Month: July 2023

Categories
Australia

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

A hundred and eleven years ago, on this day, July 17, 1912, the New South Wales Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal ran a clipping (based on a Popular Mechanics article, about “Coal Consumption Affecting Climate.”) https://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 301ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

This is one of those delicious findings that yes, people were thinking about possible consequences of all the coal- this is in the afterlife of the Arrhenius and Chamberlain. But of course, the scientists had stopped looking because, thanks to Angstrom, they had convinced themselves that carbon dioxide was quickly saturated, and therefore irrelevant to any heating effect. And it was all about the water vapour. 

So this finding is the sort of thing that you find on the internet and occasionally it gets sent to me as somehow proof that “everybody knew.” But I really do strongly believe that before Plass and Keeling it was entirely understandable to be deeply skeptical about the link, and even with Plass and Keeling and so forth it’s really only the late 1970s onwards that you can start to think about putting people on trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity. I know that’s convenient, because it is at that point that we get eight years of neoliberals blocking before the ‘breathrough’ in mid-1988.  But anyway, I digress. 

What I think we can learn from this

The idea had been ‘in the air’ for a while..

What happened next

Nothing, because the science was most definitely not settled…

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.

Categories
Australia Denial

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 16, 1990, the asinine comments of Hugh Morgan, culture warrior and businessman, are reported in the Canberra Times

 ADELAIDE: Western Mining chief Hugh Morgan has criticised the former Minister for the Environment, Graham Richardson, and the scientific community for treating the greenhouse theory as fact rather than hypothesis.

Mr Morgan told an Australian Institute of Energy conference dinner on Monday [16th July] that he was concerned at the way in which some scientists and Senator Richardson expounded the theory as if it were truth.

1990 Anon. 1990. Public ‘unaware’ of alternative scientific theories on greenhouse effect. Canberra Times, 18 July, p. 6

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that having won the Federal election in March of that year, the Labour Party was having to follow through on promises to the environmentalists about a so-called “ecologically sustainable development process.” Hugh Morgan, who probably felt the Liberals and Nationals had been robbed, was predictably furious, and predictably spouting his climate denial bollocks, saying that there were alternative theories. This was a common proposal at the time and still is. Morgan’s “alternative theories” being possible somewhat like Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts”. 

There is that letter from Guy Callendar to (I think) Gilbert Plass about people being able to criticise theories, but it’s very hard to come up with a good one. And there is also the editorial in Climatic Change by John Eddy, where he cites Kipling’s poem, In the Neolithic Age – “nine and 60 ways to calculate the tribal lays and every one of them is right.” 

But that’s not what Morgan is saying. Morgan is saying that he’s gonna shop around until he finds a “theory” that allows us to keep burning coal and the oil and the gas and spitting on and shitting on the environmentalists. That’s what Morgan means by “alternative theories.”

What I think we can learn from this

Brittle old white men are bad for your health. And your planet’s health, at that.

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process did indeed start. Morgan kept funding denialist efforts including his consigliere Ray Evans and all the other Goon Squad types who have made the Australian response to climate change change so shameful and wasteful.

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate change

There had been all kinds of warnings and speculations about possible climate change, in tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, reports and books. The first example I am currently aware of a government minister (as distinct from an MP) saying ‘hmm, this is something we might want to look at’ came on this day in 1968 (55 years ago).  It was from Lord Kennet, a junior minister in the Department of Housing and Local Government.  See here, Paul David Sims 2016 PhD thesis – 

“In July 1968, Kennet wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, Anthony Greenwood, to suggest ‘the possibility of having some sort of enquiry into the adequacy of our arrangements for controlling the pollution of the human environment, right across the board’. It is difficult to measure public opinion on pollution during this period, but it is clear that there was a perception within government that the public demanded action. Citing the impact of Torrey Canyon, as well as concern over pesticides, agricultural fertilisers, industrial cyanide in rivers, and ‘possible changes in macroclimate caused by the heating of the atmosphere due to industry’, Kennet noted that ‘the public disquiet which is building up on this front can be seen week after week’, and argued that the government should appoint a wide-ranging public inquiry, perhaps in the form of a Royal Commission.52” (Sims, 2016: 198) –

52 TNA: HLG 127/1193 Pollution in the Human Environment: Proposals to Set Up a Committee or Other Body to Undertake a Study (1968-69), Minute from Lord Kennet to Minister of Housing and Local Government, 15 July 1968 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

What we can learn

This has been going on for a very very long time. Longer than we realise.

What happened next

The first Environment White Paper, published in May 1970, mentioned carbon dioxide build-up as one thing to keep an eye on. A Department of Environment was established in October 1970.

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Science Uncategorized United States of America

 July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan.  Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.

From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. It was, literally, front page news.

What happened next

In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins 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.

Categories
Australia

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 14, 2000, the tensions any social democratic party faces were out in open…

A split is emerging between the main coal mining union and the ALP over Labor’s pledge to take early action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The ALP’s draft environment policy, released last week, calls for the introduction of a national carbon credit trading scheme ahead of any international trade system introduced under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases.

But the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is worried about the impact of the early introduction of such a scheme on the economy and employment particularly in energy-intensive sectors.

Hordern, N. 2000. Miners unhappy with Labor’s greenhouse pledge. The Australian Financial Review, 14 July, p.12.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some folks within the ALP were trying to turn climate change into an issue, a bit at least, as a stick to beat Howard with. But it wasn’t easy…

What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to build red-green coalitions on, for multiple reasons.

What happened next

Howard won the 2001 Federal Election, thanks to vicious lies about Afghan refugees. And got another six years to delay and prevent climate action.

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.

Categories
Australia

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Ten years ago, on this day, July 13, 2013, the Australian satirical website “The Shovel” took aim at Tony Abbott, who was about to become Prime Minister… It’s still hilarious, if with a tinge of horror.

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2013/07/16/invisible-things-are-ridiculous-says-man-who-lives-his-life-according-to-invisible-thing

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tony Abbott was clearly about to become prime minister. And he was clearly still spouting his bollocks, that because carbon dioxide was invisible, it therefore somehow didn’t have any significance. So the Australian satirical publication, The Shovel, decided to tear him a new one. And it’s a corker. 

What I think we can learn from this

Laughter is solace

What happened next 

Well, Peter Cook said, “I love satire, I love how it stopped Nazis.” Abbott became one of the worst Australian Prime Ministers to date (and there’s stiff competition). So, obviously, since then, we’ve had do-nothing Malcolm Turnbull, and fuck things up with a smirk on your face. Scott Morrison, him of the multiple portfolios. And now “Albo”…

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.

Categories
United States of America

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

Forty five years ago, on this day, July 12, 1978, US scientists gathered to review 

1978 Woods Hole workshop to review “Report of the Workshop to Review the U.S. Climate Program Plans”, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-19, 1978, to the Climate Research Board 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had released its big fat report in the middle of 1977. And there was now a US Climate programme as well, thanks to George Brown’s efforts to get a climate act through. This workshop is about “well how are we doing? What do we do next?” 

What I think we can learn from this is that you can get a research agenda with policy implications embedded within the state but then you need to husband it, make sure it’s on track. And that’s unglamorous but it’s needed, obviously, and will take up a lot of time and energy. But there isn’t really an alternative because if you don’t nurture it, you’re screwed (spoiler, you are anyway!)

What happened next

The climate issue continued to build and build and by 1980 81, it had some serious legs on it. And then came Reagan and the Heritage Foundation, grinding into gear and making sure that things like the Global 2000 report don’t have as much afterlife as they otherwise might. See. May 13 1983 blog post 

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.

Categories
United States of America

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

Seventy years ago, on this day, July 12, 1953, the New York Times carried an article about the changes in the world’s weather (warmer). It mentioned our friend carbon dioxide… (Engel, Leonard, 1953. “The Weather Is Really Changing,” New York Times Magazine, July 12)

It mentions CEP Brooks, and gets info from Harry Wexler of the US Weather Bureau. And near the end, this – 

“Another theory, advanced by some meteorologists, attributes at least part of the rise in temperatures to a small but definite increase in the past century in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The air’s content of this product of combustion is important because carbon dioxide has heat-conserving properties, similar to greenhouse glass.

In 1850 the air contained somewhat less than thirty parts of carbon dioxide per 1000 parts off air. In the hundred years since, industrialized, urbanized man has poured unprecedented quantities of carbon dioxide out of home and factory chimneys… As a result, there are now thirty-three parts of the gas per 1,000 in the atmosphere instead of thirty. Calculations by physicists show that this is enough of an increase to make a detectable difference in the temperature at the surface of the earth…”.

By now there are already “alarmists” out there – 

“The warming-up process, however, also poses problems…. If the warm-up continues for another several decades, shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap could cause a troublesome rise in ocean levels. The rise would not, as alarmists predict, wipe out all our port cities. But it could be troublesome enough to demonstrate anew that, for all his central heating and air conditioners, climate still makes man more than man makes climate.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were clear indications the world was warming up till about, well, 1950. And lots of articles in various places, including Saturday Evening Post. And, of course, two months before this. Gilbert Plass had hit the headlines with his statement about carbon dioxide. So I don’t think he was reported in the New York Times. He was, however, reported in Time, Newsweek, lots of regional publications. So this kind of “think piece” article could be cobbled together and be of interest because everyone was interested in the weather. It’s also in the context of nuclear bombs being set off left, right and centre, and everyone basically worrying about what that might mean. 

What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of these issues goes back even in the mainstream press in very early days. 

What happened next

More journalistic articles, including a corker from Maclean’s by Norman J Berrilll in 1955, and Plass’s work in 1956, also garnering a lot of press attention and interest.

Engel wrote another piece of special interest in 1958

He died in 1964- https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/09/archives/leonard-engel-writer-48-dies-author-of-science-reports-specialized.html

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.

Categories
United States of America

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Ten years ago, on this day, July 11, 2013, a protest was held outside Google HQ because it hosted a fundraiser for denialist Senator James Inhofe.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Google, which still had a residual aura of “don’t be evil” about it, had been hosting fundraisers for climate denialists like James Inhofe. The context was that Obama wasn’t going to legislate on climate. Really, the international negotiations weren’t going anywhere in particular.  

What I think we can learn from this is that any company that says “don’t be evil”, probably has some skeletons in its closet, or wants to have. Show me the money, I’ll show you the crime…

What happened next Google released the usual flimflam about “freedom of speech,” blah, blah, blah. Protesters could pat themselves on the head, go home, and the whole soap opera continues and the climate continues to be fucked. 

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.

Categories
France New Zealand

: July 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 10, 1985 French secret service agents planted bombs that led to the sinking of the Greenpeace ship the “Rainbow Warrior”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the French state was getting pissed off with Greenpeace’s activities around nuclear testing in the Pacific, and thought it would be a good idea to treat a non-state actor like a state and go and blow up its assets. The death came from the photographer wanting to go back on board to get his cameras, against advice.

What I think we can learn from this, and certainly what I learned in 1985, when I was not quite an adult, is that states behave terribly, especially the intelligence services. And if they can’t win the argument, then they resort to, well, blowing shit up.

What happened next: The French intelligence service operatives got caught, sentenced to minimal jail time and then released. Greenpeace didn’t go away – you can judge the strength of an actor by the nature of its enemies, and the lengths to which it is willing to go.

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.