Author: drmarchudson

Categories
International processes Sweden United Nations

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 30, 1968, the top committee of the United Nations says yes to a environment conference, something the Swedes had been pushing for.

1968 July 30 Resolution 1346 (XLV) recommends that the General Assembly consider a conference on environmental problems.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was as per previous blog posts here (May 1968)and here (December 1967). Earlier in the year one of the diplomats had given a speech, which was the first mention of climate change, though it wasn’t, because he didn’t call it that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Regardless of the names/terminology, we have known about this for a long time.

What happened next

In December 1968 , the UN General Assembly nodded it through. And then in 1972 the Stockholm conference happened. 

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
Australia Denial

July 29, 2013 – unreadable denialist screed published.

Ten years ago, on this day, July 29, 2013, an unreadable “book” about climate change was launched in Adelaide.  That sound you hear? It’s real conservatives spinning in their graves…

“Written by Bob Carter and John Spooner, Taxing Air was successfully launched by Senator Cory Bernardi (below right) at the Bert Kelly Research Centre on 29 July. [in Adelaide] Speakers at the launch included Lydia Bevege (Institute of Public Affairs), Centre Chairman Bob Day and author Prof. Bob Carter “

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

In the sleepy country town of Adelaide another schlub firing blanks in the culture war. The context is that Julia Gillard, against the expectations of her opponents, had successfully shepherded the ETS legislation through parliament in 2011. She had since been toppled by Kevin Rudd, whom she had toppled in 2010 (oh, what times they were). And an election was coming, which Tony Abbott would win. But climate, despite the hopes of Bob Carter, and the other author, was no longer the culture war dynamite that it  had been in the past. Everyone was sick and tired of it. Everyone who had an opinion, had their opinion. It was not going to be changed one way or the other. And the book “Taxing the Air” is the most deliriously embarrassing hodgepodge of crap you’d ever had the misfortune to (try to) read. Connor Court press were a long way from the glory days of Ian Plimer’s Heaven & Earth in 2009.

What I think we can learn from this

Idiots gonna idiot.

What happened next

Carter died. 

And the climate wars in Australia continue, courtesy Peter Dutton, chasing the wrong demographic.

Categories
Denial United States of America

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28, 2003, in a  US Senate speech, James Inhofe stated, 

“I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.” He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the 1999 Oregon Petition, as well the opinions of individual scientists that he named including John Christy, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. In his speech, Inhofe also discussed the then current Soon and Baliunas controversy, and said that “satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century.” However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had pulled out of Kyoto, it was prosecuting its illegal attack on Iraq, thinking that it was going to be able to have a nice, stable dependency. The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report had come out. And the Republicans were doing everything they could to confuse matters. And this sort of showmanship from James Inhofe it’s part of the ongoing culture war and belief in American exceptionalism and human exceptionalism, endless ingenuity blah, blah, blah.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are no limits to the stupidity of old white men. Especially the right wing ones,  (not that the so-called left wing ones are not all that great either). 

What happened next

Inhofe kept going, kept attacking, as was his wont. He kept on being one of Oklahoma’s two senators until this year (2023).

(Someone could do an article comparing Inhofe’s snowball and Morrison’s lump of coal, I guess).

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
United Kingdom

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

Forty three years ago, on this day, July 27, 1979, Thatcher’s cabinet pondered climate change. Sort of.

“Within the Cabinet Office it was rather airily suggested that ‘Ministers should at least be aware of what is proposed’ in terms of publication and consequences.82 But when the ministers found out there was anger. The Postmaster-General, Angus Maude, an elder statesman figure who had played a crucial role in Thatcher succeeding Heath as leader of the Conservative Party, wrote to Keith Joseph, guardian of the Thatcherite ideology, that he saw ‘no reason why the report should be published: it says very little and has no presentational advantage’.83 CAB 184/567. Maude to Joseph, 27 July 1979.” 

Agar (2015)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous Labour Government of Jim Callaghan had set up an interdepartmental committee to look at climate. Labour had lost the May 1979 election. And it was now a question of when or rather IF the report of this interdepartmental committee should even see the light of day. Various of Thatcherites apparatchiks thought no.

What I think we can learn from this is that any given report has to jump through many hoops to even see the light of day and not be watered down to nothing. So we need to remind ourselves always, of the politics of bureaucracy and what is and isn’t published, when, why, how, and usually only find out the gory details 30 years later, when the archives opened, and a version of the truth comes out. But of course, you have to remember that even the archives are only going to view clues at the scene of the crime. They’re not the truth, because things don’t get written down, things get “weeded”…

What happened next

On Feb 11th 1980 the report  got published.

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
Australia Nuclear Power

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

Forty six years ago, on this day, Wednesday July 27, 1977, a professor visited the country town of Adelaide to talk about his book…

Canberra Times, Thursday 28 July, page 7 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

11 years before yesterday’s blog post, a pro-nuclear Professor was in Adelaide giving a speech – basically part of his book tour for “Uranium On Trial.” And yes, climate change was high on his list of reasons why we should have nuclear. 

The broader context is that the Ranger inquiry was ongoing in Australia around uranium mining. And as the Professor noted, the National Academy of Sciences in the US was putting the finishing touches on its two year study of climate change. 

What I think we can learn from this is that even people in sleepy country towns like Adelaide had had news of climate by 1977. 

What happened next 

“if nothing was done”… We’re all going to die. And if you are under 40 or even under 50, you’re going to see that unfold properly in your lifetime. If you are 20 or under, my advice is to start carpe the diems right now.

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
Australia Nuclear Power

July 26, 1988, – Australian uranium sellers foresee boom times…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 26, 1988, the Australian Financial Review reported on what “the greenhouse effect” might do to the energy mix (it didn’t).

Environmental problems associated with the “greenhouse effect” could force the world to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy – which would give Australia the opportunity to become the foremost uranium supplier, according to a leading petroleum industry expert.

Mr Bob Foster, general manager, external relations, for BHP Petroleum said last week: “Australia can lead the world on how to mitigate against the greenhouse effect.”

Sargent, S. 1988. Environment problems seen with fossil fuels. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had started to talk about climate change. And the biggest Australian miner BHP was able to see dollar signs because it had lots of uranium and could envisage a turn to nuclear. The deeper context is that from the 1950s and 60s onwards, advocates of nuclear had been talking about it as a greenhouse solution. See, for example, Philip Abelson in 1968, New York Times 1969 Thatcher 1979 for a very small selection

What I think we can learn from this is that proponents of the nuclear dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective) have been using all the arguments that they can for a long, long time. 

What happened next

Nuclear power did not save the world. Nuclear power was never going to save the world,

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
Japan United Kingdom United States of America

July 26, 1967 – Allen Ginsberg tells Gary Snyder it’s “a general lemming situation”

On this day, Allen Ginsberg wrote to his friend Gary Snyder, about what he’d heard at the ‘Dialectics of Liberation’ conference, from Gregory Bateson.

Ginsberg’s letter of 26 July 1967, sent from New York to Kyoto where Snyder was then living, in which he notes, in a telegraphic style the poets sometimes used in their correspondence:

 Now International Dialectics of Liberation—[Stokely] Carmichael angry and yelling, I stayed calm and kept chanting prajnaparamita. Gregory Bateson says auto CO2 layer gives planet half-life: 10-30 years before 5 degree temp rise irreversible melt polar ice caps, 400 feet water inundate everything below Grass Valley 58—to say nothing of young pines in Canada dying radiation—death of rivers—general lemming situation. (Ginsberg in Morgan, 2008, p. 418)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bateson had been reading Barry Commoner’s “Science and Survival” published the previous year.  The book was extremely influential in its own way, and helped get people switched on to the carbon threat.

What I think we can learn from this is that about the carbon dioxide build up,there was ‘common knowledge’ from earlier than folks realise…

What happened next

Ginsberg was on TV in September, and gave one of the first warnings about the greenhouse effect.

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
Australia

July 25, 1996 – Australian PM John Howard as fossil-fuel puppet

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 25, 1996, then-new Prime Minister John Howard was correctly identified as a muppet. Sorry, puppet.

The Howard Government has refused to endorse Labor’s program to support research into renewable ethanol fuel, drawing sharp criticism from industry and the Australian Democrats.

At a meeting with ethanol industry representatives yesterday, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, refused to guarantee continuing commitment to a bounty scheme and a pilot plant which were funded by the former Labor Government to encourage cost-effective production of the alternative fuel.

Martin, C. 1996. Howard a ‘fossil fuel puppet’, Australian Financial Review, 26 July, p. 16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard has not been Australian Prime Minister long (March of 1996). But it’s pretty obvious that whatever lingering hopes, environmentalists and producers of ”environmentally friendly fuel” ethanol were not going to get much love. And their low expectations were met.

What I think we can learn from this is that a new government whether it has a different ideology or a leader with different priorities can suddenly not be returning the calls of various actors, be they entrepreneurs or social movement organisations or whatever. And windows of opportunity, both for the social and technological innovations can close really rapidly. And of course, everyone knows that, which is why you get such desperation about any given election because opportunities for either necessary research and development or sucking on the public tit, (depending on your perspective) will be curtailed. And so it came to pass in this case. 

What happened next

Howard ruled Australia for 11 years. He did everything he could to squash renewables with some success. Well, certainly delay. 

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
United States of America

July 24, 1980 – “Global 2000” report released.

 On July 24, 1980, President Carter addressed the public about his signature achievement. 

“Never before had our government or any other government attempting to take such a comprehensive, long-range look at interrelated global issues . . . I believe America must provide special leadership in addressing global conditions,” he urged 

(Source – Henderson thesis)

The context was that the concerns raised about “The Limits to Growth” hadn’t gone away entirely, but morphed. By the mid-1970s, they’d been able to gain a toe-hold in the US science policy-making bureaucracies, and in 1977 Carter had announced that a report would be produced…

What we can learn

Any attempt to get environmental limits onto the agenda will be met with fierce resistance.

What happened next

The Global2000 people tried to keep the momentum going, even after Reagan’s victory. The Heritage Foundation did everything it could to slow that momentum, with considerable success.  And here we are.

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
Denial United States of America

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, July 23, 1998, the Global Climate Coalition (industry front group set up to stop any real climate action) is busy quote mining and distorting what people have said, to give the impression of doubt, confusion etc.  Age-old tactic, that keeps working, again and again.

 http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1998-kyoto-epa-implementation-selected-quotes/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that although the US  Senate had passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution, there was still the lingering threat that a new US administration might if not actually agree to the Kyoto Protocol, then at least take international action that the Global Climate Coalition didn’t like. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the Global Climate Coalition and similar outfits, just keep on keeping on grinding away. Whether they’re winning or losing, they keep grinding away in the kind of war of attrition against sanity. And they can do that because they’re well-funded.

What happened next

The Global Climate Coalition was able to shut up shop in 2002. There were two factors. One is they had lost some of their big public-facing companies, especially automakers, because denying the existence of climate change was becoming a reputational risk. And separately, they’d won: once Bush said the US was not going to go negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The big big battle that had been their raison d’etre since their foundation in 1989 was won.

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.