Categories
Cultural responses

September 26, 1969 – Death on All Fronts, says Allen Ginsberg

On this day, September 26, 1969…the American poet Allen Ginsberg Death on all fronts

Death on all fronts (English)

“The Planet is Finished”

A new moon looks down on our sick sweet planet

Orion’s chased the Immovable Bear halfway across the sky

from winter to winter. I wake, earlier in bed,

  fly corpses

cover gas lit sheets, my head aches,

  left temple

brain fibre throbbing for Death I created

  on all Fronts.

Poisoned rats in the Chickenhouse and myriad lice

Sprayed with white arsenics filtering to the brook,

  City

       Cockroaches

stomped on Country kitchen floors.

  No babies for me.

Cut earth boy & girl hordes

  by half & breathe free

say Revolutionary expert Computers:

Half the blue globe’s germ population’s

  more than enough

keep the cloudy lung from stinking pneumonia.

I called in the Exterminator Who soaked the Wall

  floor with bed-bug death-oil.

Who’ll soak my brain with death-oil?

I wake before dawn dreading my wooden

  possessions,

my gnostic books, my loud mouth, old loves silent,

  charms

turned to image money, my body sexless fat,

  Father dying,

Earth Cities poisoned at war,

  my art hopeless —

Mind fragmented–and still abstract–Pain in

left temple living death —

Sept. 26, 1969

https://www.babelmatrix.org/works/en/Ginsberg,_Allen-1926/Death_on_all_fronts

Also on this day: 

September 26, 1989 – Australian Union body tries to add green to red…

September 26, 1998 – Howard decision only to ratify Kyoto if US does leaks.

Categories
United States of America

September 25, 1980 -Reagan turns out to be an ignorant fool. Who knew?

Forty four years ago, on this day, September 25th, 1980

“In the basement of the Fairmont Hotel three months earlier on the morning of September 25, 1980, a reporter asked California Governor Reagan whether he would speak on the Global 2000 Study. While the media heavily covered the report even prior to its release in the summer of 1980, Reagan was caught off guard by the reporter’s request because he was entirely unaware of the report’s existence.” (Henderson, 2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a lot of publicity in the spring and summer about the Global 2000 report of Jimmy Carter. And Reagan, who by now had the Republican nomination sewn up, was merely revealing his complacency and laziness. He was famously very lazy. He wanted to just spend holidays on his ranch by the mid 80s, and people around him were contemplating invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing him with George HW Bush.

What we learn is that rich people back in those days could actively ignore environmentalist issues and not suffer any consequence. My how times have changed. Oh yes.

What happened next? Reagan became president. Global 2000 was in every sense defeated and the Heritage Foundation used it as a punching bag in the following years.

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

Henderson, G. (2014). Raising the Alarm: The Cultural Origins of Climate’denialism’in America, 1970-1988. Michigan State University. History.

Also on this day: 

September 25, 1991- European Commission proposes a carbon tax…

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

September 24, 1993 – A museum exhibition travels to Pittsburgh

Thirty-one years ago, on this day, September 24th, 1993 Pittsburgh hosts a touring museum exhibition about climate change and what needs to be done (spoiler: we didn’t do it).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that when global warming became a thing in 1988/89 cultural institutions like museums started thinking, “well, what can we do? How do we respond?” These things take time to put together, schedules booked. So it was 1991/92 by the time a lot of these big displays were in place. And then of course, they have to tour to different parts of their country. And so hello, it’s late 1993 by the time he gets to Pittsburgh, by which time Rio is over a year old and Clinton has lost his BTU tax. So it all probably felt a little bit yesterday’s news.

What we learn There’s a time lag.

What happened next We shrugged our shoulders 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.

References

Revkin, A. 1994. Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

Also on this day: 

 September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

September 24, 1991 – Australian denialist gives “Greenhouse Myths” seminar.

September 24, 2006 – “Plane Stupid” holds first action, with “Sermon on the Taxiway” at East Midlands Airport

Categories
United Nations United States of America

September 23, 2014 – Obama gives a wonderful speech about climate change. We are saved.

Ten years ago, on this day, September 23rd, 2014,

While US President Barack Obama told the UN Climate Summit [23 Sept 2014] that climate change will “define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other”, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (replacing Tony Abbott, who did not attend) surmised the Australian position to “striking the responsible balance of safeguarding economic growth while taking action on climate change.”

Limbrick, 2014

And this was the event where Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, channelling his inner John Howard, did not attend, even though in New York the following day –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Obama could afford to give all the soaring speeches because he wasn’t going to be up for re-election. And it’s his strong suit, isn’t it – soaring speeches. Legislating, not quite so much. Paris was coming. And soaring speeches make your followers feel good, don’t they? So everyone’s happy. 

What we learn is that we are easily seduced by wonderful rhetoric from people who we can praise and then pat ourselves on the back for not being racist. Pro tip, not being racist is a little bit more complicated than very occasionally voting for a black person. 

What happened next? Obama made all the money. Paris happened, 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 September 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

September 23, 2013 – Media Watch versus climate denialists …

Categories
Uncategorized

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Ten years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 2014, ten long years ago, as the pressure for Paris builds, the “We Mean Business Coalition” is launched

Can you believe this stuff? Plenty of people can, because they need to…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Paris COP – the one that everyone was building as “putting it all back together, (again)” was coming up. And therefore, you get all sorts of business groups trying to gee themselves up and provide cover for the danger of potential regulation. So alongside “We Mean Business”, you’ve got the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, for example. 

What we learn is that when there’s a “big event” coming up, you get all sorts of proactive or should I say pre-emptive efforts by business to create bodies that sound cool, and will be quote-worthy, so that journalists who are having to report on potentially-dangerous-to-their-career-stuff have some both-sides-isms quotes tht they can chuck in, for “balance”. You want a for instance? Well like the inability of capitalism to cope with the shit that it is causing. The journos can get a React Quote from some nice-sounding business lobby, rather than just have to state the bare facts that we are doomed and the people doing the dooming don’t give a shit. 

It’s also useful for junior policy wonks and rightwing politicians – they can point to these outfits and say soothingly (if only to themselves!) “the system responds.”

What happened next? We Mean Businesses is still going. I think it’s sponsoring various news services to build a cuddly name for itself (quite a clever thing to do, btw).

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

See also Climate Group, BICEP, OGCI etc.

Also on this day: 

 September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

Categories
United States of America

September 21, 1958, LA Times runs a Greenhouse Cartoon

Sixty six years ago, on this day, September 21st, 1958, the Los Angeles Times ran a truncated version of the full Spilhaus cartoon on the greenhouse effect.

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 the International Geophysical Year was still underway. Sputnik had gone up, so the Soviets were winning! Charles David Keeling had started his measurements at Mauna Loa. And even before they were complete, people kind of knew, as per Washington Post front page in July 1957, that there was a greenhouse effect that was going to bake us. Spilhaus had done a PhD before the war. He was well aware of Roger Revelle, I think they’d work together. And he’d started doing educational cartoons about science. And here we are. 

What we learn is that mass publics were being educated by cartoons and documentaries like the Unchained Goddess about what was going on. 

What happened next Spilhaus mentioned the greenhouse effect in the 1960 science documentary that appeared, I think, on CBS.

In 1965, Australian cartoonists, science educators also mentioned the greenhouse effect in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. In 1987, Bill Waterson’s Calvin and Hobbes tackled the topic.

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: 

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

September 21, 2014 – big #climate march in New York. World saved.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

September 20, 1848 – the AAAS is born…

One hundred and seventy six years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1848,

1848 – The American Association for the Advancement of Science is created.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science was created on September 20, 1848, at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a reformation of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists with the broadened mission to be the first permanent organization to promote science and engineering nationally and to represent the interests of American researchers from across all scientific fields

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 275ishppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that science was coming along in leaps and bounds, even in the United States of America. You can read the Wikipedia page about it here.

What we learn is that putting together these sorts of bodies is a tremendous amount of hard work, clever politicking. You have to scramble for funds. You’ve got to allay the concerns of people who feel that a bureaucracy has been created or that their own baileywick is being stomped on. And the benefits are not always self-evident, and it could go badly wrong. See that Machiavelli quote about innovation. But anyway, it happened. Its journal Science started to be published in 1880.

What happened next? AAAS was a crucial node in science as you’d hope it would be obviously distinct from the National Academies of Science and the American Meteorological Society and the National Research Council and all the rest of it though there is inevitably circulation of staff and ideas and people 

In the 100th year of the AAAS as the English biologist G Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned CO2 build up at a seminar organised by the within the AAAS General Meeting.

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: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Academia United States of America

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1982

Look for a file marked “carbon dioxide – climate change” and perhaps to your amazement you will read in this publication details of Reagan’s two-day gathering titled Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus, September 19-23, 1982. President Reagan’s right hand man and head of his Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Frederick A. Koomanoff, started the meeting and wrote into the record and with President Reagan’s and Congress’ full backing ..

“The Executive Branch and the Congress clearly regard the CO2 issue as one deserving serious, sustained and systematic investigation. The credit for this lies in the good science and solid research that has and is being performed.”

Will the wonders of that man ever stop? Reagan’s right hand man wasn’t all, he came at the urgency of the CO2 crisis two-fisted when his left hand man chipped in with even more in affirmation of the joint executive and congressional commitment to work to resolving climate change. That left hand was James C. Greene, Science Consultant to the Congress’ Committee on Science and Technology and he was the whip at the meeting there to make sure the attending scientists were fully engaged with the urgency of this topic.

“A veil hangs ominously over the earth, from pole to pole, over all the continents, and over the oceans,” Greene noted, adding, “To a significant degree, man has put it there. It is called simply enough, carbon dioxide pollution. If today’s worst case scenario becomes tomorrow’s reality, it will be too late to reverse the atmospheric buildup or to ameliorate the severe adverse human and environmental impacts of this pollutant. However, if we quickly develop a sufficient research program to provide the necessary answers, there may still be time to rend the veil or at least keep it from reaching the dimensions of disaster. This is a major goal of the Federal carbon dioxide research program and it requires the cooperation of scientists, governmental officials, and the citizens.”

President Reagan through his carefully scripted right and left hand men urged the scientists participating in the conference to not merely be scientists but rather to become energetic advocates, as they revealed in the prepared statement,

“Involvement of scientists at all levels of public policy development is absolutely necessary if correct decisions are to be made — C.P. Snow expressed it best in his book Science and Government, when he wrote, ‘I believe scientists have something to give which our kind of society is desperately short of … that is foresight.’ That is why I want scientists active in all the levels of government. You must provide the information and the foresight — no one else can. The carbon dioxide issue is a case in point,” and then concluded, “Until recent years, scientists were not even certain if the carbon dioxide buildup would increase or decrease the Earth’s temperature. Now, the controversy is, what is of impact and how long before it will be felt worldwide?”

So Dear Republicans fellow countrymen and women of every sort, remember the teachings of one of your heroes who knew what was important and stop with the blustering nonsense. Yes I know that the cost of doing the right thing is today being spun into a spectacular trillion dollar budget figure and comes with a cabal of folks all too eager to be appointed bankers, or is that banksters, of that money but we have a solution to that carpetbagger problem.

http://russgeorge.net/2015/12/09/dear-mr-president-please-return-to-your-old-haunts/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ronald Reagan was being a complete prick on all things environmental. Or rather the people who would put the meat-puppet Reagan into Office were being pricks, They had put James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in with the goal of destroying the Department of the Interior and the EPA. But these two asshats were making enemies too quickly and not making good results.

Someone came up with a bright idea of holding a conference which I know virtually nothing about- whose idea, what purpose what invite list but anyway, so I am speculating a bit.

What we learn. It happened and it probably acted as a safety valve so that some of the more right leaning willing to go along with whatever they were told for the sake of their careers type scientists could point to that event and say “it’s not entirely fair to accuse the Reagan administration of doing nothing.” These sorts of events or documents, useful earthing devices so that the buildup of static electricity can be dissipated harmlessly. Kind of like a lightning rod.

What happened next. Reagan continued to be an asshat, albeit an increasingly senile one (there were rumours that some around him were considering invoking the 25th Amendment).

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: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Australia Scientists

September 19 1969 – ABC Radio warns listeners about carbon dioxide

Fifty five years ago, on this day, September 19th, 1969, ABC Radio has the following programme, starring Professor Frank Fenner… Scroll down to the bold bit…

title:A MAN & HIS SCIENCE, 3

Subject Person: MACFARLANE BURNET, CHAIRMAN THE COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION 1966-69, PRESIDENT AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 1965-69

Description:

TALK BY PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER ON SIR MACFARLANE BURNET – HIS CONCERNS.

Descriptive Log:

00:00:00, Log, JOHN CHALLIS: FENNER WORKED FOR SOME YEARS WITH BURNET AND CURRENTLY BOTH ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH ECOLOGY. PARTICULARLY THE WAY CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECT LIVING SPECIES. DRAWS URGENT ATTENTION TO POSSIBILITY OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY COMPLETELY DESTROYING MAN’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

PROFESSOR FRANK FENNER: WITH DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE 10,000 YEARS AGO MAN INITIATED PROGRESSIVE AND INESCAPABLE CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS. IMPACT BECAME DRAMATIC WHEN MAN TECHNICISED. NUMBERS AND DEMANDS INCREASED. ENERGY USAGE, PRODUCTS OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY. APART FROM POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS HAD REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND THE ECOSYSTEM TO WHICH THEY WERE APPLIED.

EXPERIENCE WITH IONISING RADIATION AND CIGARETTE SMOKING MADE IT CLEAR THAT MANY EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION VERY SLOW IN DEVELOPING, SO DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH LINKS BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT.

INCREASING COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS MEANS ADDING MORE CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FASTER THAN OCEANS CAN ASSIMILATE IT. POSSIBILITY OF MELTING POLAR ICECAP OR CREATING ICE AGE.

WAYS AUSTRALIA POLLUTING ENVIRONMENT. VULNERABLE TO EFFECTS OF LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THE DRIEST CONTINENT, NATURAL RESOURCES LIMITED, AND CLIMATE LESS DEPENDABLE THAN AMERICA’S, BUT STILL SUFFICIENTLY EMPTY TO PLAN IF PERSONAL GREED AND SOCIAL APATHY DON’T CONTINUE TO DOMINATE OUR LAWMAKERS. CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ‘GROWTH’ MYTH NEEDED. MINERAL RESOURCES OF AUSTRALIA.

SCIENCE ALONE CAN’T SOLVE PROBLEMS IT HAS LARGELY CREATED. UNLESS THE RIGHT STEPS ARE TAKEN QUICKLY MAN ON EARTH HAS TO FACE A FUTURE OF INCREASING MISERY.

Depicts Person:

FRANK FENNER, PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR JOHN CURTIN SCHOOL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, ANU 1967-1973

JOHN CHALLIS, ABC EXECUTIVE PRODUCER SCIENCE UNIT

Miscellaneous:

RECORDED AT THE MACFARLANE BURNET BIRTHDAY SYMPOSIUM.

BROADCAST 19.10.1969 AT 10.45am ON 2nd NETWORK

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 MacFarlane Burnett had already been talking about this to an Australian Conservation Foundation seminar in Melbourne. (This is back when ACF was still very much an establishment outfit.) And so we have ABC radio talking about CO2 buildup as well. This is a good five years before the Science Show’s first episode where Richie Calderr talked about it. This is a year after the BBC Radio 4 people whatever it was called, in 1968 were talking about it as per Ritchie Calder and his the UNESCO sponsored series “Science Peace and Survival”.

What we learn is that by the late 60s (and certainly by ‘68). people knew that this was a possible long term threat. You didn’t have to be a genius. You didn’t even have to have paid a lot of attention to it. The Senate Air Pollution committee, Harry Bloom nine months earlier had told them where things were going.

What happened next? There was the two to three year period of everyone freaking out about all forms of pollution (including climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up) and then gone away because people can only bear so much reality. And also, the oil shock.

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: 

September 19, 1997 – John Howard condemns the South Pacific to hell. Again.

September 19, 1998 – Public Health Association calls for “life-saving green taxes”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

September 18, 2004 – Australian States back ETS plan

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 18th, 2004, the Melbourne Age had the following report on page 3

The Victorian Government and other states are close to finalising a plan for a groundbreaking greenhouse gas emissions trading system to curb pollution caused by industry.

Flagging a major Government focus on the environment, renewable energy and sustainability over the next five years, Premier Steve Bracks said Victoria would take a leadership role in pushing the model.

While the plan is yet to be finalised, it is likely that it would cap companies’ greenhouse gases. If companies exceeded their cap, they would have to buy credits from other companies….

Gray, D. 2004. States Push Emissions Trading Plan. The Age, 18 September, p. 3

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after the defeat of a straightforward Carbon Tax in 1995, attention had turned to various emissions trading schemes, which had the added benefit of helping banks get rich. And economists could argue about which particular iteration was the most “efficient”, all the while ignoring the fact that these systems will be gamed. There’ll be loopholes, there will be grandfathering clauses, etc. Anyway, there have been two efforts to get the federal Emissions Trading Scheme and Prime Minister John Howard had successfully defeated two proposals for an emissions trading scheme. In 2000, Nick Minchin had been his point man, and then 2003 he had done it literally all by himself. So it was fairly obvious that if you wanted an emissions trading scheme, you’re gonna have to do it so-called “bottom up” with each state, coming up with its own, but then there being transferability and interoperability. And one of the champions for this was Bob Carr, who was still the New South Wales premier (had been since 1995). And here, they were saying that they were going to make it happen. [I don’t know why they didn’t. Did the Federales step in and tell them to go up themselves? That would be a good question to try and answer.] 

What we learn is that good ideas and semi-good ideas and wretched ideas are hard to kill off. Especially if they go with the grain of neoliberalism and are going to make some people very rich.

What happened next. The states’ scheme came to nothing. Kevin Rudd, as Labor Opposition Leader, started talking up an ETS, forcing Howard to do the same. Then the horrors of 2008 to 2012…

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: 

September 18, 2013 – Greenpeace try to occupy the “Arctic Sunrise.”

September 18, 2013 – Feeble denialists launch feeble denialist “report”