Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan. Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..
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 that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.
From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. It was, literally, front page news.
What happened next
In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 14, 2000, the tensions any social democratic party faces were out in open…
A split is emerging between the main coal mining union and the ALP over Labor’s pledge to take early action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The ALP’s draft environment policy, released last week, calls for the introduction of a national carbon credit trading scheme ahead of any international trade system introduced under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty limiting developed countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases.
But the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is worried about the impact of the early introduction of such a scheme on the economy and employment particularly in energy-intensive sectors.
Hordern, N. 2000. Miners unhappy with Labor’s greenhouse pledge. The Australian Financial Review, 14 July, p.12.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that some folks within the ALP were trying to turn climate change into an issue, a bit at least, as a stick to beat Howard with. But it wasn’t easy…
What I think we can learn from this is that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to build red-green coalitions on, for multiple reasons.
What happened next
Howard won the 2001 Federal Election, thanks to vicious lies about Afghan refugees. And got another six years to delay and prevent climate action.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 13, 2013, the Australian satirical website “The Shovel” took aim at Tony Abbott, who was about to become Prime Minister… It’s still hilarious, if with a tinge of horror.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Tony Abbott was clearly about to become prime minister. And he was clearly still spouting his bollocks, that because carbon dioxide was invisible, it therefore somehow didn’t have any significance. So the Australian satirical publication, The Shovel, decided to tear him a new one. And it’s a corker.
What I think we can learn from this
Laughter is solace
What happened next
Well, Peter Cook said, “I love satire, I love how it stopped Nazis.” Abbott became one of the worst Australian Prime Ministers to date (and there’s stiff competition). So, obviously, since then, we’ve had do-nothing Malcolm Turnbull, and fuck things up with a smirk on your face. Scott Morrison, him of the multiple portfolios. And now “Albo”…
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, July 12, 1978, US scientists gathered to review
1978 Woods Hole workshop to review “Report of the Workshop to Review the U.S. Climate Program Plans”, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-19, 1978, to the Climate Research Board
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Science had released its big fat report in the middle of 1977. And there was now a US Climate programme as well, thanks to George Brown’s efforts to get a climate act through. This workshop is about “well how are we doing? What do we do next?”
What I think we can learn from this is that you can get a research agenda with policy implications embedded within the state but then you need to husband it, make sure it’s on track. And that’s unglamorous but it’s needed, obviously, and will take up a lot of time and energy. But there isn’t really an alternative because if you don’t nurture it, you’re screwed (spoiler, you are anyway!)
What happened next
The climate issue continued to build and build and by 1980 81, it had some serious legs on it. And then came Reagan and the Heritage Foundation, grinding into gear and making sure that things like the Global 2000 report don’t have as much afterlife as they otherwise might. See. May 13 1983 blog post
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.
Seventy years ago, on this day, July 12, 1953, the New York Times carried an article about the changes in the world’s weather (warmer). It mentioned our friend carbon dioxide… (Engel, Leonard, 1953. “The Weather Is Really Changing,” New York Times Magazine, July 12)
It mentions CEP Brooks, and gets info from Harry Wexler of the US Weather Bureau. And near the end, this –
“Another theory, advanced by some meteorologists, attributes at least part of the rise in temperatures to a small but definite increase in the past century in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The air’s content of this product of combustion is important because carbon dioxide has heat-conserving properties, similar to greenhouse glass.
In 1850 the air contained somewhat less than thirty parts of carbon dioxide per 1000 parts off air. In the hundred years since, industrialized, urbanized man has poured unprecedented quantities of carbon dioxide out of home and factory chimneys… As a result, there are now thirty-three parts of the gas per 1,000 in the atmosphere instead of thirty. Calculations by physicists show that this is enough of an increase to make a detectable difference in the temperature at the surface of the earth…”.
By now there are already “alarmists” out there –
“The warming-up process, however, also poses problems…. If the warm-up continues for another several decades, shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap could cause a troublesome rise in ocean levels. The rise would not, as alarmists predict, wipe out all our port cities. But it could be troublesome enough to demonstrate anew that, for all his central heating and air conditioners, climate still makes man more than man makes climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were clear indications the world was warming up till about, well, 1950. And lots of articles in various places, including Saturday Evening Post. And, of course, two months before this. Gilbert Plass had hit the headlines with his statement about carbon dioxide. So I don’t think he was reported in the New York Times. He was, however, reported in Time, Newsweek, lots of regional publications. So this kind of “think piece” article could be cobbled together and be of interest because everyone was interested in the weather. It’s also in the context of nuclear bombs being set off left, right and centre, and everyone basically worrying about what that might mean.
What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of these issues goes back even in the mainstream press in very early days.
What happened next
More journalistic articles, including a corker from Maclean’s by Norman J Berrilll in 1955, and Plass’s work in 1956, also garnering a lot of press attention and interest.
Engel wrote another piece of special interest in 1958
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 11, 2013, a protest was held outside Google HQ because it hosted a fundraiser for denialist Senator James Inhofe.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 397.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Google, which still had a residual aura of “don’t be evil” about it, had been hosting fundraisers for climate denialists like James Inhofe. The context was that Obama wasn’t going to legislate on climate. Really, the international negotiations weren’t going anywhere in particular.
What I think we can learn from this is that any company that says “don’t be evil”, probably has some skeletons in its closet, or wants to have. Show me the money, I’ll show you the crime…
What happened next Google released the usual flimflam about “freedom of speech,” blah, blah, blah. Protesters could pat themselves on the head, go home, and the whole soap opera continues and the climate continues to be fucked.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 10, 1985 French secret service agents planted bombs that led to the sinking of the Greenpeace ship the “Rainbow Warrior”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the French state was getting pissed off with Greenpeace’s activities around nuclear testing in the Pacific, and thought it would be a good idea to treat a non-state actor like a state and go and blow up its assets. The death came from the photographer wanting to go back on board to get his cameras, against advice.
What I think we can learn from this, and certainly what I learned in 1985, when I was not quite an adult, is that states behave terribly, especially the intelligence services. And if they can’t win the argument, then they resort to, well, blowing shit up.
What happened next: The French intelligence service operatives got caught, sentenced to minimal jail time and then released. Greenpeace didn’t go away – you can judge the strength of an actor by the nature of its enemies, and the lengths to which it is willing to go.
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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, July 10, 2010, the CEO of mining giant Rio Tinto was talking about what politicians could learn about the recent dumping of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had been campaigning for a mining super-tax
“Policy-makers around the world can learn a lesson when considering a new tax to plug a revenue gap, or play to local politics.” Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese, one week after Labor dumped Prime Minister Rudd and the super-profits tax. Cleary, P. (2011) page 80
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Rio Tinto and other companies, multinational and national, had just spent a LOT of money on television and newspaper adverts and lobbying to defeat a mining tax proposed by wounded Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Rudd had been dumped by his own party but not for mining tax reasons, simply because he was unbearable, and his staunchly loyal deputy Julia Gillard had finally had enough.
What I think we can learn from this is that after you spend all that money, you want to send a message to any other politician, warning them of what’s going to happen so that you don’t have to spend the same amount of money again, it’s the equivalent of hanging someone’s executed body on a gibbet with a sign that says “fuck around and find out.”
What happened next a minimal mining tax was negotiated by the Gillard government that clearly did not have the political capital or appetite for a fight. And the mining companies kept making money hand over fist and the Australian taxpayer continues to get shafted. Because Australia is basically a quarry with a wholly-owned subsidiary state attached.
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 9, 2008 George Bush, who had been President thanks to his dad’s mates on the Supreme Court, told the G8 “Goodbye from the world’s greatest polluter.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that George Bush had served two terms as President having been handed the first one by the Supreme Court and then legitimately winning the second albeit with some boxy help, during the second debate with John Kerry
Bush at the G8 had that typical smirk and wanted to, as we now call it, “own the libs,” which he was very good at. And he conceded that yes, the US is the world’s biggest polluter. And it goes back to notions of the United States “way of life” being non negotiable, as his spokesperson had said in early 2001.
What I think we can learn from this is that when high carbon behaviours are “non-negotiable” and you don’t have any decent forms of mass provision, then yeah, you’re gonna be the world’s biggest polluter, and it’s actually not something to be proud of, or joke about, asshole.
What happened next
The world’s biggest polluter kept at it. Obvs.
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.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 9, 1987, oceanographer and all-round smart guy Wally Broecker warned of “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” in the journal Nature.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
Context
Broecker wrote the first article (ish) – see also 1961 AMS/NYAS solar variation meeting to use the term “global warming”. He had been trying to educate politicians (including Paul Tsongas) for a long time.
What we learn
The 1988 ‘explosion’ of concern was preceded by lots of patient work.
What next
A year minus two days later, the editor of Nature, John Maddox, inadvertently revealed that he didn’t read what was published in his own journal. Or if he did, he was incapable of understanding it.
