Fifty three years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1972,
The book was adapted as an animated musical television special produced by DePatie-Freleng Enterprises, directed by Hawley Pratt and starring the voices of Eddie Albert and Bob Holt. It was first aired by CBS on February 14, 1972. A reference to pollution of Lake Erie was spoken by one of the Humming-Fish as they depart; it remains in DVD releases of the show, although later removed from the book. The special also shows the Onceler arguing with himself, and asking the Lorax whether shutting down his factory (thus putting hundreds of people out of work) is practical.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone was running around talking about the environment. The Dr Seuss book The Lorax was part of that big picture. So. hardly surprising that an animation of it should be made.
What I think we can learn from this that old people, young people, everyone in between, people really did know in the late 60s -early 70s, what was at stake. And people who cared were unable to sustain public attention, because issues get old, and there was so much else going on; a war to protest, to try to end multiple wars for the state managers reconfiguring the American Empire. They had a lot on – not that they ever intended to do anything about environmental degradation.
So a few people thought that the dominant party could be persuaded. The “good chaps” theory of government, perhaps.
What happened next Dr Seuss died in 1991. The Lorax got remade,
Thirty years ago, on this day, February 13th, 1995
CANBERRA, Feb 14 (Reuter) – Australian Environment Minister John Faulkner said the government had decided not to go ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, known as an environment levy.
“I’ve indicated that it’s just not going to go forward,” Faulkner told 2GB Sydney radio. “As far as I’m concerned a greenhouse levy is off the agenda.”
Australia govt drops plans for carbon tax-minister. Reuters, 14 February 1995
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been a fierce and ultimately successful resistance to the first serious proposal for a carbon tax in Australia. It was on this day that John Faulkner had to admit he just wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through Keating’s cabinet. Australia was already muttering about finding loopholes in the UNFCCC or exploiting them, of course, John Howard, who by this time, was Liberal leader would, shortly after this, say that Australia should never have signed the UNFCCC climate treaty.
What I think we can learn from this is that 30 years ago, there was an effort to get a small, sensible economic measure going. It would have been grossly inadequate, but it would have been a start.
What happened next is the proponents of the carbon tax switched to an emissions trading scheme proposal, hoping that would suit neoliberalism a bit better. And of course, that was also the prevailing wind from the United States in its attempt to water down any international action. And eventually, Australia did get a carbon price in 2012 and it was very quickly abolished.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, February 12th, 1992, Liberal Party John Hewson decides to give up on pretending to give a shit about “the environment”.
The federal coalition will reconsider its radical position on curbing emission of greenhouse gasses.
The Opposition Leader, Dr Hewson, said yesterday that he had asked the environment spokesman, Mr Chaney, to review the Opposition’s policy of endorsing a target of a 20 per cent reduction in these emissions by 2000.
Grattan, M. 1992. Coalition To Rethink Greenhouse Policy. The Age, 13 February, p.3.
[Here ends the competitive consensus!!]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Libs had gone to the 1990 election trying to win over small g green voters because (big G green voters didn’t exist) and were unsuccessful and believed that they were stabbed in the back. The new Liberal leader John Hewon, was looking forward to the 1993 election, which he must have felt fairly confident that he was going to win, given the recession that we had to have, which had Paul Keating’s name all over it. Keating was by now installed as prime minister, and so Hewson was looking to, in the words of a later conservative leader, cut the green crap.
This was noticed, at the time, by the way. See this
“According to the director of science and technology policy at Murdoch University, Fightback would result in a six per cent increase in car use immediately, and 28 per cent in a few years.
The table shows that Australia is the third worst polluter in the OECD region and that our poor performance is very much related to low fossil-fuel prices.
If Australia is to get its carbon emissions down to a level comparable with other OECD countries, some form of carbon tax will have to be introduced.
International pressure to move in this direction is likely to intensify over the next decade.”
Davidson, K. 1993. Hewson Error Of Emission.The Age, 11 February, p.13.
What I think we can learn from this is the Libs had a policy. It didn’t serve them with the electorate. They ditched it, and they never got it back, and this was the moment when Hewson ditched it.
What happened next Hewson lost the unlosable election in part thanks to a birthday cake and how much his flat tax would cost. But now goes around bleating on about the environment and saying Market Forces are gonna fix it. Australia has been so badly let down by its political and economic “elite”. Buncha idiots at absolute best.
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.
On this day, February 11th, in 1970, Prince Charles attended a film premiere in London, as part of the opening of the European Conservation Year.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that from early 1969 everyone had been banging on about their ‘green’ (not the word back then – ‘ecological’ was more in vogue) credentials. Here are Shell Mex and BP in an early effort at would later become called “greenwashing”
What we learn is that talk is cheap
What happened next – by 1973 Ecology was yesterday’s fad. It has come back several times, with new names and new soothing blandishments about technology or harmony or whatever. But we’re all toast.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, February 10th, 2006,
COAG meeting a chance for real progress on climate change
Date: 9-Feb-2006
The Australian Conservation Foundation has urged Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders to use tomorrow’s Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in Canberra to craft a consistent, national approach to climate change.
“A global problem requires a global solution,” said ACF Executive Director Don Henry. “It’s vital we get Commonwealth, State and Territory leaders pulling in the same direction on this.”
“It’s good to see COAG talking about climate change. They can make some real progress on measures that will make a difference.”
[COAG Working group had been set up previous late may/early June, according to this – “ACF calls for national deep cuts target on greenhouse”-11-Jun-2005]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that climate change still had not quite broken through in public awareness, not for want of trying by Australian Conservation Foundation and others, and what we see is ACS trying to work with the state governments, most of which at this point were labor and one. To use climate as a stick to beat John Howard with. And ACF, if it has an affinity, it is with Labor. They’re probably less so now,
What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs have to try and try and try and they will not get what they want.
What happened next
by the end of the year the ACF, sorry, the climate issue was on the agenda thanks to Millennium drought, Al Gore, Lord Stern, and this was exemplified by the huge walk against warming that year, September of thereabouts.
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.
The American author and activist, Bill McKibben has kindly agreed to answer a few questions from All Our Yesterdays. His 1989 book The End of Nature – about the implications of global warming – was groundbreaking, and whose activism since has included 350.org and now Third Act.
1. According to Wikipedia (!) you were born in Palo Alto and then moved to Lexington Massachusetts. There’s a question I ask almost everyone – according to some intriguing research, one thing that applies to many strong advocates of environmental action is that they spent a lot of time in “nature” in unstructured play before the age of 11. Does that apply to you?
To some degree. My father had grown up out west and was a devoted hiker, and we spent a couple of weeks each summer on vacation somewhere fairly wild. But I was a product of suburbia, and my real immersion in the natural world came later, as a young adult, when I moved to a remote part of the Adirondack mountains [You can read more about McKibben’s upbringing in his recent memoir – the Flag, The Cross and the Station Wagon]
2. Can you remember when and how you first heard about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (Presumably it was in the late 1970s? So I am assuming things like Gus Speth at the Carter-era Council on Environmental Quality, or Worldwatch Institute or so on).
It was in the mid-1980s–but I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that really no one had heard much about it outside of closed scientific circles until Hansen’s 1988 testimony. That’s really when the clock started ticking
3. The “End of Nature” was one of the first books to really grapple with what carbon dioxide build-up would mean for societies and people relationships with nature, beyond being an explanation of the science. When was the last time you re-read it, and what did you think?
I’ve reread pieces of it from time to time, most recently this year while writing Here Comes the Sun, which is a kind of bookend to The End of Nature. It seems to me to still be strong–obviously the work of a young man, but there’s not much I’d change. I wish I’d been wrong.
4. Your next book The Age of Missing Information tried to help people understand what I call the datasmog. That datasmog seems to have gotten much worse. You have to be 40, really, to have any memory of the world before the Internet, and 25 to remember the world before smart phones. Does that have implications for how younger people relate to the natural world, to political processes? What do older activists not understand about this change, in your opinion?
I think it’s pretty clear the world is mostly mediated now, for most people most of the time. We just stare down at the thing in our palms. And if it was providing us with intelligence and wisdom that would be one thing, but it clearly mostly is not
5. All Our Yesterdays is devoted to getting people to realise just how long the scientists have been warning and the media too. What lessons do you think have been unlearned or under-learned from the 36 years since your first piece on the topic, in December 1988.
That while it’s important to win the argument, you also have to win the fight–which is about money and power, not reason and data and evidence
6. Pivoting to “now” – there were successful campaigns to stop specific disastrous pipelines and so on, and during the Biden administration there was, along with a lot that was terrible and inadequate, some things that might give a squinting optimist cause for hope (Climate Corps.)
Well, now what?!
I keep track as best I can on my free newsletter, The Crucial Years. We’re in the midst of two great trends–the very rapid warming of the earth, and the very rapid fall in the price of clean energy. It’s hard to know which will prove stronger; we need to do all we can to make the latter force as powerful as it can be, even amidst the oil-soaked Trump presidency
7. Anything else you’d like to say. (plugs for new books, projects, groups, general thoughts)
Please save September 20 and 21 on your calendars. We’re calling that weekend SunDay and will soon announce big plans to make it a festive moment of celebration of the possibility for running the earth in far more benign ways.
[When more information about that weekend are available, AOY will add a link, and post]
Here’s something from McKibben’s
.
So in about six weeks we’re going to formally announce plans for a big global day of action—we’re calling it Sun Day. It will happen on the weekend of the autumnal equinox, September 20 and 21. It will be a celebration of the fact that we can now run this world without fossil fuels: imagine EV and e-bike parades, green lights in the window of every solar-powered home, big concerts and rallies, joyful ceremonies as new solar farms and wind turbines go on line. It’s going to happen around the world. It’s going to demand justice—above all, that we figure out how to finance this revolution around the world, so the people who need it most can take full part. And it’s going to be beautiful.
This may not look, at first glance, like ‘resistance’ or ‘opposition.’ But in fact this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry fears most: the truth that their product isn’t needed. That it’s dirty, that it’s expensive, and that there’s a better way—Big Oil’s executives know that at the cellular level, which is precisely why they spent so much money electing Trump. Solar panels are to the fossil fuel industry what water was to the Wicked Witch.
Help!
Do you have ideas (and ideally contacts) for people AOY should interview? There’s absolutely nothing automatically wrong with white middle-aged men (speaking as one), but it turns out they are only one sliver of a vibrant broad climate movement. So please, if you know people from all the other demographics who might respond positively to an interview request, let me know.
February 9, 1990 – Carl Sagan vs climate complacency
Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 9th, 1990,Carl Sagan gave the keynote speech at the 5th “Emerging Issues Forum” at the University of North Carolina.
Here’s a video of the relevant clip
Now, there are policy makers who would like to respond as follows and you have perhaps seen this sort of opinion in the pages of, naturally the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It’s the first place to expect a complaint about having to change anything.
‘It’s too uncertain’ they say. This is serious stuff. There are a few scientists with computer models and who can be sure that they know what they are talking about and you want us to turn everything upside down because some scientist say that things are going to get a few degrees warmer. It’s a few degrees warmer on the stage than it is in the audience. You don’t see any catastrophe up here do you?
I’d like to pose the following question: Imagine this kinda thinking back in the height of the Cold War. You know the United States – so, let me ask a question – How much money do you think the United States has spent since 1945 on the Cold War? Sometimes they ask this question then from the back of the audience comes in answer ‘billions and billions‘. A huge underestimate – billions and billions. The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars. Trillion, that’s the big one with the ‘T’. What could you buy with 10 trillion dollars? The answer is: You could buy everything in the United States except the land. Everything. Every building, truck, bus, car, boat, plane, pencil, baby’s diaper. Everything in the United States except the land, that’s what we have spent on the Cold War.
So, now let me ask: How certain was it that the Russians were going to invade? Was it 100% certain? Guess not since they never invaded. What if it was only let say 10% certain? What would advocates of big military buildup have said? We must be prudent. It’s not enough to count on only the most likely circumstance. If the worst happens and it’s really extremely dangerous for us we have to prepare for that. Remote contingencies if there is serious enough have the prepared for. It’s classic military thinking – you prepare for the worst case.
And so now, I ask my friends who are comfortable with that argument, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t that same argument apply to Global Warming. You don’t think it’s 100% likely? Fine. You are entitled to think that. If it’s only a small probability of it happening since the consequences are so serious, don’t you have to make some serious investment to prevent it or mitigate it? I think there’s a double standard of argument working and I don’t think we should permit it.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Sagan had already tried to communicate the challenge, see his December 1985 address to some senators.
What I think we can learn from this is that Sagan was a fantastic communicator.
What happened next Sagan died in 1996, far too young.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, February 9th, 1970, HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands nailed it.
“The pollution of the biosphere is such a danger–only one of the threats to human survival, but currently probably the greatest and most immediate. The effects of carbon dioxide build-up are only now beginning to be recognized and assessed, and we shall have to take a long hard look at the whole question of the burning of fossil fuels. In my view we should be paying much more attention than we do to the collection and storage of solar energy, so that, in terms of power, we can live on income rather than on capital.
H.R.H. (1970). The European conservational scene. Biological Conservation, 2(4), 242–245. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(70)90002-9
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Europeans had been switched on to climate change. And this is really the apotheosis of it, when His Royal Highness, the king Prince Consort of the Netherlands, explicitly mentions carbon dioxide build up at the beginning of the European Conservation Year, in the midst of a “great environmental awakening”
That’s really happened recently , you can argue Torrey Canyon in 1967 and the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and lots of other events since then (rivers catching fire etc).
What happened next The eco moment lasted for another two and a half years, and then was kind of finished off by a big public event, the Stockholm conference, that it’s like kind of an orgasm, and after all that effort and that moment of pleasure, people feel spent.
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.
Sixty nine years ago, on this day, February 8th, 1956, US scientist Roger Revelle was giving TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, FEBRUARY 8, 1956
Fossil fuels and Carbon dioxide Dr. REVELLE. . . . There is still one more aspect of the oceanographic program which I thought you gentlemen would be interested in. This is a combination of meteorology and oceanography. Right now and during the past 50 years, we are burning, as you know, quite a bit of coal and oil and natural gas. The rate at which we are burning this is increasing very rapidly. This burning of these fuels which were accumulated in the earth over hundreds of millions of years, and which we are burning up in a few generations, is producing tremendous quantities of carbon dioxide in the air. Based on figures given out by the United Nations, I would estimate that by the year 2010, we will have added something like 70 percent of the present atmospheric carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This is an enormous quantity. It is like 1,700 billion tons. Now, nobody knows what this will do. Lots of people have supposed that it might actually cause a warming up of the atmospheric temperature and it may, in fact, cause a remarkable change in climate. . . .
Warming of the earth We may actually, for example, find that the Arctic Ocean will become navigable and the coasts become a place where people can live, then the Russian Arctic coastline will be really quite free for shipping, as will our Alaskan coastline, if this possible increase in temperature really happens.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that big science cost big money, and Revelle was trying to assure Congressmen that this was money well spent. And so came up with various stories and scenarios.
What I think we can learn from this is that scientists have to know how to keep the money flowing. This is a perennial problem in the area of big science, but using the word big like that has a pejorative implication, doesn’t it? We’re no longer in the era of people tinkering in their sheds, much as we like to hark back to that with the folk Story of Google.
What happened next … the International Geophysical Year.
Jan 21 Trump Makes it Official: No-one is coming to save us – showing that it “you’re on your own “ using a quote from Jesse Keenan – see also this one.
Steffen, who came up with the term predatory delay, is good at compassionately addressing people’s disorientation and inability to do themselves a sitrep, (though he doesn’t use those phrases.)
And the crucial point is that things are accelerating, and therefore OODA Loops are being hacked, not just by actual enemies, but by events. There’s that famous quote that I use too much from Walt Benjamin about the Klee painting – this wreckage that piles up at our feet, we call it progress.
A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.
I’m in this sense of disorientation, alienation, things moving too fast has been going on since sort of the joint processes of the massive urbanization and industrialization of the early 19th century, in the coming of “modernity.” See also “the hypertrophy of objective culture” by ol’ Georgie Simmel.
It goes back before then, of course, it’s never as if there wasn’t changes, as Steffen himself very clearly articulates,
These really valuable 10 or 12 minute podcast. It’s a good format (see also Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American). Doesn’t outstay its welcome.
Steffen has useful things to say, and he says them well. He’s good on this question of, you know, being “optimistic”, and distinguishes it from hope and hopium . He points out that he grew up in the 70s and 80s, (as did I), with all of this sense of, you know, “the 100th monkey” bollocks and global change in consciousness.
And Steffen doesn’t think that’s going to happen, but he also doesn’t think we’re all going to die next Tuesday. And he makes an interesting point that in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, there was such massive destruction, dislocation, millions murdered, but life went on and things got better.
Hmmm I mean, you could argue that’s because large parts of the world were physically untouched, especially the United States and Australia, and that food was not or the availability of food globally was not a concern.
We shall see what happens if we make it to the 2030s and 2040s in some kind of shape. But I do think that there is a non-trivial – I’m not saying it’s large – but it’s a non trivial chance of generalized sort of well, for want of a better term, “generalised global societal collapse.”
And then, of course, this question of “What do you mean by that word collapse?” Because it covers everything from the Great Depression through to Mad Max apocalypse.
Anyway, look, these podcasts by Steffen are worth your time.
