Forty seven years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1977, days before the “Energy and Climate” report was released, the Washington Post ran a story…
July 21, 1977, staff writer Paul Valentine wrote a page-one story for the Washington Post headlined “100-Year Trend: Warmer; Confirming What You Feel: Our Summers are Getting Warmer.”
(Sachsman, 2000: 3)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Sciences was about to release its Energy and Climate report. Two years in the making, it meant that all things climate-related were newsworthy. The weather had been playing silly buggers for the last few years, crop failures, heat waves in the UK.
What we learn is that if you’re reading a serious newspaper in 1977 you were aware of the climate issue. Yes, there were still people telling you it was wrong. If you understood 19th century physics though…
What happened next The Energy and Climate report was released a couple of days later. “Warning traffic lights at yellow” said scientist Thomas Malone. And then there was the push for the First World Climate Conference, which happened in Geneva in February of ‘79. We knew enough by then to start shitting ourselves. But we didn’t take action. And so now all we can do is shut ourselves because the emissions keep rising.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1989, a nice new job is announced…
Major conservation groups believe that the new post of Ambassador for the Environment will be only as effective as Federal Government policy allows.
The new position – to be filled by the former Governor-General and High Court judge Sir Ninian Stephen – was announced by the Prime Minister this week as part of his major environmental statement.
Mr Hawke said that “no-one could better discharge that role for Australia”.
Speaking from Melbourne, Sir Ninian said he was not sure why he had been chosen but was delighted to accept when it was offered by Mr Hawke by telephone last weekend.
Bailey, P. 1989. All praise for our green envoy. Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, p.7.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
Australia gets its first ambassador for the environment. A nice job for a superannuated civil servant in this case, Ninian Steven.
The context was that Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an eye on the next federal election, and needed to keep small-g green tinged voters onside, and needed to therefore do some harmless appointing of meaningless jobs to fly the flag and to keep the greenies happy.
What we learn is that the sorts of gestures get made, you always have to ask for “What responsibilities does the person have?” “What rights do they have?” “How will they be funded?” “Will they be able to take names and embarrass anyone?” And if there aren’t good answers to those questions, then what you’re looking at is just more bullshit.
What happened next. He had the job for a while, I forget who was next. Think it was a woman. The post degenerated to its natural state when the head of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hilman, was appointed by John Howard.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1977 , Stephen Schneider lays it out.
Appearing on the Johnny Carson Show on July 19, 1977 a year after the original release of The Genesis Strategy, Schneider responded to a series of questions regarding the ability of scientists to predict the weather more than a few days in advance, a prospect that – given his experiences with Kellogg and Smagorinsky early in his career – appeared entirely possible. Other conversation topics ensued, including issues of drought, whether the climate was cooling or warming, and even whether a recent weather fluctuation caused a serious black out in New York City. Given what appeared to be signs that society was increasingly sensitive to even small-scale environmental challenges, Schneider argued for building further resilience into society. “The laws of nature frequently are not in line with some of our laws,” he stated in an attempt to distinguish between natural laws – which are stable and enduring – and man-made laws – which tend to be short-sighted, sporadic, and clumsy. Everything in human decision making, he believed, is a trade-off between risks and benefits and therefore decisions require the incorporation of value judgments to maximize margins of safety in spite of existing uncertainties.55
Henderson 2014 Dilemmas of Reticence
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 Stephen Schneider was already well known because of his ice age prediction in 1971. He had just published The Genesis Strategy with co-author Lynne Merizow. Him being on Carson was a big deal, though. I think this is the first time he was on.
What we learn is that a small number of scientists were trying to communicate this stuff. early on.
What happened next: Schneider committed a faux pas by going off script and Carson never had him on again. Schneider kept being a public intellectual public figure. He was really good at what he did. RIP Stephen Schneider.
See also this excellent post – https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/when-the-climate-change-fight-got-ugly/
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.
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…
Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:
1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.
AND
“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.
“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”
Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”.
What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}
What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.
What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so.
And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 17th, 2014, a not so cunning stunt in Parliament… with someone cosplaying a Worker to support the substance that will (checks notes) kill all the workers, the non-workers and pretty much everything else except some sulphur-based life-forms in deep oceanic vents.
“Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald wearing the vest to show his support for the repeal of the mining tax, which passed the Senate with amendments and is returning to the House of Representatives for another vote. The vest, emblazoned with “australiansforcoal.com.au” and Macdonald’s name, was kindly provided to Macdonald by the Minerals Council of Australia” (Mackinnon, 2014)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the opponents of climate action were feeling particularly pleased with themselves. They had managed to destroy the carbon pricing mechanism that Julia Gillard’s government had instituted. And here we have a parliamentarian cosplaying, being working class, wearing the high-vis jacket in Parliament.
What we learn is that the high-vis jacket is a potent, easy symbol of manual labour masculinity. And therefore the “authenticity” that comes from that. And people like to cosplay that. It makes them feel good. It enables them to enlist “salt of the earth” memes, and by extension accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being in an effete latte sipping liberal.
What happened next? The guy was censured for bringing props into parliament. That didn’t seem to stop Scotty from marketing. Three years later, with this lump of stupidity, that was what he carried between his ears. There was also a lump of coal in his hand that had been provided to him by the Minerals Council of Australia. They had lacquered it so it didn’t smudge.
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 Paris Agreement; World leaders gather in Paris and talk about climate change and make big promises. Am I talking about 2015? No, I’m talking about the G7 in 1989 thirty five years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1989.
1989 Economic Declaration “We believe that the conclusion of a framework or umbrella convention on climate change to set out general principles or guidelines is urgently required to mobilize and rationalize the efforts made by the international community… Specific protocols containing concrete commitments could be fitted into the framework as scientific evidence requires and permits.”
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 that the G7 meetings had started originally as a one-off at Rambouillet in November 1975 as part of the concern that Western leaders had about stagflation. labour unrest (which is a cute way of setting the slaves aren’t willing to be slaves at the same rate anymore) and general sense of things falling apart. The leaders liked it so much they made it an annual event. And in 1979, carbon dioxide buildup and climate change even been onto the agenda, some vague promises, {LINK]
But then by 1980, Venice, that was all forgotten. And it was more coal all the time [link}.
Fun fact. The pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference that had happened in 1988, the pivotal one had taken place in the same venue as the G7 meeting.
What we learn is that people like turning up in Paris and making agreements. It makes them feel good and important. So, beautiful city even if it has become a theme park for itself. And here we are.
What happened next? Well, funnily enough, the G7 in Houston next year didn’t mention climate at all. Why could that be? And the climate issue rose to a peak in summer of ‘92. And then it was perceived to have been more or less resolved. Because you know, now we had a treaty, we had some fine words, everything would be fine.
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 two years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1972, Soviet Weekly runs a piece based on comments by Mikhail Budyko, “How Man affects the weather.”
“In the past few decades the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has risen by 1-15 per cent, and it is still rising.
“Most of it comes from the burning of 1,000 million tonnes of coal a year.
“C02 in the atmosphere lets through most short-wave radiation, but considerably reduces long-wave radiation which dissipates heat into space.
“So by the end of the century there could be an all-round rise in the temperature of the atmosphere at the earth’s surface of up to 1 degree.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Soviet Union had been producing this colour newspaper Soviet Weekly, saying how wonderful things were in the Soviet Union for a while. I don’t know who it convinced – it probably merely kept some junior MI5 staff happy when clipping, archiving. And here they were talking about the weather and surprisingly given the Stockholm environment conference had just happened. And they hadn’t attended, because East Germany wasn’t going to be allowed separate status.
What we learn is that if you were communist or commie-curious, in the early 70s in the UK, then carbon dioxide build-up would have been mentioned to you by Soviet Weekly and probably the Morning Star and Daily Worker and so forth. Everybody knew.
What happened next Soviet Weekly continued telling everyone that one life is wonderful in the Soviet Union until 1991, when the Soviet Union was no more.
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
For more about Budyko, and the probably “hook” for the Soviet Weekly article (besides the then-just-finished UNCHE), see here
Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1988, the satirical “Grant Swinger” took aim at climate policy in an hilarious article “Racing on Capitol Hill for Title of “Mr Greenhouse” in Science and Government Report. He skewers it, absolutely.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Daniel Greenberg had been doing the spoof Grant Swinger (get it – someone who can swing grants) satirical columns for quite some time. And let’s look at how big science works. And the scramble and scramble a knife fights for funding for prestige. It’s hilarious.
The context here was also, of course, that it was that long, hot summer. It was post-Hansen and Toronto but before Bush finally came out and said his thing on the campaign trail.
What we learn is that good satire is timeless, even if the exact targets are no longer present, because human behaviour doesn’t change (the satyricon and Juvenal, etc.)
What happened next? Grant Swinger kept swinging for the fences. The climate issue burst onto the scene and has kind of stayed there ever since.
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1991, the famed US scientist Roger Revelle died. Just before he died there was an article published (he’d been arm-twisted etc by that turd Fred Singer, whom he’d known for decades) which said climate change was nothing to worry about. This article was used as a denialist talking point for decades, as part of the confusion campaigns funded by Big Oil etc.
Revelle helped to establish that carbon levels in the atmosphere were steadily rising and also taught science to a young Al Gore in the 1960s. As Revelle wrote in 1992: “There is a good but by no means certain chance that the world’s average climate will become significantly warmer during the next century.”
Singer approached him off the back of this statement, asking if the two men could collaborate on an article for The Washington Post.
Conned at death
That night Revelle suffered a heart attack and was rushed from the airport to a local hospital for a triple-bypass, and was not discharged until May that year.
Singer nevertheless continued to press the scientist to work on a journal article. “Whenever Singer sent him a draft, Revelle buried it under piles of paper on his desk. When Singer called, [Revelle’s secretary] would dig up the draft and put it on the top, and Revelle would bury it again,” records American historian of Science at the University of Harvard professor, Naomi Oreskes, in her account of the episode.
“Some people don’t think Fred Singer is a very good scientist,” Revelle told his secretary.
Later that year Singer published his article, with Revelle named as second author, in the journal Cosmos. It stated boldly: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”
The words were copied and pasted from an earlier article published by Singer – and directly contradicted Revelle’s own publicly stated views.
Revelle died of a heart attack the following July. Family members, friends and students all claimed that Singer had pressured or tricked the dying scientist into signing off a journal article which presented an argument opposed to his own.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Revelle was old, had been sick for some years. He was a giant of all sorts of science. The one is probably most remembered for the climate stuff, but there was a lot of formidable oceanography work going on for decades.
Why this matters is that Fred Singer latched on to Revelle and got him to “co author” a piece that said CO2 wasn’t really a problem. He then used it as part of the denial war.
George Will wrote stupid column (I know, hold the front page). Revelle’s daughter pushed back. Then when Al Gore tried to set the record straight, some anchordroid – I want to say Tom Brokaw – tried to say that it was all part of the culture war.
What we learn is that slinging mud works.
What happened next? The grad student who had to bend recanted that. Singer is dead at last, thank goodness, but my goodness, the damage he did.
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 24 years ago, Wind Power Energy Association types tried to get some sensible stuff going. Yeah, good luck with that.
CANBERRA, July 14, AAP – Labels telling consumers their electricity came from fossil fuel should be put on power bills, supporters of the wind energy industry said today. President of the Australian Wind Energy Association Grant Flynn said most consumers were unaware that most of their power was derived from the burning of fossil fuels.
Putting a sticker on power bills telling consumers the source of their electricity would go a long way to making the public more aware of greenhouse gas issues. “A lot of people don’t really understand that a significant proportion of their electricity, about 90 per cent of it, comes from burning fossil fuels,” he said.
Mr Flynn’s group was one of several to make submissions to a review of the government’s renewable energy bill.
2000 Wright, S. 2000. Fed – Labels should tell consumers where their power comes from. AAP, 14 July.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Federal government of John Howard was doing everything it could to renege on its 1997 promise of more renewables (made as a pre-Kyoto distraction). Evil evil people
What we learn – the hope that the mythical Ethical Consumer will save the day is a powerful one.
What happened next. John Howard kept being a climate criminal. Renewables eventually took off, but later than they could have. Oh well, nice planet while it lasted.
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.
