Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Australia

June 13, 1989 – Engineers want greenhouse plan, immediate action required… #auspol

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 13th, 1989, engineers want to get cracking…,

The international community must take immediate steps to revise its energy strategies to ameliorate the greenhouse effect, the Institution of Engineers, Australia, warned yesterday.

Presenting its position paper, The Impact of Energy Use on the Greenhouse Effect, the association recommended action based on the premise that fossil fuels would continue to supply most of the world’s energy needs.

Lewis, S. 1989. Engineers want greenhouse plan. Australian Financial Review, 14 June.

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 everyone was running around talking about climate change and something must be done. World Environment Day had just happened. And there’d been a big global pop conference, with all the celebrities imploring us to save the earth. Because that’s what celebrities do. And here come the engineers. And the thing you’ve got to love about engineers, is they’re not much fussed with moral claims. They’re very fussed with numbers, blueprints, plans, actions, assessing whether the actions have worked, coming up with another action intervention. Because that’s how engineers, bless them, are trained to think it’s incredibly important. And we don’t think about it. We don’t think about infrastructure until it goes wrong. So the engineers wanted a plan and they wanted it now. 

 What we learn is that there was a time when there were demands from civil society for urgent action. The politicians had their own agenda. And we did not push them hard enough. 

What happened next? The whole awkward question of “what to do about climate change and environment” is shepherded into the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process and then killed off by bureaucracy. And in the meantime, the issue of climate fell down the agenda. It always does because the media gets bored. And because a war or something comes along, in this case, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait…

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: 

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal

Categories
United States of America

June 13, 1926 – Tony Mazzocchi born

On this day 98 years ago, June 13, 1926, Labour and environmental giant Tony Mazzocchi was born.

You can read his wikipedia entry here.

Here’s what Noam Chomsky had to say, once.

It’s not easy, but if you say, “Well, we haven’t gotten where we wanted; I’m going to quit,” you just guarantee that the worst is going to happen. It’s a constant struggle. Take, say, Tony Mazzocchi — one of the heroes of modern labor, head of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers [International] Union, one of the first serious environmentalists in the country. His constituents at the front line were being murdered by pollution, destruction of the environment, and so on. This is in the early seventies, way before the environmental movement took off. His union was working toward dealing with the environmental crisis, and it moved on to try to establish a labor party in the nineties. It could have worked, but it didn’t make it.

Jacobin – https://jacobin.com/2021/06/noam-chomsky-class-war-universal-health-care-climate-justice-denuclearization

And there’s this, too.

https://laborhistoryin2.podbean.com/e/june-13-tony-mazzocchi-is-born

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.

Also on this day.

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal off. Convictions eventually quashed…

Categories
International processes Sweden

June 12, 1972 – At Stockholm “development” is challenged 

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1972, the idea of One True Path To Wealth got questions by Barbara Ward and Margaret Mead.

NGOs, too, soon challenged the U.S. delegation’s platform. In a statement to the plenary session on June 12, a collection of NGOs, led by Barbara Ward and American anthropologist Margaret Mead, strongly criticised existing notions of development. In the development process, there needed to be “a greater emphasis on non-material satisfactions . . . and, above all, altruism in the pursuit of the common good.” Ward and Mead argued that technical fixes – more production – would not solve developmental problems, because a balance between environment and development “can be achieved only if we face honestly the problem of social justice and redistribution.” More concretely, they called for a tiny percent of GNP to be allocated in grants and low-interest for long-term loans for concessionary assistance and for additional flows of capital assistance from the developed nations to offset costs in the developing world. 132 “NGO Plenary Declaration,” Reprinted in Special Issue: The Stockholm Conference, Not Man Apart, 

Vol. 2, No. 7 (July 1972), 8-10. ABOVE IS A QUOTE from page 170 of “Of limits and growth” – phd thesis by Stephen Macekura

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that developing nations had been deeply suspicious of the agenda – in every sense – of the Western nations in calling for this conference on the human environment. They saw it as another way of the West restricting the economic development of what was then called the Third World. There had been a conference in Founex (which is I think, in Switzerland) in 1971 to allay some of these concerns.

Fun fact, only one world leader was there besides Olof Palme, Indira Gandhi of India. And these fights about what development meant and who it was for and who would be in charge of it were turning up of course, both at the conference itself, and at the People’s Conference, and so forth. 

What we learn is that how you see the world very much depends whether you are serving or eating. In the words of Leonard Cohen, homicidal bitchin’ goes down in every kitchen. And the main problem has been a lack of trust. And Western nations have done nothing to earn that trust. 

What happened next? The Stockholm conference gave us some fine words but it also gave us the United Nations Environment Program, headquartered in Nairobi, a lot smaller than was hoped but powerful enough to co-sponsor with WMO a series of meetings about climate change.

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: 

June 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
United States of America

June 12, 1920 – “The Mad Planet” published

One hundred and four years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1920, a sci-fi novel with mention of carbon dioxide build-up was published.

But just when men were congratulating themselves on this new Golden Age, fissures opened slowly in the Earth’s crust, and carbon dioxide began pouring out into the atmosphere. That gas had long been known to be present in the air, and necessary to plant life. Plants absorbed its carbon, releasing the oxygen for use again in a process called the “carbon cycle”.

Scientists noted the Earth’s increased fertility, but discounted it as the effect of carbon dioxide released by man’s burning of fossil fuels. For years the continuous exhalation from the world’s interior went unnoticed.

Constantly, however, the volume increased. New fissures opened, pouring into the already laden atmosphere more carbon dioxide–beneficial in small amounts, but as the world learned, deadly in quantity.

The entire atmosphere grew heavy. It absorbed more moisture and became humid. Rainfall increased. Climates warmed. Vegetation became more luxuriant–but the air gradually became less exhilarating.

Soon mankind’s health was affected. Accustomed through long ages to breathing air rich in oxygen and poor in carbon dioxide, men suffered. Only those living on high plateaus or mountaintops remained unaffected. All the world’s plants, though nourished and growing to unprecedented size, could not dispose of the continually increasing flood of carbon dioxide.

By the middle of the 21st century it was generally recognized that a new carboniferous period was beginning, when Earth’s atmosphere would be thick and humid, unbreathable by man, when giant grasses and ferns would form the only vegetation.

Source: http://www.wondersmith.com/scifi/madplan.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 303ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that science fiction writers had been around since Lucretius, and then Jules Verne and then on to things like “The Poison Cloud” (a London suffocates story) and so on.

What we learn: What a stupid species we are, not listening to our story-tellers…

What happened next: The emissions kept rising, albeit slowly until the 1950s and the Great Acceleration.

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

https://randy-byers.livejournal.com/82876.html

Also on this day: 

June 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
United States of America

June 11, 1986 – Washington Post sees a “Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse Earth’”

Thirty-eight years ago, on this day, June 11th, 1986, the Washington Post nailed it. with a front page story.

1986 Peterson, C. 1986. A Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse’ Earth. Washington Post, 11 June. p1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/06/11/a-dire-forecast-for-greenhouse-earth/ca99ce18-a929-48b7-8a87-ccc3c84675d2/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nine months earlier, WMO, UNEP and ICSU had organised and held a scientific meeting in the Austrian city of Villach at which scientists had come together, done the maths, shed some illusions, and realised that the shit was about to hit the fan, and if that the human species wanted a nice 21st century it needed to get its shit together. And scientists had started to alert politicians, some of whom are already of course well sensitised. Looking at you, Al Gore. Carl Sagan had given testimony to a Senate committee in December 1985. Drums were continuing to be beat. Articles were written. And I don’t know if anyone specifically briefed the Washington Post journo, but that’s the context. 

What we learn is that I think even Joe Biden was in on the act talking about carbon protection or climate protection. 1988 was the icing on the cake of this issue that had been building in the problem stream for quite some time. Until politics stream and policy stream came together thanks to a series of focusing events such as the drought testimony the changing atmosphere conference, which was in essence another fruit of the Villach meeting. 

It’s interesting to look at that three years from Villach to Toronto, institutionally who was doing what why how? Okay. 

What happened next? The issue kept building in ‘87 and ‘88 until even George Bush and Margaret Thatcher had to talk about it.  And then we all magically solved the problem. Oh yes.

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: 

June 11, 1997 – US ambassador says Australia should stop being so awful on #climate

June 11, 2003 – US and Australian think tanks conspire vs (pluralist) democracy 

Categories
AFrica Caribbean

June 10, 1980 – Redemption Song unleashed on the world (“If you know your history…”)

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1980, a crucial song came out, on the album Uprising.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bob Marley by this time was dying – though I don’t think he knew i – because he’d refused to have a cancerous growth on his foot dealt with. Redemption Song, what else is there to say? The deeper context is the words taken from Marcus Garvey (who had died 40 years earlier, to the day). If you know your history, you will know where you’re coming from. And that’s what this website is all about, isn’t it? If you know your history, you will know where you’re going to – that being hell in a handbasket. 

Without wanting to create pure, “noble savage” myths, there is something that white people, liberals and radicals could learn by paying close attention to people who’ve been on the pointy end of racism, imperialism, etcetera. 

What happened next, Marley died a year later. RIP – rest in power 

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: 

June 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

Categories
Australia

June 9, 1976 – ABC Perspectives shows “A change of climate” documentary

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1976, a CSIRO film gets shown on telly in Sydney (I think).

It was shown a couple of weeks later in Melbourne – see listing here.

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 the CSIRO had been making her educational films. And, of course, the Australian Academy of Science had just released its report on changing climate, which had said “nothing to see here”/”just a watching brief.” Even though the evidence of people like Hermann Flohn was a little bit more robust than that. 

What we learn is that if you were watching the ABC, i.e. was one of 4 or 5% of the population, you would have had a chance to learn the issues.

 What happened next? The documentary got shown elsewhere, elsewhen. In a few years, CSIRO would make more films around this topic, “What to do about CO2” directed by Russel Porter

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: 

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

Categories
United States of America

June 9, 1971 – Carroll Wilson talks C02 build up at at Electricity Industry conference

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1971, Carroll Wilson (who died in 1983) mentioned carbon dioxide build-up at an Electricity Industry conference.

For more, see this article in the Atlantic (paywalled).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Caroll Wilson was one of those  within-institution cross-organisation movers, shakers fixers well-connected, well-respected. He had already helped put together the conferences that led to the Limits to Growth report. So he would have received a fair hearing. And would have been well aware of the work that was about to get underway about the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate in Sweden.

These guys knew. Yes, there were more pressing short term concerns around air quality in cities and smog and so forth. But Caroll Wilson will have not said anything particularly surprising to the audience, they would have been aware of the CO2 issue, most of them. 

What we learn from this is that while stuff seems shocking and new, when you’re looking without the background, once you understand any given event is part of a pattern, a flow and accretion. It kind of changes perspective a little bit. 

What happened next, Wilson died in I think, 1980. The environmental push, at least the public portion of it died by 1973. 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.

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1955 – Royal Society misses the point (tbf, easily done)

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

CATEGORIES- 

TAGS- 

Categories
United Kingdom

June 8, 1974 – People get together, in Coventry

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1974, the party that became the Green Party was formed, You can read more about it at the superb Green History website, see for example here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that after Blueprint for Survival, published as a special issue of The Ecologist, there had been interest in creating a new political party to represent the “what was needed for survival” policies to enact the blueprint (though “party” is doing a lot of work there – many were more interested in a broader-than-party-politics movement. The organisation was called People, and it held its first conference in Coventry. You can read more about it here and here. It changed its name to the Ecology Party, and then later changed its name to the Green Party. 

What we learn from this is that environmentalists have understood the need for policy change and fairly early realised that it wasn’t going to happen in the mainstream parties. These would have decent individuals like Waylon Kennett, but the logic that the “grey parties” were wedded to was too, all encompassing. 

What happened next well, the Ecology Party stood candidates and had its first general election broadcast in 1979. And it has generally been a force for sanity. Not that people are particularly keen on listening to sanity. 

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1958 – Australian Sunday Telegraph on climate and weather

Sixty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1958, another of those ‘the world is warming’ articles…,

In 1958 the Sunday Telegraph reported climate change straight

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian newspapers were fond of articles about the changing climate and droughts because Australia is a land of scorching droughts, or whatever the Dorothea Mackellar poem goes. And of course, the International Geophysical Year was just behind us, so everyone was able to have an opinion about the weather. It fills column inches. 

 What we learn is that the idea of ice caps melting, for whatever cause, was not new. And it wasn’t new in 1958. As we’ve shown here, the great deluge in 1932 in The New York Times, “is the world warming?” and Time and so forth in 1950.

What happened next? Various little mentions of carbon dioxide build up. In Australia press, possibly notably the cartoon in 1965 in the Sydney Morning Herald, and two years later, Canberra Times. It’s fairly niche, though, it’s got to be said. 

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet