have had people say things like: ‘What difference can one person make?’ I saw a wonderful little cartoon a few years ago, showing a large crowd of people, each with an individual thought bubble above their head with the words ‘what can one person do?’
Movements like GetUp have started to shift awareness in certain sections of the population and created a movement in which we can pool our energy and resources to make a difference (so much so that Murdoch’s media have run relentless campaigns to bad-mouth us). I have also tried to explain to my friends, when asked where I’m going for my next holiday, that I haven’t had a passport for over 20 years and I don’t fly because it’s not good for the environment, to which some have replied: ‘I’m not giving up my OS holidays!’ However, they are all keen to look at my newly acquired Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV, and that is a great introduction to the whole subject of trying to save the planet.
e) anything else you’d like to say.
It seems to me that the problem is so big that people can’t relate to it personally, or understand that a small change in their habits could make a contribution. When the east coast of Australia burned so fiercely in 2019, 2020 and 2021, and then flooded devastatingly, it woke up a lot of people. We’re going to see a lot more of those events. The most recent federal election was really encouraging in that so many ‘safe’ Liberal seats were lost to independent candidates standing for the environment. So it’s not all doom and gloom, although I’m glad that I’m not likely to be around for more than another 20 years, but I fear for future generations.
Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 17, 1972, the “Grey Lady” reported some basic facts.
“The continued use of fossil fuels at projected levels will mean a 20 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere by the year 2000, a leading meteorologist predicted today.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Stockholm climate conference, four years in the making, was about to begin. And there were a significant number – a very small but significant number – of climate scientists and atmospheric scientists looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying “ this could be the problem.” As this site has demonstrated, by 1969/70 lots of people were being exposed to this, both politicians, but also readers of magazines and newspapers.
What I think we can learn from this
Even before the 1972 conference, there was significant awareness and concern.
What happened next
The Stockholm conference did give us the United Nations Environment Program, smaller than hoped for with less power and money. But nonetheless, UNEP was crucial in helping scientists do the research that was needed through the 70s and 80s, or rather, to get them talking to each other, across geographical more than disciplinary boundaries…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The Howard Government’s Energy White Paper is an energy white elephant.
The Senate Inquiry into the Energy White Paper has concluded the Energy White Paper will delay critical action on climate change for another twenty years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Anthony Albanese had an interest in the environmental issues and Labor were trying to use Howard’s recalcitrance and opposition to climate action as a stick to beat him with. The energy white paper in 2004 had been a gift to the fossil fuel lobby, there had been a Senate report about the White Paper and this is what Albanese was using.
What I think we can learn from this is that in any parliamentary system, there are games and counter-games between the government of the day and the opposition. And there are various scrutiny and watchdog outfits that can produce reports which are useful both to researchers but also politicians and NGOs who are contesting the government’s actions.
What happened next
Howard brushed it all off. Eventually the climate issue, in the second half of 2006, became an issue that he couldn’t brush off.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the UK climate “movement.” for want of a better word, had basically collapsed with the failure of Copenhagen because all the eggs had been put in the “let’s have a big march in London in December” basket; the so-called “Wave”. Climate Camp had been neutered as a Radical Space and everything was turning to shit; and this was before the revelation of all the undercover cops.
What I think we can learn from this
The collapse of morale and organisational capacity in the aftermath of some big international defeat is entirely predictable and was in fact predicted with regards to Copenhagen. These vigils remind me of the animals huddling together singing “Beasts of England” after they have witnessed the latest atrocity organised by the pigs – I’m talking about Animal Farm.
If we are to take citizen action seriously we should expect and even demand that organisers of groups warn members that everything is going is likely to turn to s*** and help them get ready for it. But as if. They’re hope-mongers, and that’s what they monger…
What happened next
The UK climate movement entered a long-term period of confusion.
Anti-fracking campaigns became the centre of attention, but the broader strategic remit was lost.
In 2018 the issue returned with the coming of the social movement organisation XR but by 2022 it was gone again…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the prospects for action on climate change in the United States – at least at the federal level – were bleak af. Obama had not bothered to fight for the Democratic energy package and climate package, and wasn’t going to punch that tar baby again. The Copenhagen summit had revealed the weakness of the international process and there was more rising despair and rising apathy than Rising Tide.
What I think we can learn from this was
Activist groups are obsessed with “days of action”, perhaps because these give them a sense of punctuation for the meaning of building up to something. It’s not necessarily a bad mobilising tactic but it doesn’t automatically mean that you are movement-building when you are repeatedly mobilising. See my articles about the emotacycle.
What happened next
Rising Tide US I think is dead, but I could be wrong. There are a broad range of other groups sunrise movement etc etc who are are more in the news.
It’s important though to remember that those people who protested were right even if they lost and and that cannot be taken away.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty years ago, on this day, May 13, 1983, the Heritage Foundation made a clever pre-emptive assault on the impending conference of the “Global Tomorrow Coalition” in Washington DC…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Global 2000 report ordered in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter had continued to be a rallying point for environmentalists and those concerned about, well, the future. The Heritage Foundation, which had been set up in 1973, as an attack dog on precisely these questions, wanted to throw a spanner in the works and give journalists covering the upcoming conference, either ammunition or else a quandary. Report it as a “some say/others say ” horse race or, if they did not report on the Heritage Foundation’s critique, they can be smeared as “biased”, and part of the liberal media establishment.
What we can learn from this is that organisations like the Heritage Foundation are fantastically good at shaping the public discourse. They seek to minimise the splash that their opponents can make. They do this with both preemptive and responsive propaganda efforts. This only comes about if you have lots of money and the people who have lots of money understand for the most part, that funding outfits like the Heritage Foundation, or whatever new group is required, is money well spent.
What happened next
The conference happened. The Heritage Foundation released a book called The Resourceful Earth in 1984. Edited by Julian Simon who had already been attacking the Global 2000 report. And in The Resourceful Earth the meteorologist Helmut Landsberg, who was to die a year later made unfortunate predictions about what the climate would be. Oops. Landsberg, like Brian Tucker in Australia, couldn’t cope with the fact that climate science was undercutting the cherished technocracy and economic growth “values.”
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 13, 1991, a UK
“Britain’s last Secretary of State for Energy wrote in May 1991 that ‘the environment has to be a priority in shaping global resources plans’ and expressed official support for nuclear power as an insurance policy against global warming, also pleading for higher prices for fossil fuels”
Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 184)- citing Wakeham, J. 1991. Nurturing a greener policy for world energy. The Times, 13 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the United Kingdom was trying to paint itself as environmentally responsible both domestically and internationally, and also being a big fan of nuclear. So, nothing has changed.
What I think we can learn from this
The political games keep getting played. The players change often. The rules change slowly. Ultimately the game Remains the Same the losers future generations, other species.
What happened next
UK policy making on climate and energy remained pretty disconnected until the 2003 Energy White Paper and even then things have been seriously contested and a classic mess since then. The opportunities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy have been mostly missed, thanks to an ongoing obsession with nuclear power and generalised animosity towards the measures you would need to take to tackle climate change. This is hardly a surprise.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day May 12, 1995, the bet between those who think Technology Will Save Us and those who think that, you know, there are limits, kept going.
The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists “…that any trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get worse.” This article echoes an editorial essay entitled “Earth’s Doomsayers Are Wrong” that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco Chronicle open forum. Simon then said that “Every measure of material and environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved…” and that “All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction of the doomsayers” Thus he implied that few, if any people would likely accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have been “proven entirely wrong.” When my Stanford colleague, Paul Ehrlich, and I took up his challenge1 and named 15 environment-related trends we were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused claiming to the Chronicle (18 May 1995) that “I do not offer to bet on the progress of particular physical conditions such as the ozone layer” (as if its decline were not a negative measure of environmental welfare!).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in March 1995 the first meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “conference of the parties” (COP) was about to happen in Berlin. So, everyone was thinking about the future of climate action. Julian Simon, a cornucopian, had been taking bets with Paul Ehrlich and others and winning them. Simon’s bets were useful just-so stories for “owning the libs,” as we now call it, for generations of what’s the polite word … idiots.
What I think we can learn from this
You can be really smart and dumb as a rock at the same time especially if you you have an inability, for psychological reasons, to accept the basic fact that there are indeed limits on human ingenuity and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb damage.
What happened next
Julian Simon died without ever seeing his bets for what they were. And sadly Steven Schneider died when we needed him most.
The atmospheric CO2 kept accumulating and the damage has kept accumulating.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
On this day, 11th May, in 1971 the UN Secretary General U Thant met a group of distinguished scientists who presented him with “A message to our 3.5 billion neighbours on planet earth” – a strong environmental statement raising concerns about environmental deterioration, resource depletion, hunger, and war – which together presented an unprecedented common danger to all of humanity.
During 1970 a small conference had been organised in Menton on the French Riviera. Probably the first “Environmental Conference” in Europe it involved a meeting between the organizer Alfred Hassler of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Buddhist peace activists Thich Nhat Hanh and Sister Chan Khong, and six other distinguished scientists.
Chan Khong, remembering the event in 2016, said “We met to address the damage that was being done to the Earth through human misuse of technology, the penetration into food-chains of poisonous substances and the mounting exploitation of natural resources.”
Together, through their discussions, they crafted the an open letter. Known as “The Menton Message” or “The Menton Statement” this was widely circulated amongst biologists and environmental scientists. It rapidly attracted over over 2000 signatures, including four Nobel prizewinners and numerous very distinguished and respected scientists of the day.
The following year, on May 11th 1971, in New York a copy of the statement was presented to UN Secretary General U Thant by six of the authors. It was then published as the lead item in the UNESCO Journal “Courier” in the July 1971 issue and reached a wider audience within the UN organisation and beyond.
U Thant responded to the delegation:
“I believe that mankind is at last aware of the fact that there is a delicate equilibrium of physical and biological phenomena on and around the earth which cannot be thoughtlessly disturbed as we race along the road of technological development…
This global concern in the face of a grave common danger, which carries the seeds of extinction for the human species, may well prove to be the elusive force which can bind men together.
The battle for human survival can only be won by all nations joining together in a concerted drive to preserve life on this planet.”
Why it Matters
The Statement concludes with four urgent action points “not as panaceas, but as holding actions to keep our situation from deteriorating past the point of no return”
In summary they called for a moratorium on new technological developments, widespread application of existing pollution control technology, a decrease in consumption by privileged classes, and abolition and destruction of nuclear arsenals and chemical and biological weapons.
So right at the beginning of the modern environmental movement there was seen a strong linkage between ecological issues and peace and disarmament, together with a focus on social issues of equality and rights.
What Happened Next
The message, strongly endorsed by the scientific elite, played a key role in preparing the ground for the UN Summit on the Human Environment which took place in Stockholm the following year in June 1972.
The Stockholm summit lead to the creation of “Environment” ministries in many governments and the establishment of the UN Environmental Program. These lead to 50 years of talking about “the environment” and little real action to address the fundamental issues the scientists were raising.
The scientific community published ever more mountains of papers attracting ever more research funding to describe in increasing detail the complexity of the interlocking environmental problems.
The plain people of the world seeing all this activity assumed that “they” would solve the problems and merrily kept calm and carried on consuming.
Successive generations of environmental activists kept on marching and protesting at this and that and thus many became burnt-out and retired to cultivate their gardens.
Whilst “the environment” became the prime focus of “environmentalism”, the related issues identified in the Menton Message of the problems inherent in technological solutions, the need for peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and the need for more equal distribution of of societal goods were somewhat sidelined.
Last year (2022) the UN held a Stockholm+50 Intergovernmental Conference hosted jointly by the Swedish and Kenyan Governments. The original Menton Message was updated and reissued as “A Letter to Fellow Citizens of Planet Earth”.
Which gets us to where we are today.
Rinse and Repeat.
(On a personal note U Thant was the only global leader who my teenage self through the 60s regarded as worth anything. Being a dedicated peace activist in a position of power, he was far from the normal self-serving politicians. It is interesting to consider whether the authors of Blueprint for Survival were aware of the Menton Message – it certainly seems likely.
