Categories
United States of America

June 11, 1986 – Washington Post sees a “Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse Earth’”

Thirty-eight years ago, on this day, June 11th, 1986, the Washington Post nailed it. with a front page story.

1986 Peterson, C. 1986. A Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse’ Earth. Washington Post, 11 June. p1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/06/11/a-dire-forecast-for-greenhouse-earth/ca99ce18-a929-48b7-8a87-ccc3c84675d2/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nine months earlier, WMO, UNEP and ICSU had organised and held a scientific meeting in the Austrian city of Villach at which scientists had come together, done the maths, shed some illusions, and realised that the shit was about to hit the fan, and if that the human species wanted a nice 21st century it needed to get its shit together. And scientists had started to alert politicians, some of whom are already of course well sensitised. Looking at you, Al Gore. Carl Sagan had given testimony to a Senate committee in December 1985. Drums were continuing to be beat. Articles were written. And I don’t know if anyone specifically briefed the Washington Post journo, but that’s the context. 

What we learn is that I think even Joe Biden was in on the act talking about carbon protection or climate protection. 1988 was the icing on the cake of this issue that had been building in the problem stream for quite some time. Until politics stream and policy stream came together thanks to a series of focusing events such as the drought testimony the changing atmosphere conference, which was in essence another fruit of the Villach meeting. 

It’s interesting to look at that three years from Villach to Toronto, institutionally who was doing what why how? Okay. 

What happened next? The issue kept building in ‘87 and ‘88 until even George Bush and Margaret Thatcher had to talk about it.  And then we all magically solved the problem. Oh yes.

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: 

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate

June 11, 2003 – US and Australian think tanks conspire vs (pluralist) democracy 

Categories
AFrica Caribbean

June 10, 1980 – Redemption Song unleashed on the world (“If you know your history…”)

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1980, a crucial song came out, on the album Uprising.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bob Marley by this time was dying – though I don’t think he knew i – because he’d refused to have a cancerous growth on his foot dealt with. Redemption Song, what else is there to say? The deeper context is the words taken from Marcus Garvey (who had died 40 years earlier, to the day). If you know your history, you will know where you’re coming from. And that’s what this website is all about, isn’t it? If you know your history, you will know where you’re going to – that being hell in a handbasket. 

Without wanting to create pure, “noble savage” myths, there is something that white people, liberals and radicals could learn by paying close attention to people who’ve been on the pointy end of racism, imperialism, etcetera. 

What happened next, Marley died a year later. RIP – rest in power 

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: 

June 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

Categories
Australia

June 9, 1976 – ABC Perspectives shows “A change of climate” documentary

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1976, a CSIRO film gets shown on telly in Sydney (I think).

It was shown a couple of weeks later in Melbourne – see listing here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the CSIRO had been making her educational films. And, of course, the Australian Academy of Science had just released its report on changing climate, which had said “nothing to see here”/”just a watching brief.” Even though the evidence of people like Hermann Flohn was a little bit more robust than that. 

What we learn is that if you were watching the ABC, i.e. was one of 4 or 5% of the population, you would have had a chance to learn the issues.

 What happened next? The documentary got shown elsewhere, elsewhen. In a few years, CSIRO would make more films around this topic, “What to do about CO2” directed by Russel Porter

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: 

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

Categories
United States of America

June 9, 1971 – Carroll Wilson talks C02 build up at at Electricity Industry conference

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1971, Carroll Wilson (who died in 1983) mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at an Electricity Industry conference.

For more, see this article in the Atlantic (paywalled).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Caroll Wilson was one of those  within-institution cross-organisation movers, shakers fixers well-connected, well-respected. He had already helped put together the conferences that led to the Limits to Growth report. So he would have received a fair hearing. And would have been well aware of the work that was about to get underway about the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate in Sweden.

These guys knew. Yes, there were more pressing short term concerns around air quality in cities and smog and so forth. But Caroll Wilson will have not said anything particularly surprising to the audience, they would have been aware of the CO2 issue, most of them. 

What we learn from this is that while stuff seems shocking and new, when you’re looking without the background, once you understand any given event is part of a pattern, a flow and accretion. It kind of changes perspective a little bit. 

What happened next, Wilson died in I think, 1980. The environmental push, at least the public portion of it died by 1973. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

CATEGORIES- 

TAGS- 

Categories
United Kingdom

June 8, 1974 – People get together, in Coventry

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1974, the party that became the Green Party was formed, You can read more about it at the superb Green History website, see for example here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after Blueprint for Survival, published as a special issue of The Ecologist, there had been interest in creating a new political party to represent the “what was needed for survival” policies to enact the blueprint (though “party” is doing a lot of work there – many were more interested in a broader-than-party-politics movement. The organisation was called People, and it held its first conference in Coventry. You can read more about it here and here. It changed its name to the Ecology Party, and then later changed its name to the Green Party. 

What we learn from this is that environmentalists have understood the need for policy change and fairly early realised that it wasn’t going to happen in the mainstream parties. These would have decent individuals like Waylon Kennett, but the logic that the “grey parties” were wedded to was too, all encompassing. 

What happened next well, the Ecology Party stood candidates and had its first general election broadcast in 1979. And it has generally been a force for sanity. Not that people are particularly keen on listening to sanity. 

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1958 – Australian Sunday Telegraph on climate and weather

Sixty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1958, another of those ‘the world is warming’ articles…,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian newspapers were fond of articles about the changing climate and droughts because Australia is a land of scorching droughts, or whatever the Dorothea Mackellar poem goes. And of course, the International Geophysical Year was just behind us, so everyone was able to have an opinion about the weather. It fills column inches. 

 What we learn is that the idea of ice caps melting, for whatever cause, was not new. And it wasn’t new in 1958. As we’ve shown here, the great deluge in 1932 in The New York Times, “is the world warming?” and Time and so forth in 1950.

What happened next? Various little mentions of carbon dioxide build up. In Australia press, possibly notably the cartoon in 1965 in the Sydney Morning Herald, and two years later, Canberra Times. It’s fairly niche, though, it’s got to be said. 

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

June 8,1991 – UK environment minister Heseltine visits USA, his climate compromise rebuffed

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1991, the UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, went on a (futile) mission to the US to try to get them to be less of a blocker in the negotiations around the climate treaty that had to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992.

You can see lots of gory details here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were upon us in full flow. The UK had just adopted the stabilisation target at least. But it was clear that the administration of George HW Bush was digging in its heels and generally being douchey. Environment Minister Michael Heseltine was therefore dispatched to see what could be done. 

What we learn from this is that even under John Major the UK was trying to be less terrible than the Bush outfit. And they’re always these behind the scenes games. It is actually one of those little incidents that would be nice to cover. Heseltine was fresh from challenging Margaret Thatcher for the leadership and precipitating her departure. 

What happened next? The American anti climate clique went round spreading bullshit about Heseltine and there was actually very unusually a public rebuke of this. See questions in Parliament about the July 12th 1991 article in The Times. For all the good it did. And then less than a year later, the pantomime ended with the British dispatching another envoy, Michael Howard this time, to raise the white flag on behalf of the Europeans. Targets and timetables were dead. A Tale of Two envoys…

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1989, the Australian Financial Review (piss-poor, compared to the Financial Times) was talking about the money to be made…

For all the worry that the greenhouse effect is causing around the world there is, perhaps, a bright side.

The greenhouse effect has opened up a number of potentially profitable opportunities for industry. It has created a number of niche markets for environmentally safe products or new strands of vegetable.

The South Australian Government has already taken steps to help industry identify these new niche markets. It has established a council to examine the implications of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer on the future direction of industry, agriculture and the economy of the State.

McLachlan, C. 1989. Hot chances for coping with greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, 7 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect and what was to be done. Including the business press. And thanks, thank our lucky stars, it turns out there was money to be made. Because otherwise, you know, why would we act? 

What we can learn from this is that every media outlet has its frames: the Hobbesian frame for the Mail and the Telegraph and the slightly more refined but still Hobbesian view for the Times. The bleeding heart Jean Jacques Rousseau, frame for The Guardian. And “let’s make loads of money” and “let’s identify anyone who can stop us making loads of money and squash them like a bug” frames for the business press. 

What happened next? Everyone went on about how much money might be made. But then it turned out that there would be taxes and regulation in order to create new markets and the status quo actors, i.e. the incumbents, were able to squash those markets for a very long time. Until it was too late for anything to actually matter. And here we are. 

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: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 6th, 1988 there is a well-publicised warning by scientists in Stockholm (Bolin etc) releasing study.

We are entering a new phase….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that ever since the pivotal meeting in Villach, in September 1985, scientists had been trying to raise the alarm – briefing senators, writing reports etc etc.

What we learn is that James Hansen’s testimony, on June 23 1988, did not appear in a vacuum. The terrain was being prepared by many others.

What happened next was that Hansen’s testimony – and the Changing Atmosphere meeting in Toronto the week after, at the end of June – set the ball rolling. 

The emissions have kept climbing, of course. As have the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. And here we are.

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: 

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?”

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Categories
Activism

The UK non-climate election and the Blame Game – first thoughts

The United Kingdom has the pleasure of a premature but yet also long-overdue General Election, to be held on Thursday, July 4th.

The incumbent, Rishi Sunak, is trying to turn “net zero” (something he voted for as an MP in 2019) into a culture war battlefront (see my Conversation pieces on this here and here). So, he is only going to mention climate change in the context of “Costs of Taking Action”, not “Benefits of Taking Action”, and definitely not “Costs of Not Taking Action.”

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer is only going to talk in vague terms about this because he has recently had another “oh, that promise I made, well I never made it” bonfire, around the 28 billion per annum of green investment (see my Conversation piece on this, complete with Full Metal Jacket clip). He also doesn’t want to open up a flank where the Tories can repeat the gimmick that he is somehow “in the pocket of Just Stop Oil” (1).

So, is the (relative) silence on climate in the campaign so far merely down to the weakness/tactics of the two leaders? In a trivial way, “yes, of course.” In a deeper way, “yes, of course, but so damned what, and what does the finger pointing allow us not to do?”

I’m glad you I asked: What the finger pointing allows us to do is set up a Morality Tale about the bad Westminster Bubble and FPTP system (2).

And Morality Tales are very satisfying to tell – simple, clear, no shades or Jungian shadows or whatever. And they’re equally satisfying to hear.

But maybe our role – as people with freedom of speech, information and assembly – is to attend to more than our own immediate emotional comfort and intellectual ease? Maybe? Just saying…

Maybe we have to reflect that climate change has been “around” as a public issue since 1988, when it was known as the “Greenhouse Effect.” That means that if you are 53 (to choose a number at random), it’s been there your entire adult life. Even if you’re 78, it’s been around over half your adult life.

And yet here we are, in a shituation where it can be ignored, even as the planet cooks.

There is plenty of blame to spread around: not just the political parties. The media (but honestly – it’s “all the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit”). The “education” system (yes, Govey-Gove and the attempt to bin climate, but it’s not like things were healthy before, or have been healthy since).

Finally, I’ll say this. WHAT ABOUT THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS? We have had 35 years of boom and bust, of chasing issue attention cycles, of learning nothing, of forgetting everything. Of smugospheres and emotacycles.

Yes, I get that climate change is a hard issue to think about, to act on (3). But THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUNDHOG DAY?? Really?

And will “we” pay the price? Really? Yes, but before we pay the price, pretty much every other species is getting screwed, and other far-more-blameless members of our own species (not to mention future generations), they’re getting screwed.

What is to be done? That’s the wrong question, imo. The question is “what might have been done but is now largely moot?” And if you’re really interested, you can check out my answers to that question, I guess. Let me know how you get on.

Footnotes

(1) as per Ed Miliband and Alex Sammond in 2015.

(2) FPTP = First Past the Post – the particularly ridiculous system favoured by duopolies everywhere: the creatures outside looked from man to pig yadder yadder yadder.

(3) I recently tweeted this about denialists. Other people are keeping their heads in the sand for similar fear reasons.

My take: at least some of these grown men know they backed the wrong horse, know that their tribe is wrong, and are terrified of losing face, of losing their tribe, losing their self-image. And the anger & hatred is self-hatred, projected outwards.