Month: January 2024

Categories
International Geophysical Year United States of America

January 9, 1957- Daily Worker ponders climate change

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, January 9th, 1957, The Daily Worker posed some questions, in the context of the International Geophysical Year, which was to begin six months hence.

“Can we predict earthquakes? Can dry spells be predicted in time to warn farmers? Is the earth warming up? Will the melting of ice caps and glaciers containing one per cent of the earth’s water, eventually submerge populated coastlines?”

Woods, P. 1957. Forty countries set to collaborate in a gigantic scientific experiment. Daily Worker, January 9, p.6. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that two years previously, on January 2 1955, The Worker had posed similar questions.

Also, the International Geophysical Year was about to begin, it was well understood that the planet was warming. And that if it continued to do that, the ice caps would melt and that would have an impact on sea level rise. This was an empirical finding. People didn’t necessarily ascribe it to carbon dioxide build-up. But by the time the Daily Worker article appeared, there had been several articles in the mainstream press and some scientists speculating about the problem. 

What we can learn as with January 2, left-wing papers had a view on environmental destruction and environmental issues. That perhaps belies or at least complicates the easy caricature of them as “industrialise, industrialised industrialise and worry about green stuff later.” 

What happened next, the International Geophysical Year kicked off six months later. Accurate measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started to be taken in March of 1958. It quickly became apparent that the levels were indeed rising as had been suggested by Guy Callendar. That it was at that point that if the species had wanted to stick around for a few centuries, it would have started thinking about not burning fossil fuels. But there is no such thing as the species having a central organising committee, or even a body for discussing this. And so we blundered on thinking that the lunch we were eating was free. And those who tried to stop the blundering, were smeared, well, ignored, dismissed. And if they persisted, then they smeared and attacked, because that’s the way it works. 

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.

Also on this day: 

January 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

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

Categories
Science Scientists

January 8, 1968 – LaMont Cole to AAAS about running outta oxygen, build-up of C02 etc

Fifty six years ago, on this day, January 8th, 1968,

According to a Newsweek report (8 January 1968), Professor L. C. Cole of Cornell University (in a paper delivered at the 134th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) asks whether man is not destroying the earth’s natural supply of oxygen. He points out (1) that the increasing combustion of fossil fuels has greatly accelerated the formation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and (2) that, in the United States alone, some one million acres of suburbanised forest and grassland each year lose their ability to regenerate the oxygen supply through photosynthesis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was concern among a few scientists that levels of oxygen would drop and that we would all ultimately suffocate. That was rendered null a year or two after this, but there was generalised concern about oxygen levels, carbon dioxide levels, you name it. As the consequences of modernity, as we laughingly call it, were becoming apparent. Cynically, you could also say that people were so fed up with the Vietnam War, but there were costs attached to speaking out against that, that they found something else to be worried about….

What we can learn is that there have been scientists warning of trouble ahead. But those scientists may have sometimes understandably picked something to be concerned about that wasn’t actually there. That doesn’t mean that all warnings are bad warnings. 

What happened next, as above, the oxygen depletion thing was put to bed in 1970 or so. Lamont Cole died in I think, 1979. 

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.

References

Cole, L. 1968. Can the World Be Saved? BioScience, Vol. 18, No. 7 pp. 679-684 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1294188 .https://doi.org/10.2307/1294188

Also on this day: 

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

January 8, 2003 – Energy firms plan to “bury carbon emissions”…

January 8, 2013 – Australian Prime Minister connects bush fires and #climate change

Categories
Scientists technosalvationism United Kingdom

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 7th, 2004,

Big ideas for reducing the impacts of climate change are being evaluated by an international line-up of leading scientists from the US, mainland Europe and the UK at a symposium in Cambridge this week. The meeting is being jointly hosted by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Cambridge-MIT Institute. The scientists are coming together to evaluate which large-scale bio-engineering, geo-engineering and chemical engineering ideas to combat global warming are worthy of further investigation, and which are best left on the drawing board. The symposium, called “Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation” is at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge from 7-9 January.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/planet-sized-solutions-for-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC Third Assessment Report had come out and the UK energy white paper had come out in February 2003 positing a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, and it was obvious that some big technological efforts were going to be required. The international negotiations were adrift with the Americans having pulled out of Kyoto, followed by the Australians. The IPCC was in the midst of writing its special report on CCS. So of course, a bunch of well-respected, high-powered, academics would get together and … spit ball about technological fantasies to save the world. 

What we can learn from this is that to really understand what’s going on, you do have to understand the context of what had gone before. And place yourself in the heads of organisers or speakers, without giving yourself information that they couldn’t have had, because the events hadn’t happened yet. 

What else can we can learn is that rather than criticise existing political and social arrangements, high-powered academics who are ultimately benefiting from existing social and political arrangements will dream up techno-fantasies, because to question the entire system would be to question their place in it, and no one gets career points for that. 

What happened next? The techno-fantasies started coming thicker and faster, and they’re with us now, 20 years later in full flight. Because we did nowt, boys and girls, about dealing with the social and political issues. 

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 7, 1970 a pre-Earth Day radical student group called “Ecology Action East” was ahead of the game, in terms of how it’s a BIG puzzle. They said that they believed:

– that the ecological crisis is fundamentally a social problem, deeply rooted in the structure of society and in the cultural values that this society generates and reinforces.

–that all social institutions of domination and exploitation, from the patriarchal family to the modem nation-state, must be dissolved.

— that… the ecology movement is also inseparable from the liberation movement of colonial peoples, black and brown people, American Indians, working people, gay people, women, youth, and children.

(Rat, January 7, 1970, p. 10) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, from 1968 onwards, people had started to think seriously about the consequences of modernity, (good title – someone should write a book. Oh, wait they have) and the ecological impacts that might be coming down the pipe, and because of the pipe. In September ‘69, there’d been the announcement that an Earth Day would happen. But this was sponsored by a US senator, albeit a liberal one. And in the context of the Vietnam War a lot of activists were taking a serious look into the mouth of the gift horse. And groups like Ecology Action East, marrying the radical as in root cause, to critique of US imperialism as it applied to Vietnam with an ecological sensibility, and seeing that it was also connected to all these other issues. This is really intersectionality long before the word was invented. 

What we can learn is that most of us have, a lot of us have known for a long, long time that the issues were linked, even hyperlinked, and that you weren’t going to “solve” any one without solving a lot else, though, you might have some short term gains. 

What happened next. Groups like Ecology Action East were unable to sustain their momentum. And it all went tits up for them within a couple of years. And it was only another 20 years almost later, that ecology was really kicked 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.

References

Ecology Action East. 1970. The Power to Destroy – The Power to Create. Root & Branch No. 1, pp. 8-14

https://libcom.org/library/manifesto-ecology-action-east

Also on this day: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

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

Categories
United States of America

January 6, 1883 – The New York Times reports on the Atmosphere

One hundred and thirty-one years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1883, the New York Times took the righteous mickey out of something that had recently appeared in the UK scientific journal Nature…

Anon, 1883 – The Atmosphere, New York Times, January 6, p.4. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 293ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that everybody talks about the weather (but nobody does anything about it). And there was all sorts of speculation back and forth about what air quality might do to people. And this, of course, is one of the denialist “arguments”; “people have always been worried about the weather, therefore, there’s nothing new under the sun. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.” This is every bit as vacuous as it appears at first sight, but it’s very effective among people who just want to stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la, which seems to be most everyone most of the time. 

What happened next? Well, there’s other stuff that’s interesting (watch this space) but then in 1896, Svante Arrhenius’ article about carbonic acid was published. 

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

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

January 6, 1995 – Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument

Categories
Scientists United States of America

January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1989 the US National Academy of Sciences ? urged President-elect George HW Bush to actually DO something on climate because “‘the future welfare of human society’ was at risk” (Layzer 2012 page 157).

Here’s the beginning of a New York Times article, published January 6 1989 by the redoubtable Philip Shabecoff.

The National Academy of Sciences urged President-elect George Bush today to place the threat of a significant increase in global temperatures high on his agenda because ”the future welfare of human society” is at risk.

The academy urged Mr. Bush to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other fuels whose air pollutants are a main cause of the predicted global warming.

”We believe that global environmental change may well be the most pressing international issue of the next century,” the academy said. ”The United States is well-positioned to play a leadership role in coping with and gaining an international consensus on this difficult issue.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change had finally broken through the previous summer. And as candidate, George Herbert Walker, Bush had made the right noises about the greenhouse effect and the so-called “White House effect.” And now with his inauguration about to take place, folks at the National Academy of Sciences wanted to hold him to that. 

What we can learn is that everybody knows that politicians have to be “reminded” of their promises repeatedly. Because if you stop pressuring them, they assume everyone else has forgotten about the promise. And they keep taking the fat, brown envelopes of cash from the usual suspects. 

What happened next, Bush did everything he could to dampen the issue. And his goons were busy smearing James Hansen, et cetera. But in May of 1989, they overdid it. And Bush was forced to concede that yes, there would need to be a global treaty, and that negotiations should start for that. That led on to the text battles over the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ultimately won. And here we are 30 years later, having achieved nothing. And actually, that’s wrong: emissions are now 65% higher than they were. And we’ve run out of time and budget.

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.

References

Layzer, J. 2012. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation. MIT Press

Shabecoff, P. 1989. Bush Is Urged to Fight Threat of Global Warming. New York Times, January 6

Also on this day: 

January 5, 1973 – An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

Jan 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”

Categories
United States of America

January 4,1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Forty two ago, on this day, January 4th 1982, a symposium “The Global 2000 Report to the President: The Authors Update Their Work”, was held in Washington DC.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that under Jimmy Carter, the Global 2000 report had been produced. See here and here. And now two years on, waiting months on, though producing an update, and presumably tying it to the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at which Jim Hansen, Herman Flohn, and others were to speak. 

What we can learn is that determined people have been trying to keep the issue of environmental degradation/destruction/humanity’s Death Wish, on the political agenda. And to put it back on the political agenda when it gets “de-agendized.” Tried tirelessly, for a very long time; that they did not succeed is not really their fault. Or maybe it is, I don’t know. And they were clever in trying to combine voices and build a sense of momentum, a “one two” punch as it were. And you see this again later, in June of 1998, and 1988, when Hansen gives testimony, just before the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere.

What happened next, I think they were largely ignored at the time. Reagan was deep into his sabre-rattling and Cold War bullshit (that almost got us all fried, btw). Global 2000 people kept trying and were met in 1983 with “get your retaliation in first” tactics from our friends at the Heritage Foundation. And it would be another six years before climate change really, really broke through. 

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.

References

Dearborn, N. W. (1983). Global 2000: Radar for the ship of state. Futures, 15(2), 111-125

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

Categories
Science United States of America

January 1970 – Yale biologist muses on science, politics, pollution, warming.

In this month, 54 years ago, eminent Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson reflected on the effectiveness of Senate hearings for investigating environmental dilemmas, including carbon dioxide build-up.

“Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, this is far from being adequately established (5). The cycle is not really fully understood, as was made clear in the discussion; carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or in small amounts the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources. It is rather worrying to find one of our best senators and three eminent scientists trying to talk about the reversibility of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere from industrial sources without a single mention of a green plant”

(Hutchinson, 1970, p18-19).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some Senate hearings with Democrat Senator Edmund Muskie (who had been Vice President candidate in 1968) and so forth, SR 78, had happened. This was in the context of Richard Nixon being in the White House and trying to pick up the environment issue, but also raising concerns, with Earth Day impending. Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson had been talking about CO2 build up as a factor in changing biology since 1947-48, he was mates with Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson. And Hutchinson had promoted the idea of the Conservation Foundation holding a meeting specifically about CO2, in March 1963. And then he’d been too sick to attend. 

Anyway what’s interesting in this “Marginalia” thing is there’s a bunch of useful insights about how language works and so forth. But Hutchinson himself is understandably uncertain about what impact raised CO2 levels might have. Just because he’s been familiar with the issue, perhaps because he’d been familiar with the issue for a lot longer than anyone else. 

The other context is, of course, you know, the American Meteorological Society in October 1969 had held a symposium on the future of our atmosphere. Kenneth Hare had spoken at that. Everyone was at it; the AAAS had held a symposium on Global Environmental Pollution in Dallas at the end of 1968.

What we learn is that smart people had known about CO2 for a long time when we’re discussing it in ‘69. 

What happened next? The only real fruit of all this was UNEP and the modelling work done by Bolin et al as part of GARP. And it would take another 20 years, almost before the issue finally broke through…

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.

References

Hutchinson, G.E. 1970. Marginalia “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” American Scientist, Vol. 58, No. 1 pp. 17-20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27828926

Categories
technosalvationism United States of America

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Seventeen years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists released a damning report called “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air” about ExxonMobil and its tactics…

And you can read a typically sane and not-unhinged response, which has aged so very well indeed, here. Or you could if it weren’t a mysteriously dead link, and seems to have been removed from the “website” of the nutjobs.

http://humanevents.com/2007/05/08/liberal-scientists-lead-jihad-against-globalwarming-skeptics/

Could it be that they have realised that it’s not a good look?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush Jr. had already been a massive pain in the ass on environment issues. Or, to be more accurate, he allowed the gang that was controlling him to run riot in a more slightly more subtle way than had happened under Reagan. And there had been repeated exposes and reports on the tactics and subterfuge used by Bush. This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which had been set up in the tumult of the late 60s, was one among many. And probably had an eye on the fact that the negotiations in Bali in December of 2007, had been earmarked as creating “the Roadmap to Copenhagen.” There’s always a new roadmap path, etc. And they all prove to be delusions. 

What we can learn, you can expose, the emperor has been naked, you can pull back the curtain and show the guy who was screaming at you not to look at him. And it doesn’t change anything. Because the audience is just that – spectating. Only if we had active social movement organisations, capable of sustaining pressure and defending themselves against co-optation, repression and exhaustion might – and I underscore the word might – we have gotten somewhere. But we didn’t. And now we won’t. 

What happened next? Bush was replaced with Obama. Obama made one attempt to get through some pretty weak climate legislation, and then refused to spend any more political capital on the issue. But he made some fine speeches. So that’s alright then. 

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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

Categories
United States of America

January 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd 1955 John Stachel, writing in the Worker newspaper, mentioned C02 build up as a potential problem.

“Other experts look to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to explain why the earth holds more of the sun’s heat.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that two years previously Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass had set a cat among the pigeons, by pointing to carbon dioxide buildup as a likely cause of warming. Other people had already been saying that the world was warming, what Plass had done was provide one very plausible mechanism, building on work of Svante Arrhenius and British steam engineer Guy Callendar (with whom Plass corresponded). 

What we can learn from this is that awareness of potential peril and long-term big changes was out and about in mainstream and far left circles. And of course, mainstream ideas draw on observations and insights from the margins, the extreme left and extreme right. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah. 

What happened next? Well, the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) took place; lots of measurements. In March 1958 Charles Dave Keeling started to take his measurements, and the rest is history. 

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.

References

Also on this day: 

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,