Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Scientists United States of America

January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1989 the US National Academy of Sciences ? urged President-elect George HW Bush to actually DO something on climate because “‘the future welfare of human society’ was at risk” (Layzer 2012 page 157).

Here’s the beginning of a New York Times article, published January 6 1989 by the redoubtable Philip Shabecoff.

The National Academy of Sciences urged President-elect George Bush today to place the threat of a significant increase in global temperatures high on his agenda because ”the future welfare of human society” is at risk.

The academy urged Mr. Bush to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other fuels whose air pollutants are a main cause of the predicted global warming.

”We believe that global environmental change may well be the most pressing international issue of the next century,” the academy said. ”The United States is well-positioned to play a leadership role in coping with and gaining an international consensus on this difficult issue.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change had finally broken through the previous summer. And as candidate, George Herbert Walker, Bush had made the right noises about the greenhouse effect and the so-called “White House effect.” And now with his inauguration about to take place, folks at the National Academy of Sciences wanted to hold him to that. 

What we can learn is that everybody knows that politicians have to be “reminded” of their promises repeatedly. Because if you stop pressuring them, they assume everyone else has forgotten about the promise. And they keep taking the fat, brown envelopes of cash from the usual suspects. 

What happened next, Bush did everything he could to dampen the issue. And his goons were busy smearing James Hansen, et cetera. But in May of 1989, they overdid it. And Bush was forced to concede that yes, there would need to be a global treaty, and that negotiations should start for that. That led on to the text battles over the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ultimately won. And here we are 30 years later, having achieved nothing. And actually, that’s wrong: emissions are now 65% higher than they were. And we’ve run out of time and budget.

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

Layzer, J. 2012. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation. MIT Press

Shabecoff, P. 1989. Bush Is Urged to Fight Threat of Global Warming. New York Times, January 6

Also on this day: 

January 5, 1973 – An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

Jan 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”

Categories
United States of America

January 4,1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Forty two ago, on this day, January 4th 1982, a symposium “The Global 2000 Report to the President: The Authors Update Their Work”, was held in Washington DC.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that under Jimmy Carter, the Global 2000 report had been produced. See here and here. And now two years on, waiting months on, though producing an update, and presumably tying it to the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at which Jim Hansen, Herman Flohn, and others were to speak. 

What we can learn is that determined people have been trying to keep the issue of environmental degradation/destruction/humanity’s Death Wish, on the political agenda. And to put it back on the political agenda when it gets “de-agendized.” Tried tirelessly, for a very long time; that they did not succeed is not really their fault. Or maybe it is, I don’t know. And they were clever in trying to combine voices and build a sense of momentum, a “one two” punch as it were. And you see this again later, in June of 1998, and 1988, when Hansen gives testimony, just before the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere.

What happened next, I think they were largely ignored at the time. Reagan was deep into his sabre-rattling and Cold War bullshit (that almost got us all fried, btw). Global 2000 people kept trying and were met in 1983 with “get your retaliation in first” tactics from our friends at the Heritage Foundation. And it would be another six years before climate change really, really broke through. 

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

Dearborn, N. W. (1983). Global 2000: Radar for the ship of state. Futures, 15(2), 111-125

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

Categories
Science United States of America

January 1970 – Yale biologist muses on science, politics, pollution, warming.

In this month, 54 years ago, eminent Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson reflected on the effectiveness of Senate hearings for investigating environmental dilemmas, including carbon dioxide build-up.

“Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, this is far from being adequately established (5). The cycle is not really fully understood, as was made clear in the discussion; carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or in small amounts the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources. It is rather worrying to find one of our best senators and three eminent scientists trying to talk about the reversibility of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere from industrial sources without a single mention of a green plant”

(Hutchinson, 1970, p18-19).

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 some Senate hearings with Democrat Senator Edmund Muskie (who had been Vice President candidate in 1968) and so forth, SR 78, had happened. This was in the context of Richard Nixon being in the White House and trying to pick up the environment issue, but also raising concerns, with Earth Day impending. Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson had been talking about CO2 build up as a factor in changing biology since 1947-48, he was mates with Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson. And Hutchinson had promoted the idea of the Conservation Foundation holding a meeting specifically about CO2, in March 1963. And then he’d been too sick to attend. 

Anyway what’s interesting in this “Marginalia” thing is there’s a bunch of useful insights about how language works and so forth. But Hutchinson himself is understandably uncertain about what impact raised CO2 levels might have. Just because he’s been familiar with the issue, perhaps because he’d been familiar with the issue for a lot longer than anyone else. 

The other context is, of course, you know, the American Meteorological Society in October 1969 had held a symposium on the future of our atmosphere. Kenneth Hare had spoken at that. Everyone was at it; the AAAS had held a symposium on Global Environmental Pollution in Dallas at the end of 1968.

What we learn is that smart people had known about CO2 for a long time when we’re discussing it in ‘69. 

What happened next? The only real fruit of all this was UNEP and the modelling work done by Bolin et al as part of GARP. And it would take another 20 years, almost before the issue finally broke through…

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

Hutchinson, G.E. 1970. Marginalia “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” American Scientist, Vol. 58, No. 1 pp. 17-20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27828926

Categories
technosalvationism United States of America

January 3, 2007 – Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, says Union of Concerned Scientists

Seventeen years ago, on this day, January 3rd, 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists released a damning report called “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air” about ExxonMobil and its tactics…

And you can read a typically sane and not-unhinged response, which has aged so very well indeed, here. Or you could if it weren’t a mysteriously dead link, and seems to have been removed from the “website” of the nutjobs.

http://humanevents.com/2007/05/08/liberal-scientists-lead-jihad-against-globalwarming-skeptics/

Could it be that they have realised that it’s not a good look?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that George Bush Jr. had already been a massive pain in the ass on environment issues. Or, to be more accurate, he allowed the gang that was controlling him to run riot in a more slightly more subtle way than had happened under Reagan. And there had been repeated exposes and reports on the tactics and subterfuge used by Bush. This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which had been set up in the tumult of the late 60s, was one among many. And probably had an eye on the fact that the negotiations in Bali in December of 2007, had been earmarked as creating “the Roadmap to Copenhagen.” There’s always a new roadmap path, etc. And they all prove to be delusions. 

What we can learn, you can expose, the emperor has been naked, you can pull back the curtain and show the guy who was screaming at you not to look at him. And it doesn’t change anything. Because the audience is just that – spectating. Only if we had active social movement organisations, capable of sustaining pressure and defending themselves against co-optation, repression and exhaustion might – and I underscore the word might – we have gotten somewhere. But we didn’t. And now we won’t. 

What happened next? Bush was replaced with Obama. Obama made one attempt to get through some pretty weak climate legislation, and then refused to spend any more political capital on the issue. But he made some fine speeches. So that’s alright then. 

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: 

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released.

Jan 3, 1992 – Greenpeace vs POTUS on Climate Change

Categories
United States of America

January 2, 1955 – Commie newspaper covers climate

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, January 2nd 1955 John Stachel, writing in the Worker newspaper, mentioned C02 build up as a potential problem.

“Other experts look to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to explain why the earth holds more of the sun’s heat.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that two years previously Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass had set a cat among the pigeons, by pointing to carbon dioxide buildup as a likely cause of warming. Other people had already been saying that the world was warming, what Plass had done was provide one very plausible mechanism, building on work of Svante Arrhenius and British steam engineer Guy Callendar (with whom Plass corresponded). 

What we can learn from this is that awareness of potential peril and long-term big changes was out and about in mainstream and far left circles. And of course, mainstream ideas draw on observations and insights from the margins, the extreme left and extreme right. Blah, blah, Overton Window, blah, blah. 

What happened next? Well, the International Geophysical Year (1957-58) took place; lots of measurements. In March 1958 Charles Dave Keeling started to take his measurements, and the rest is history. 

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

Also on this day: 

January 2, 2008 – tiresome (but sound) “Green Fatigue” warning is made

.Jan 2, 2014- “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop,

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

Forty three years ago, on this day, January 1st 1981,

 Climate Change and the Society: Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

was published.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American and European climate scientists had been pretty sure from the mid-1970s onwards serious warming of the planet was coming thanks to the additional carbon dioxide that was being put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. I think they were also pretty sure that we wouldn’t, as a species, do anything serious to reduce our emissions. How right they were. And so the puzzle began, well, what impacts will come not just physical impacts, but sea level rise, heat, but how will that play out? How will society be affected? And how will society respond? One of the authors, William Kellogg had been in and around climate issues, carbon dioxide issues specifically, for a good 10 years. The other, Schware, had written this in 1980. And the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis (IIASA) had been holding workshops about this sort of thing. So the book, although it seems very, very prescient, emerged as all books do, from strands of academic – or intellectual, for the two are not the same – work. 

What we can learn is that smart people could see this coming and couldn’t see a way of stopping it. I think for what it’s worth, there probably were ways of stopping it, but it would have required a fundamental rethink of what resistance to capital looks like. And also how those on the progressive left – or whatever it wants to call itself – organised themselves and each other, how they measured success, etc. None of that happened then. None of it is happening now. None of it is likely to happen.

What happened next – The Republican and conservative administrations of Reagan and Thatcher kept doing everything they could to keep environmental issues down the agenda. With Reagan who kind of overdid it, leading to a backlash (see Dunlap and McCright 2010). And with Thatcher, there was the persistent issues of acid rain and then ozone until finally, in 1988, even she had to concede that the greenhouse effect was a thing. Kellogg lived a long time, long enough to see most of its predictions come true.

In June of 1982 Kellogg and Schware had an article in Foreign Affairs, the major US foreign policy journal.

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

Schware, R. 1980. Toward A Political Analysis Of The Consequences Of A World Climate Change Produced By Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5415330

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Uncategorized

December 31, 1997 – Government slags off Australian Conservation Foundation

Twenty six years ago, on this day, December 31, 1997, the Federal environment minister Robert Hill took a pop at the peak green group in Australia.

“THE Australian Conservation Foundation claims that opinion polls show Australians “do not agree with the Government’s push for the right to increase our greenhouse gases while other countries reduce” (Kyoto Harmed Our Reputation, Letters, 22/12).

“Perhaps if the ACF and others had not embarked on a deliberate campaign of misinformation on the greenhouse issue the results may have been different.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government had extorted an eye-wateringly generous deal at Kyoto. Robert Hill had got a standing ovation from the Liberal party room – or possibly the cabinet I forget the details – but Australian environmentalists were understandably really horrified that the whole process had been treated just so shabbily and went public.

What I think we can learn from this is that when push comes to shove, well, states are going to defend existing powerful interests in most circumstances rather than think about the future. And individual functionaries will not take kindly to being reminded of their shabby behaviour.

What happened next

Hill signed the Kyoto protocol in April 1998. His boss John Howard clearly didn’t want it to be brought forward to the Australian Parliament for ratification and he made sure that it wasn’t, finally announcing this on Earth Day, in June of 2002.

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

Hill, R. 1997. There was no `diplomatic tension’ at Kyoto. The Australian, December 31

Categories
Australia

December 30, 2006 – “Industry snubs climate strategy”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 30, 2006, the coal-floggers were, surprise surprise, not happy with spending money on climate change mitigation…

Australia’s coal-fired electricity industry has dismissed the Federal Government’s key strategy to cut the nation’s escalating greenhouse emissions as too expensive, financially risky and untested. The National Generators Forum, the 21 companies that dominate Australia’s power industry say the Government’s plans to rely heavily on carbon capture and underground storage to clean up emissions from coal burning are unrealistic, and will not work. Its members are also not convinced carbon dioxide is linked to climate change.

Beeby, R. 2006. Industry snubs climate strategy. Canberra Times, 30 December.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Howard government had been forced – kicking and screaming – to start to seriously pretend that it was going to do something about Australia’s domestic emissions. Howard had appointed a bunch of business types to the so-called Shergold Report committee, and was trying to make the right noises. But for some of the knuckle-draggers it wasn’t enough – they didn’t get that it was all kayfabe…

What I think we can learn from this

There are always knuckle-draggers and the climate skepticism thing is entertaining… But they were also right about CCS not working -l and this is one of those pivotal moments which, if I had my time over, I’d explore again.

What happened next

Howard’s Shergold Report thing convinced no one – it just made him look weak and he got his ass handed to him in the November 2007 election. He was, I think, only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat in an election. 

CCS went nowhere in terms of reality, but continues to have a wonderful life in Australia as a fantasy technology.

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..

Categories
Science Scientists

December 30, 1957 – a letter from Gilbert Plass to Guy Callendar

Seventy six years ago, on this day, December 30, 1957, the English steam engineer Guy Callendar wrote to the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass

“Plass wrote to Callendar that Revelle and Suess and Arnold and Anderson had “attacked the carbon dioxide climatic theory ‘quite vigorously’ at a meeting earlier this year.”

They claimed that it was absolutely impossible to have had a sufficient increase in the CO2 amount in this century for the reasons that were given in their articles. I think you have pointed out several ways that their conclusion could be in error and I feel that there are still several possible explanations. 64 (Fleming 2007, p.81)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists who were studying carbon dioxide build-up and had been writing about it were still not quite sure what was going on. Understandably – if all the answers were obvious you wouldn’t need to explore anything, and that’s not how science works 

Guy Callendar had written the first serious “carbon dioxide is causing climate change” scientific article in 1938 presented it, to muted response, at the Royal Meteorological Society. 

Gilbert Plass was, more than anyone, responsible for putting carbon dioxide squarely on the agenda with his 1953 statements at the American Geophysical Union and then onwards in 1956 with his articles

What I think we can learn from this is that it’s always a messy murky picture in the early days of any issue. Later on it looks like a procession, but a good historian will try to remember the messiness and make it understandable, without removing the messiness.

Obviously that’s an ongoing process that we need to remember how little we knew and how confused the picture was.

What happened next

Callendar kept writing articles and letters. He died in 1964.

Gilbert Plass continued to be engaged for another few years on the climate issue and then wasn’t.

Roger Revelle died in 1991, having spent a long time trying to get the US state and others scientists politicians to take climate change seriously/

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.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, December 29, 1969, there was

Symposium on Climate and Man, 136th Meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science, Boston

This from a pre-symposium teaser, published in Science, tells you enough to be going on with –

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by 1969 environmental issues, air quality issues, long-term effects of carbon dioxide issues, were pretty well-known in the scientific community, the “environmental” community, and were becoming quite well known with anyone who could read any quality newspaper. A one-day symposium on the topic when everyone’s gathering together anyway for a meeting of the American Association for the advancement of science was quite fun.

What I think we can learn from this

There was early knowledge early discussion, if you want to call 1960s early.

What happened next

The next seriously consequential meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science with regards to climate change was the 148th in 1982 which was held in New York, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn both sounding off. Though I’m sure people who were involved in the big AAS processors in between will tell you otherwise

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

Battan, L. J. (1969). Climate and Man. Science, 166(3904), 536-537.