Month: June 2024

Categories
Food United States of America

June 5, 1974 – “Food, the Next Crisis”

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1974 we start to wonder about how food production might be affected…,

1 Stephen Schneider, “Food: The Next Crisis,” The National Observer (5 June 1974): p. 18. This article appears to have been the first time that Schneider mentioned publicly the idea of a “genesis strategy” to deal with the potential long-term effects of climate on the global food supply.

(Henderson 2014, Dilemmas of Reticence)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was some people were worrying about food running out as part of that Malthusian moment, and the Green Revolution hadn’t really kicked in. And past few years harvests had been weird, weird weather. Two months earlier Henry Kissinger had given his speech about the dangers of a change in the climate at the UN . And here’s Stephen Schneider talking about the impacts that changing climate will have. At this point, not everyone is entirely sure that the problem is going to be CO2 build up. That consensus doesn’t really start to firm up until ‘75 to ‘77. By ‘79, I think it’s fairly well accepted, except by a few idiots like Robert Jastrow and John Mason.

What we learn is that we’ve been worrying about where the food’s gonna come from, for a very long time. And it’s this sort of thing that we’ll have had Crispin Tickell pondering, ahead of his sabbatical at Harvard.

What happened next? There were more food and adaptation related issues. See The Great Adaptation: Climate, Capitalism and Catastrophe by Romain Felli for more details.

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 5, 1990 – The Australian Capital Territory adopts the “Toronto Target”

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good.

June 5, 2002 – John Howard says Australia won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1981 – Sydney Morning Herald reprints CSIRO material about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1981, the Sydney Morning Herald ran some nice factual stuff about carbon dioxide.

4 June 1981 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on CSIRO, Ecos magazine

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1170%2C681961

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ecos, the CSIRO magazine had done a feature on CO2 build up and that made for a good cheap syndication section in the Sydney Morning Herald. Remember that by this point the occasional article about the changing climate and CO2 buildup was not unheard of. And in late 1978, for example, there had even been a television news item on the subject.

What we learn is that there is a recognised pathway: from the specialist press to the mainstream press, articles get picked up. Because there is space between the adverts that has to be filled. And the more cheaply you can do that, the more your profits. 

 What happened next is that a couple of years later climate change got another boost because of the US Environmental Protection Agency report that was front page in the Australian. And of course a few months after this article in November of 1981 the Office of National Assessments did its secret report…

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 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United Kingdom

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

June 4, 1979 Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1979, the Daily Mail managed a half-way decent article on climate change,

It continues –

Lamb’s newly published book, World Without Trees, is compulsive doomwatch reading.

Man’s obsessive squandering of trees, says lamb, is potentially disastrous.

“Trees are one of the main sponges for the carbon dioxide in the air. They mop it up. If we continue to destroy trees at the present rate, it will cause a surplus of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had just happened. Carbon dioxide buildup was out and about. But this article was pegged off a new book called A World Without Trees by a guy called Robert Lamb, I have a copy (of course) and yes, he does mention CO2 buildup.

 What we learn is that the Daily Mail was for a short while anyway able to treat the issue of climate change without being completely idiotic about it. 

What happened next is that the Daily Mail became completely idiotic about it. 

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 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United States of America

June 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit

Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 3rd, 1970, a US Senator, Warren Magnuson, realises what’s required, for all the good it does anyone.

(If you were bothered, you could compare with Eddie Scheverzade’s comments on 27 Sept 1988 about UNEP getting beefed up into a world government…)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Earth Day had happened. Everyone was writing articles about how booming we were. And the US Senator was giving a speech, probably reading into the Senate record, an article from a newspaper, or magazine. But crucially, this guy said that there should be a World Ecology Unit because the problems are global, it will need forms of global governance. Now this is the whole kind of One World Government black helicopters stuff that gets nut jobs in the States so riled. It came two years before the Stockholm Conference, which gave us an underpowered under cooked United Nations Environment Program. As late as 1988 people were talking about it. On the same day as Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society, Eduard Shevardnadze was telling the United Nations General Assembly that there needed to be a global eco government sort of outfit. 

What we learn is that we’ve known that this was a massive coordination problem across nations across generations, we’ve been unable to solve it. 

What happened next, the idea came to nothing, of course.

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 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
United Kingdom

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 2nd, 2002, a now-defunct State body tried to get people interested in “low carbon spaces.”

UK publication by Sustainable Development Commission, 2nd June 2002 Low carbon spaces: area-based carbon emission reduction – a scoping study

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was scratching their heads and thinking about carbon dioxide build up and by this time,alongside the RCEP there’s another group…

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s pivotal Energy and Climate Change report had come out in 2000. President Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. The Regional Development Association agencies were doing their thing. And so, of course, the Sustainable Development Commission set up by Blair, would be talking about what counts as a low carbon place. So we’re well aware of all this.

What we learn is this language of specificity of places for low carbon goes back a long way. 

What happened next? Lots of nice glossy reports got produced, Blair went nuclear. The Sustainable Development mission went south in the bonfire of the quangos in mid 2010, thanks to Dave “Greenest Government Ever” Cameron.

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 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title