Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1968 – Ida Hoos on carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty-seven years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1968, Ida Hoos laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2025, 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 that scientists and technologists had, since The Bomb, engaged in all sorts of hand-wringing about the broader questions of morality and the responsibility of scientists/technology types.

The specific context was – questions about technology and morals were kinda hot, given the atrocities the American war machine was perpetrating in South East Asia, with lots of science and technology types contributing to that.

What I think we can learn from this is that knowledge of the  build-up of carbon dioxide was, by 1968, very wide-spread in scientific circles.  The build-up itself was not controversial, and the possible consequences were understood as well.  But the evidence in people’s “lived experience” was not there (but then again, that’s what we have science for, isn’t it?).

What happened next

Hoos lived to 2007, time enough to see which of the possible futures she had skilfully outlined came to pass.

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1965 – “Fortune” magazine covers carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1965,  Fortune magazine flags climate change in an article called “We can afford clean air” by Edmund K. Faltemeyer.

“The tremendous rise in worldwide use of fossil fuels, some authorities say, is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and ocean can absorb it.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. As of 2025, 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 that “isn’t the weather odd?” which has been a favourite newspaper and magazine article since, well, newspapers and magazines became a thing.  But from the early 1950s, there was a subset that tried to take a longer perspective than just the weather. Thanks to Gilbert Plass (and others – see for example John G. Hutton of General Electric) – carbon dioxide build-up was identified as a possible problem.

The specific context was that 1965 had seen various carbon dioxide stories already:  President Lyndon Johnson in February, the publication of Donald E Carr’s “The Breathe of Life” in May, alongside Lewis Herber (aka Murray Bookchin) Cities in Crisis.  Then – and Faltemeyer almost certainly did not know about this – in August Carl Borgmann had given a commencement address at University of Tennessee.

What I think we can learn from this – business types were made aware of carbon dioxide build-up earlier than they might have wanted everyone to know.

What happened next – Faltermeyer returned to the carbon dioxide theme in his 1968 book “Redoing America.”

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1953 – Australia strikes oil

Seventy two years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1953,

“The year was 1953. Humanity was venting 6.65bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, of which Australia contributed 59.43m tonnes, and the very first hole drilled struck oil at a depth of 1100m. Temperatures had risen to 38C in the open air that day and it was 1pm in the afternoon on 1 November 1953 when it happened. The roughnecks working on the rig had stripped back to stay cool in the hot afternoon sun. Earlier in the morning they had run a test and it had taken them about an hour to raise, disconnect and stack each 30m section of pipe. It was heavy, time-consuming work, so no one noticed it at first. When they were done, someone found the floor of the rig was awash with a hot, waxy, kerosene-smelling, green-brown oil. Their find made geological history and William Walkley would go down a legend.”

From Slick by Royce Kurmelovs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2025, 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 that the second world war led to astonishing advances in transportation, ways of seeing (sonar, radar etc)  in all sorts of “production sciences”. Meanwhile, Australia’s elites were desperately looking for supplies of oil, in case of another (non-atomic) war…

The specific context was that Australia was in a hot war (Korea) and keen to find its own sources of energy.

What I think we can learn from this – is that Royce writes well!

What happened next – you’ll need to read Royce’s book! Hint – those atmospheric concentrations kept going up and up.

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: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
United Kingdom

October 31, 2004 – QE2 lobbied Blair on climate, reports Observer

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 31st, 2004,

So it was extraordinary when London’s Observer reported, on October 31, 2004, that the Queen had “made a rare intervention in world politics” by telling Blair of “her grave concerns over the White House’s stance on global warming.” The Observer did not name its sources, but one of them subsequently spoke to Vanity Fair…. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the monarchy, it likes us to believe, usually steers clear. But Brenda’s husband Philip had been talking about conservation for yonks, and had been aware of carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue since 1970 at the latest. (LINK TO BP FILM ETC 

The specific context was the Cheney-Bush administration were being total assholes, and not even trying to hide it.

What I think we can learn from this – everybody knew. Even the “powerful” were basically powerless.

What happened next – business as usual. More emissions. More bullshit, in lockstep.

On Brenda? Well see this

Last year [2021], the queen was captured on video complaining about the UN COP climate conferences where, she said, “it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

Climate gets personal for the queen

At COP26 in Glasgow, the queen gave what many royal watchers say was the most personal and emotional speech of her reign when she opened the UN climate conference by reminding the gathering that her beloved Duke of Edinburgh had sounded the alarm on climate change well before it was even called that.

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: 

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

October 30, 2007 – Albanese grievance debate on Stern Review – “We simply cannot afford to wait any longer”

Eighteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2007, 

Albanese grievance debate on climate on launch of Stern Review

Grievance Debate Climate Change

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (4.18 p.m.)—My grievance is against the Howard government for its failure to address the greatest challenge facing the global community: climate change.

Today Sir Nicholas Stern launches his report on the economics of climate change. It is a very clear warning that climate change will ruin our environment and our economy if we do not take action. Early action will be far cheaper—perhaps five, 10 or 20 times cheaper. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the Australian Labor Party, having lost four federal elections on the trot (1996 1998, 2001, 2004) was looking for a bruise to punch. They’d found it in climate change, which had exploded onto the public’s consciousness in September or so of the previous year.

The specific context was– there was a federal election coming up, and Labor wanted to keep punching.

What I think we can learn from this – talk is cheap when you are in opposition.

What happened next. Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister in 2022 and Australia has become a beacon to the world with its clever, bold and aggressive action to tac…. Oh, look, I can’t, I can’t even…. There is a case to be made for Albo being a bigger climate criminal that John Howard, and that is saying something…

Albo or John Howard? Who is the bigger climate criminal? – All Our Yesterdays

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: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
Australia Business Responses Carbon Capture and Storage

October 30, 2009 – QRC bullshit about CCS – “first commercial scale CCS electricity generator by about 2015”

Sixteen years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2009 QRC hype report on Carbon Capture and Storage

“Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche told brisbanetimes.com.au he believed government and industry support would ensure the technology was put in place much sooner.

“I’m confident we will have our first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage electricity generator by about 2014 or 2015,” he said in a report that was published yesterday.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the coal industry had decided that CCS was a card to play while increasing exports. As long as the taxpayer picked up the tab for research and development, of course. 

The specific context was that 2009 was peak CCS hype around the world. 

What I think we can learn from this – gangs of rich people (“Resource Coucils”) are going to say whatever is convenient for other people to believe. There are plenty of tame stenographers willing to report it dutifully and accurately. 

What happened next – CCS collapsed in a heap, of course.

Meanwhile, getting renewables projects going in Queensland just got much harder…

Queensland’s latest wind farm kill sends shockwaves through renewables industry | RenewEconomy

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: 

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publlshed.

Categories
United States of America

October 29, 2004 – the end is near says Kurt Vonnegut.

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 30th, 2004, the inimitable Kurt Vonnegut is, well Kurt Vonnegut

The End is Near – In These Times

What was the beginning of this end? Some might say Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge. I say it was Prometheus, a Titan, a son of gods, who in Greek myth stole fire from his parents and gave it to human beings. The gods were so mad they chained him naked to a rock with his back exposed, and had eagles eat his liver.

And it is now plain that the gods were right to do that. Our close cousins the gorillas and orangutans and chimps and gibbons have gotten along just fine all this time while eating raw vegetable matter, whereas we not only prepare hot meals, but have now all but destroyed this once salubrious planet as a life-support system in fewer than 200 years, mainly by making thermodynamic whoopee with fossil fuels.

The Englishman Michael Faraday built the first dynamo, capable of turning mechanical energy into electricity, only 173 years ago. The first oil well in the United States, now a dry hole, was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania, by Edwin L. Drake only 145 years ago. The German Karl Benz built the first automobile powered by an internal combustion engine only 119 years ago. 

The American Wright brothers, of course, built and flew the first airplane only 101 years ago. It was powered by gasoline. You want to talk about irresistible whoopee?

A booby trap.

Fossil fuels, so easily set alight! 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 Vonnegut had been an American POW in Dresden when it got the absolute living shit bombed out of it very near the end of the war (see Slaughterhouse Five).

He also wrote Cat’s Cradle, about Ice-9, which is an absolute MUST READ. All about an ecological catastrophe set off by man’s technological hubris

The specific context was it was 2004 – the Bush Administration remained resolute in its opposition ot all action that might slow the accelerating fucked-ness of the planet.

What I think we can learn from this. Vonnegut is worth your time.

What happened next Vonnegut died in 2007. Much missed.

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: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

Categories
United Kingdom

 October 29, 1984 – Lord Ashby speaks out

Forty one years ago, on this day, October 29th, 1984, the House of Lords got schooled.

Lord Ashby – There are the dangers of the long-term effects of gases causing a change in the cloak of ozone in the upper atmosphere; and then there is the most ominous teaser in the pack, which is the possible effects on climate of something we know for certain is going on, and that is the accumulation of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and oil. Only last week, in the scientific journal Nature, four books were reviewed by an authority on that subject. Every one of the writers of those four books takes a serious view of the long-term dangers that may—scientists will never go beyond using the word “may” in public—come from the accumulation of carbon dioxide. The commission warns, I think very rightly, that the social and economic consequences of climatic change which might be caused by this in the next century “could be very great indeed”. Not much perhaps can be done; but something could be done now. The Government’s disregard for this long-range problem is perhaps illustrated by the way the Commission on Energy and Environment has been put into abeyance at a time when the issue finally ought to be challenged with this very important possible future time bomb. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/1984-10-29/debates/e5fae6df-ecfd-4e0d-a8a6-ce67bf780fe3/LordsChamber

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 that British scientists and civil servants had been working on carbon dioxide build-up and what to do about it in the second half of the 1970s. Then Thatcher showed she really was not at all interested and that, combined with the lukewarm First World Climate Conference, put everything on the backburner. But Eric Ashby, for it is he, who had known about the problem since he was the first chair of the Royal Commission on Environment Pollution – The RCEP’s first report, in 1971, had a reasonable section on CO2 build-up

The specific context was four books had been published and were reviewed:

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

Ashby was using that as a hook to talk about the problem.

What I think we can learn from this – it was there. The scientific elite knew about it. But what could they do, with a planet-trasher in charge?

What happened next – the problem finally became an issue in the middle of 1988.

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

Obituary: Lord Ashby | The Independent | The Independent

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to h

Categories
International processes Soviet Union United States of America

October 28, 1968 – Los Angeles Times report on the possibility of an environment conference

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1968

“Both the United States and the Soviet Union have privately expressed a strong interest in the project.

Foell, E. 1968. Sweden to Ask U.N. for World Pollution Talks: Parley in 1972 Urged . Los Angeles Times; October 28, pg. 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 that Sweden had had its “environmental turn” in late 1967, and some Swedish diplomats had begun to push for the UN to hold a conference on the environment.

The specific context was that after lots of fancy footwork, and ultimate buy-in from the US and USSR (though they would later boycott it), the conference was about to get the go ahead.

What I think we can learn from this – Sweden punched above its weight for a while there.

What happened next – the conference took place in June 1972. Very few world leaders attended and the only really substantive thing to come out of it, afaik, was the creation of the United Nations Environment Program. UNEP and WMO co-sponsored, along with ICSU, various scientific meetings about the atmosphere and pollution, including the pivotal one in Villach, Austria in October 1985.

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: 

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air” 

Categories
United Kingdom

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1988, the limits are pushed…

This recalls an infamous case from 1988 involving the Guardian, considered Britain’s most liberal newspaper. An article by Guardian journalist James Erlichman covered a Greenpeace campaign to name and shame Ford motor company – then by far the country’s biggest advertiser – because it lagged behind other car manufacturers in adapting engines to take unleaded petrol. A Greenpeace poster showed exhaust fumes in the shape of a skull and crossbones with the slogan: ‘Ford Gives You More.’

Greenpeace tried to publish the poster as an advertisement in The Times, the Guardian and the Independent – all refused. The conclusion to Erlichman’s piece contained one of the great bombshells in the history of British journalism:

“Greenpeace booked 20 hoardings for its poster campaign. But then the advertising agency was informed that most of the sites – those owned by Mills & Allen – had been withdrawn.

Carl Johnson, who is handling the account, said: ‘We were told that the posters were offensive, but I am sure someone was afraid of losing a lot of Ford advertising.’

Mr Johnson attempted to book the ‘skull and crossbones’ advertisement with The Times, the Guardian and the Independent. ‘I have no doubt that they all feared losing Ford’s advertising if they accepted ours,’ he said.” (Erlichman, ‘Threat of boycotts “turns firms green”,’ The Guardian, October 27, 1988) https://www.medialens.org/2009/the-guardian-climate-and-advertising-an-open-email-to-george-monbiot/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 that newspapers have been reliant on advertising for a very long time. Efforts to break free of that have on the whole not worked so well, at a mass level.

The specific context was that everyone was het up about global warming. It was a good story. There was nothing wrong with it journalistically. Economically though….

What I think we can learn from this – that advertising is one of the five filters in the Herman and Chomsky Propaganda Model. Which should be taught in schools, but won’t ever be.

What happened next – the Guardian mostly learned its lesson, eh?

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: 

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions –