Forty two years ago, on this day, September 6th, 1984,
SCIENTISTS are divided over proposals for a grandiose global watch in which the world would be monitored from outer space to gather data on, for example, atmospheric pollution and the uses of land for crops or buildings.
The programme, to be debated by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) at a meeting in Ottawa this month, would co-ordinate satellite projects in different countries and encompass a range of scientific disciplines.
Dr Thomas Malone, ICSU’s treasurer and one of the co-ordinators of the Ottawa gathering, says the programme would focus space technologies on the earth’s problems.
But Britain’s Royal Society, the “club” for eminent UK scientists which is one of ICSU’s 70 or so members, is against the proposal on the grounds that it would engender bureaucracy and waste scientific resources.
The scheme is a long way from being adopted. ICSU has little money of its own and financial support for the project would have to come from government institutions.
Marsh, P 1984. Global vigil plan faces opposition. Financial Times, September 6, p.4
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was was that even though there was a cold war going on, and the nuclear brinksmanship had almost caused Armageddon in September of 1983, nonetheless the environmentalists, who had gotten a little bit organised in the 1970s (see, for example, the birth of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the First World Climate, the Stockholm Conference, the First World Climate Conference, the existence of UNEP, SCOPE, etc) were pushing for sure better monitoring of environmental issues, more generally, one of them, not high on the list, but definitely one of them was the build up of carbon dioxide. Others were ozone depletion, extinction of species, marine oil pollution, etc, etc.
The specific context was the FT was reporting on the pushback against this, probably led by the thugs within the Reagan administration. “Trees cause pollution.” Xxx
What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of environmental global environmental degradation is not something that’s only sprung to life in the last 15 or 20 years. We have known for longer than most people on the planet have been alive (median age globally 31ish).
What happened next the 1985 G7 declaration included some mention of climatic change, but it was not until 1988 that the issue really broke through, and the scientific problem became a political issue.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Also on this day:
September 6, 1979 – Exxon supports American Petroleum Institute on “do nothing” about climate
September 6, 1991 – Titan has a greenhouse effect…
September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…