Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1st, 1981, a scorching editorial was submitted to a new-ish academic journal (I know, hold the front page, right?). The writer reviews some recent studies and says, well…
“Still, these studies of energy and climate might lull us into concluding that we can put off worrying seriously about man-made climate change for a half century or so. For both physical and political reasons, both conclusions may be terribly wrong.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425.85ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was clear consensus among scientists that there was a problem. They had done their level best to get politicians alert, interested, concerned. And it was fairly clear by the time this editorial was submitted, that they had failed, that there would be at least four years of ignorance and resistance ahead, and that the clock was running out.
What we learn from this is that you have to know enough to be able to contextualise a given document. And the first time I read this, I thought, “wow, gee, this guy was prescient.” And, you know, I still think that he was smart. But now that I know how much was going on in the background, with the Global 2000 report, which I was only dimly aware, Council on Environmental Quality, Charney, Department of Energy, AAAS, the European moves, it was clear that this guy was writing at a time when lots of other people were also pointing at climate change and going “shit shit shit”. Other context would be that the journal Climatic Change was set up by Stephen Schneider. Anyway…
What happened next? We didn’t take action, the emissions kept rising. It would be 1988 before the alarm bell was heard widely enough.
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 nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested.
What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best.
What happened next
Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.
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.
On this day, 11th May, in 1971 the UN Secretary General U Thant met a group of distinguished scientists who presented him with “A message to our 3.5 billion neighbours on planet earth” – a strong environmental statement raising concerns about environmental deterioration, resource depletion, hunger, and war – which together presented an unprecedented common danger to all of humanity.
During 1970 a small conference had been organised in Menton on the French Riviera. Probably the first “Environmental Conference” in Europe it involved a meeting between the organizer Alfred Hassler of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Buddhist peace activists Thich Nhat Hanh and Sister Chan Khong, and six other distinguished scientists.
Chan Khong, remembering the event in 2016, said “We met to address the damage that was being done to the Earth through human misuse of technology, the penetration into food-chains of poisonous substances and the mounting exploitation of natural resources.”
Together, through their discussions, they crafted the an open letter. Known as “The Menton Message” or “The Menton Statement” this was widely circulated amongst biologists and environmental scientists. It rapidly attracted over over 2000 signatures, including four Nobel prizewinners and numerous very distinguished and respected scientists of the day.
The following year, on May 11th 1971, in New York a copy of the statement was presented to UN Secretary General U Thant by six of the authors. It was then published as the lead item in the UNESCO Journal “Courier” in the July 1971 issue and reached a wider audience within the UN organisation and beyond.
U Thant responded to the delegation:
“I believe that mankind is at last aware of the fact that there is a delicate equilibrium of physical and biological phenomena on and around the earth which cannot be thoughtlessly disturbed as we race along the road of technological development…
This global concern in the face of a grave common danger, which carries the seeds of extinction for the human species, may well prove to be the elusive force which can bind men together.
The battle for human survival can only be won by all nations joining together in a concerted drive to preserve life on this planet.”
Why it Matters
The Statement concludes with four urgent action points “not as panaceas, but as holding actions to keep our situation from deteriorating past the point of no return”
In summary they called for a moratorium on new technological developments, widespread application of existing pollution control technology, a decrease in consumption by privileged classes, and abolition and destruction of nuclear arsenals and chemical and biological weapons.
So right at the beginning of the modern environmental movement there was seen a strong linkage between ecological issues and peace and disarmament, together with a focus on social issues of equality and rights.
What Happened Next
The message, strongly endorsed by the scientific elite, played a key role in preparing the ground for the UN Summit on the Human Environment which took place in Stockholm the following year in June 1972.
The Stockholm summit lead to the creation of “Environment” ministries in many governments and the establishment of the UN Environmental Program. These lead to 50 years of talking about “the environment” and little real action to address the fundamental issues the scientists were raising.
The scientific community published ever more mountains of papers attracting ever more research funding to describe in increasing detail the complexity of the interlocking environmental problems.
The plain people of the world seeing all this activity assumed that “they” would solve the problems and merrily kept calm and carried on consuming.
Successive generations of environmental activists kept on marching and protesting at this and that and thus many became burnt-out and retired to cultivate their gardens.
Whilst “the environment” became the prime focus of “environmentalism”, the related issues identified in the Menton Message of the problems inherent in technological solutions, the need for peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and the need for more equal distribution of of societal goods were somewhat sidelined.
Last year (2022) the UN held a Stockholm+50 Intergovernmental Conference hosted jointly by the Swedish and Kenyan Governments. The original Menton Message was updated and reissued as “A Letter to Fellow Citizens of Planet Earth”.
Which gets us to where we are today.
Rinse and Repeat.
(On a personal note U Thant was the only global leader who my teenage self through the 60s regarded as worth anything. Being a dedicated peace activist in a position of power, he was far from the normal self-serving politicians. It is interesting to consider whether the authors of Blueprint for Survival were aware of the Menton Message – it certainly seems likely.
Ten years ago, on this day, May 8, 2013, we went over 400ppm…
We are a society that has inadvertently chosen the double-black diamond run without having learned to ski first. It will be a bumpy ride. (Gavin Schmidt)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was, well, exactly, 400ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had been theorised since the 19th century. However accurate measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide were hard to come by. The problem was finally solved with money from the US Navy that allowed Charles David Keeling to set up an observatory at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii far away from industrial sources of carbon (factories and so on). Measurements have been taken there and elsewhere for decades. When measures started, in 1958, atmospheric concentrations were 315 parts per million. This went up at basically one part per million per year and then started to increase.
What I think we can learn from this
One big danger of this site is fetishizing giving more power and life and meaning than is warranted to atmospheric concentrations. I don’t know quite how to get around this and I am sure I have not succeeded that far. We cannot ignore that the rapid buildup of carbon dioxide is not a “natural” process. It is tied to a series of decisions humans collectively make about what kind of societies they want, that how many people doing what what and and allowing and facilitating what kind of actions vs other actions.
What happened next
Since then the atmospheric concentrations have predictably continued to climb and are now at roughly 420 million. Btw, that’s just of carbon dioxide; if you add the massive increase in in methane which is measured in parts per billion we have a real problem.
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 six years ago, on this day, February 23, 1977, as per the wonderful article by Jon Agar, the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor wrote a prescient memo about carbon dioxide build up…
However, ‘one complicating factor, which will have to be taken seriously’ was carbon dioxide: …” as a result of the increasing use of fossil fuels the atmospheric carbondioxide [sic] content has increased by 10 per cent over the last century. Increased atmospheric carbondioxide leads, via the ‘greenhouse’ effect to an increase in temperature. However, carbondioxide production is usually associated with the production of dust (especially from coal) and particulate material in the atmosphere scatters light and thus leads to a decrease in temperature. It is possible that these two effects cancel, to a first approximation, but it is something that gives rise to a lot of debate; especially among those who wish to build nuclear power stations. Carbondioxide is, of course, soluble but it will take about 1,000 years for equilibrium to be reached between the atmosphere and the ocean; if the dust settles out faster than the carbondioxide dissolves there might be some interesting short-term effects”.
Rounding off a review of climate change, Ashworth gave a prediction:
‘Future forecast—changeable and probably getting worse’. The note is significant because it is the first, recorded instance of the UK’s senior government adviser passing up the chain of command a firm view about climate change, in this case that natural climatic change was an understood fact and anthropogenic climate change a distinct possibility’ TNA CAB 184/567. ‘The weather’, Ashworth to Berrill, 23 February 1977
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The Germans, Swedes and most of all Americans were looking at carbon dioxide build-up and saying “we may have a serious problem”. So was the World Meteorological Organisation. The idea of an ice age had been put to one side after a Norwich meeting in 1975. Ashworth was trying to get Berrill and Mason to take it seriously.
What I think we can learn from this
Getting dinosaurs to tap dance, to spot problems on the horizon, is hard going.
What happened next
Ashworth’s efforts were ‘rewarded’, at last, with an interdepartmental committee in late 1978, which produced a “nothing to see here” report. Members of Thatcher’s government tried to keep it from seeing the light of day, but it finally limped out in February 1980. When Ashworth briefed Thatcher, her response was incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”
Meanwhile, the opportunity to start doing something was, of course, lost.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
References
Agar, J. (2015). “Future forecast – changeable and probably getting worse”: the UK Government’s Early Response to Anthropogenic Climate Change” Twentieth Century British History, Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 602–628, https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwv008 See here.
Thirty nine years ago, on this day, January 24, 1984, Canadians got to understand what was coming, via a CBC documentary, including Stephen Seidel, one of the authors of a recent US EPA report “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?”
As per the Climate State website –
Topics discussed include, the scientific consensus, weather patterns, sea level rise, adaptation, climate actions, or the greenhouse effect. This 1984 documentary outlines our understanding of global climate change at the time.
There’s weather, and then there’s climate. Weather patterns come and go, but forecasting has become much more accurate through improved meteorological techniques. Climate change is harder to predict. But, as the CBC’s Peter Kent shows in this 1984 documentary, it’s happening.
Carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere have been steadily rising, and by the year 2100 the average global temperature may rise by five degrees Celsius due to the greenhouse effect.
“Good evening. Tonight on The Journal a full edition devoted to the greenhouse effect, which will eventually cause the greatest global climatic change since prehistoric times. The full effect won’t be felt for a century or more, but younger members of our audience may well live to experience the first changes. Our grandchildren almost certainly will. We fully expect a certain amount of scepticism among viewers in this unusually cold winter to the proposition that warmer weather is ahead for Canada and the rest of the world. However, as you’ll see, the scientific community is virtually unanimous in the prediction of a warming trend, and that the irreversible warming will create major disruptions of what we’ve come to consider as normal weather patterns. The only disagreement seems to be in the timing and magnitude of the disruptions caused by the greenhouse effect.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419
The context was that in late 1983 two big reports on climate (an EPA one saying ‘srsly, trouble ahead’ and an NAS one saying ‘meh’) had been released. Climate was now a suitable topic for documentaries and panel discussions, at least to break up the monotony of “are we all going to fry in a nuclear war?” And the two kinda dovetailed, what with the concerns about a nuclear winter…
What I think we can learn from this
Again, we have known. The people who were children then are adults now, and I don’t see a whole lot of transformational change, so expecting today’s kids to organise transformational change when they are “grown up” is, um, optimistic.
What happened next
Broadcasters kept broadcasting. Four years later, in Toronto, the world did finally wake up…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
November 28, 1974 Olof Palme tells Sweden “The risk of a changed climate… is of utmost importance.”
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, in a newspaper interview, nails the big long-term threat.
“Three months after the conference, the momentum concerning the threat of climate change seems to have led Olof Palme to speak out on the issue. In an article structured as a duel, Palme and the leader of the Conservative Party (Moderaterna), Gösta Bohman, talked about their vision of Sweden in 2000. Palme was asked which threat concerned him the most and answered: ‘The risk of a changed climate due to human activities … To me, this question seems of utter importance.’”
Tom Selander, ‘Partiledare om Sverige år 2000’, SvD 29 Nov. 1974,
On this day, November 23, 1968 Lord Ritchie Calder gave a presidential address to the Conservation Society (a British NGO from the mid 60s to the late 1980s). Its cheerful title? Hell Upon Earth.
And among the litany of dangers ahead, this on climate change….
“It has been estimated that, at the present rate of increase (6,000 million tonnes a year) mean annual temperature all over the world might increase by 3.6 degrees centigrade in the next forty to fifty years, The experts may argue about the time factor and even about the effects but certain things are apparent, not only in the industrialised northern hemisphere but in the southern hemisphere. The north-polar ice-cap is thinning and shrinking. The seas with their blanket of carbon dioxide are changing their temperature with the result that marine plant life is increasing and is transpiring more carbon dioxide. With this combination fish are migrating, changing even their latitudes. On land the snow line is retreating and glaciers are melting.”
Calder’s speech wsa reported in the New York Times on the 24th
“Hell on Earth” NYT article – LONDON, Nov. 23 — Lord Ritchie-Calder, president of the Conservation Society, painted a gloomy picture today of the future of the world because too many “ignorant men are pretending to be knowledgeable.”
And in the Observer by John Davy
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 323ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
Why this matters.
I used to think that unless you were particularly switched on, then climate change wasn’t really on your radar until 1988. Then I pushed that back to the late 1970s… then…
What happened next?
Calder kept at it – see his widely-syndicated “Selling off the Old Homestead”, originally in Foreign Affairs, in January 1970
On this day, November 10 in 1988, a conference in Hamburg called for an even stronger target than the Toronto Conference in June of that year. However, elsewhere, the IPCC was meeting for the first time, and its (far more cautious) recommendations would prove weightier
1988 a World Congress on Climate and Development was held in Hamburg [It was November 7 to 10]. This called for carbon dioxide emissions to be reduced by ’30 per cent by the year 2000 and 50 per cent by 2015. It argued for unilateral action from the industrialised nations to start the process of change; a global ban on the production and use of CFCs covered by the Montreal Protocol by 1995 and urgent strategies for reversing deforestation and beginning afforestation programmes.
Paterson, M (1996: 35)
See the conference proceedings here – https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-45670-1#about-this-book
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 350 or soppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Why this matters.
In 1988 folks realised more or less what needed to be done. These were not the folks in charge of the show though. And within a couple of years the predatory delay gang had got their organisations and tactics worked out… We need to remember all this…
What happened next?
Hamburg was forgotten immediately. The international diplomacy rolled on, leading from the beginning of 1991 to the United Nations process that led in June 1992 to the UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. During those crucial years, the US Administration of George HW Bush played chicken with everyone. Everyone blinked. Bush “won.”
On this day, October 9 in 1979, Hermann Flohn (major German scientist) gave a talk about “possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming” at a conference in Dublin, Ireland.
Flohn H. 1980: Possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming. In: R. Kavanagh (Ed.): Energy System Analysis. Proc. Intern. Conf. Dublin, 9-11 Oct. 1979, D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht, 558-568. (1981: Life on a warmer Earth, Possible climatic consequences of man-made global warming. Executive Report 3, based on research by H. Flohn, Intern. Inst. for Applied System Analysis IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 59.)
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334.24ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – by the late 1970s, scientists who studied climate, energy systems etc had come to some conclusions
Carbon dioxide really was building up in the atmosphere
This would have real consequences
They tried to get politicians to pay attention. Oops
Why this matters.
By the late 1970s we knew enough (earlier than that, I think there was room for doubt)
What happened next?
Flohn kept trying. Others kept trying. Eventually, in 1988, the issue “broke through”.
