From 1979 to 1982 American geologist William N. Barbat published 18 issues of the CO2 Newsletter. His family have kindly supplied copies and given permission for these to be digitised and shared. Every three weeks or so, an issue will be uploaded. To accompany each issue there will be a brief commentary. For the second issue, Dr Abi Perrin (see interview here) has written with her customary clarity, insight and honesty.
The second installment of William Barbat’s CO2 newsletter continues his mission to “aid enlightenment on the CO2 problem, to promote constructive and timely solutions, to reduce disagreement and to encourage cooperation”. It expands on the warnings distilled in the first issue and continues to cut through the noise of scientific discussions ongoing at the time, summarising them succinctly and effectively.
Barbat brings the role of ecosystems such as forests and oceans into focus, turning attention to the attractive idea that natural carbon sinks could “relegate the CO2 problem to a reversible status”. Detailing how a growing consensus amongst scientists was unfortunately not so optimistic, he surmises that “there is no safe allowable rate of CO2 output which could prevent temperature thresholds from being reached. Rather every single contribution of CO2 is likely to have a long-lasting effect.”
With an air of hopefulness and conviction that now feels enviable, Barbat seems confident that the dawn of the 1980s would be an inflection point, stating that his newsletter intends to be “informative of an impending revolutionary change to leaders in government and industry.” He celebrates the presentation of a report (an “impartial examination of the validity of CO2 forecasts”) to President Carter’s science adviser as a moment of progress: the next step towards the consideration of global warming in US energy policy.
Amidst optimism, he is not blind to some of the hurdles on the route to action and change. “The revolutionary energy policies which are now being considered by the scientific community to bring the CO2 buildup to an early halt would require much more cooperation between government and business than appears to exist”, he acknowledges. In his discussions of carbon sinks and their capacity (or lack thereof) to reverse the “CO2 problem” he seems to realise how alluring the more convenient or comforting ‘interpretations’ of the science can be, in a way that feels prescient of many of the popular narratives that have delayed necessary accountability and action to this day.
Looking back from 2026, a time where a rapid worldwide transition to renewable power is considered feasible and highly cost-effective, Barbat’s skepticism about the future of wind and solar is one thing that ages his writing. But perhaps the biggest is this: “Fortunately, the CO2 problem has not become an adversary issue. This issue is being treated rationally in the scientific community, in the news media, and in politics.” He identifies apathy as a problem – that’s still with us, but 46 years later we also have to contend with widespread, mounting adversariality and irrationality. In recent months we’ve seen not just denial but effective censorship of basic climate science in the US, while in UK newspapers the volume of editorials attacking climate action overtook those supporting it. Meanwhile global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise defiantly, we continue to trash the lands and oceans that buffer us from even-more-deadly impacts, and announcements that we have passed specific points-of-no-return receive little attention.
There were many passages and statements in this newsletter that are frustrating and depressing by virtue of their relevance and repetition ever since. Lurking in one of the ‘Excerpts from recent reports’ was this one: “The problem facing us today is this: When should the studying stop and political action begin?” To see this kind of sentiment expressed a decade before I was born, 30 years before I cheerfully embarked on a career in scientific research, felt especially jarring. A very similar question motivated my exit from academia: was I describing a dying world at the expense of acting to protect it?
Reading these CO2 newsletters caused me to ask myself another uncomfortable question, about the communication work I’m involved with now: am I replicating the approach Barbat and others took for decades, but expecting different results? Concerted action on climate and nature must be empowered and underpinned by knowledge, but even with deadly impacts on our doorstep we cannot put our faith in awareness alone leading to proportionate, rational responses.
See also a commentary on the first issue by Professor Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Universities of Manchester (UK) and Uppsala (Sweden).
I have a list of people I am inviting to provide commentaries (you may be on it – nominate yourselves or other people!) I would send a pdf of the relevant issue and you read it then write (or draw? make a video? a song?) 600-900 words in response, to be published just after the issue goes up.
