Category: Sweden

Categories
Nuclear Power Sweden

April 4, 1979 – Olof Palme u-turns on nuclear referendum

47 years ago today, the Swedish Prime Minister decides on a referendum

“The nuclear policy controversy came to a head following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, had for a long time been a strong supporter of nuclear power and against a nuclear referendum. On April 4, 1979, however, after a week of intense media coverage of the nuclear accident, Palme, afraid of losing more antinuclear supporters to the Center Party in the upcoming September 1979 elections, announced that he was in favor of a nuclear referendum. Within hours the other parties agreed to Palme’s suggestion.” (Lofstedt 1992: 4) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Palme had been made aware about climate change from carbon dioxide quite some time ago. In April 1974 he had been briefed on it by Herman Flohn. In November 1974, Palme had spoken about it publicly.

The specific context was that energy politics is always messy!

What I think we can learn from this is that energy politics are always messy. And that some referenda matter more than others.

What happened next:  

A non-binding referendum on nuclear power was held in Sweden on 23 March 1980.[1] Three proposals were put to voters. The second option, the gradual phasing out of nuclear power, won a narrow plurality of the vote, receiving 39.1% of the ballots cast to 38.7% for option 3.[2] Option 1 was the least popular, receiving only 18.9% of the votes.[2]

The actual long term result of the nuclear power politics in Sweden after the referendum has been most similar to option 1 which did not change ownership of nuclear power plants. Some were fully private and others owned by the government, and this did not change much. High profits in hydroelectric generation were not excessively taxed. Although some of the nuclear power plants were decommissioned, the Swedish government decided to reverse the policy.[3]

1980 Swedish nuclear power referendum – Wikipedia

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

April 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Sweden

 March 29, 1974 – Negative Greenhouse Effect seminar in Uppsala, Sweden 

On this day fifty two years ago, a workshop on the Greenhouse Efect takes place in Uppsala, Sweden….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that warnings about carbon dioxide build-up were rare, but not unheard of, by the late 1960s in Europe (I am hampered by a partial lack of language skills – I have written and spoken Portuguese, some French and Danish, but that’s it).

The specific context was that the Swedes probably had a reasonable grasp, thanks to their “environmental turn” in the late 1960s. Olof Palme, Prime Minister, was briefed on the problem in 1974 by German meteorologist Herman Flohn. (LINK).

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known, for two generations. We have failed to act.

What happened next.  We failed!! 

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

Xx

Also on this day: 

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995 –  “a transparent attempt to promote the Australian coal industry”

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Sweden

March 27, 1966 – Swedish clean up

Sixty years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1966,

Another conservationist event occurred on 27 March 1966, when field biologists in the province of Scania in southern Sweden organized an effort to clean up a 20-kilometer long littered beach. This collective action was orchestrated by the local divisions, which strove to make the ‘otherwise so passive urban dweller go out and make an active contribution to beautify nature’. The action was inspired by the campaign Håll naturen ren! (Keep Nature Clean), which Naturskyddsföreningen had initiated in 1962.37 The young naturalists removed plastic packages, bottles, and gasoline drums, and received widespread media attention for their intervention.

Fältbiologen reported that 300 people had shown up to the event and that 2,300 bags of waste, almost 700 tons of litter, had been removed. The event was heralded as the greatest clean-up action in Scania.38

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Sweden was getting wealthy, (not as wealthy as it is now, obvs). And people were beginning to realise that wealth can bring or does bring environmental damage with it. And one of the things you then do is to try and make everything look pretty, so that you don’t see the damage. And one of the obvious things to do is a litter pick, which is what they did. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been trying to bargain with the consequences of our own actions for six decades now longer, really, and it doesn’t work so well. I’m not saying that one shouldn’t litter pick or recycle. I’m saying that one shouldn’t pretend that those things are more than at best, at best palliatives, and that a far more fundamental set of changes and actions is required.

What happened next

 About a year and a half later, there was the Swedish “environmental turn” in that questions of pollution, of heavy metals, pesticides, acid rain, etc, became front page news. And this led Swedish diplomats to push for a UN conference on the environment, which of course, eventually happened in 1972. 

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: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat 

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 24, 1894 – Arrhenius starts work…

One hundred and thirty one years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1894,

Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, in the midst of a gruesome divorce, started work on his  climate model, Dec 24 1894 ( source for the date is Elizabeth Kolbert “H is for Hope” p12)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Arrhenius was aware of Tyndall’s work on “carbonic acid” in the atmosphere (but not Eunice Foote’s).

The specific context was – he was going through a messy and painful divorce and needed a Project to Distract Himself.

What I think we can learn from this – scientists make sacrifices etc.

What happened next was that Arrhenius published the work. He later got a Nobel Prize for chemistry (for other discoveries).

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.

Also on this day: 

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in… 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

December 9, 1955 – “On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature” submitted.

On this day seventy years ago, an important academic paper on the carbon cycle was received. Published the following year.

On a Mathematical Model of the Carbon Cycle in Nature

A discussion is given of a simple mathematical model of the carbon dioxide cycle in atmosphere-biosphere-sea, with special attention to the possibility of self-sustained oscillations and to the behaviour of the cycle when additional carbon dioxide is injected from an outer source. The discussion is confined to phenomena with characteristic times of the order of 10–103 years leaving out the long geologic periods as well as the purely annual periods. Some numerical computations are also carried out on the electronic computer BESK. The discussion and the computations show that self-sustained oscillations possibly appear due to the presence of the sea, and that they generally are favoured when there exist time-lags in the biosphere of the order of a few decades. The computations also indicate that additional carbon dioxide injected at a rate corresponding to the present combustion of fossil carbon does not change significantly the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, since most part of it will be stored in the biosphere. Thus, the present theory suggests that the increase of carbon dioxide indicated by recent measurements may represent part of a natural self-sustained oscillation and not necessarily be a response to an increased combustion of fossils.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that all sorts of new possibilities for understanding the universe were being opened up in the 1940s and 1950s – the technical advances of the second war offered new ways of gathering and analysing data, finding patterns.

The specific context was that those meetings in 1954-1955 were a neglected (especially by this site!) push for understanding of the carbon dioxide influence…

What I think we can learn from this – the knowledge of potential problems ahead was solid by the mid-1950s, and it wasn’t all down to Gilbert Plass…

What happened next – then-young Swedish scientist Bert Bolin went to the US in 1959 and tried to get everyone alarmed about carbon dioxide build-up. Oh well…

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.

Also on this day: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Categories
Sweden

October 24, 1967 – Acid Rain

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1967,

“The early theory of acid rain came from a Swedish scientist, Svante Oden, who published it first not in a scientific journal, but in a newspaper, the October 24, 1967, issue of Dagens Nyheter”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere would screw with buildings and lungs was a long established fact, dating back centuries – by the time of the Industrial Revolution it got so bad in some English cities that – gasp- the British State created an Alkali Inspectorate.

The specific context was Sweden was noticing changes to the acidity of their lakes, and biological impacts on trees, fish etc. And they wondered if the problem might be coming from perfidious Albion…

What I think we can learn from this is that there were plenty of cognate issues to do with atmospheric pollution alongside climate – ozone, nuclear war etc.

What happened next the British politicians ignored, denied etc. etc. that it was their fault. Of course they did. Read more about it here.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

Categories
Sweden

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, August 16th, 1971,

The changing chemistry of the oceans : proceedings of the twentieth Nobel symposium held 16-20th August, 1971 at Aspendäsgården, Lerum and Chalmers University of Technology, Götenborg, Sweden Nobel Symposium, (20th: Sweden: 1971); Dyrssen, David, editor; Jagner, D. joint editor 1972

See also

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from about 1968 (earlier in Sweden, by a couple of months), there had been an “environmental turn” – meaning people were beginning to realise that all this “Vorsprung durch Teknik” (progress through technology) came with a price tag – that air pollution, water pollution, the loss of habitats etc were not local events only, but symptoms of a wider set of problems. Heck, there was even going to be a conference in Stockholm the following year.

The specific context was that oceanographers had been very well aware of the pollution of the oceans – and that included the impact that raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might have. After all, some of the very earliest papers about carbon dioxide were by oceanographers (Revelle and Seuss etc).

What I think we can learn from this – well, as with so many of these 60s and 70s posts, smart people knew. People reading newspapers knew. But getting action, beyond the creation of a few ministries and bureaucracies

What happened next Some Nobellers kept warning (e.g. 1974). The emissions? Kept going up, didn’t they?

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.

Also on this day: 

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda – All Our Yesterdays

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions 

August 16, 2012  – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate 

Categories
Science Sweden

May 24, 1954 – Swedes study the climate…

Seventy one years ago, on this day, May 24th, 1954,

24 to 26 May 1954 – Eriksson, “Report on an informal conference in atmospheric chemistry held at the Meteorological Institute, University of Stockholm, May 24-26, 1954,” Tellus, 6 (1954)  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the question of carbon dioxide build-up had returned to prominence with the 1953 presentation by Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union’s meeting.  The Swedes had a lot of expertise in this field, and prestige (Carl Rossby etc). 

What I think we can learn from this is that from the early 1950s good scientists were looking at this and going “hmm.”

What happened next.  According to Weart (1997) they set up carbon dioxide monitoring stations and just got noise because there were too many forests nearby.

Rossby died too young. The baton was picked up by Bert Bolin and others.  For all the good it did us, at a species-level.

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.

Also on this day: 

May 24, 1953 – NYT on “How industry may change climate” – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2000- Australian denialist nutjobs have nutjob jamboree

May 24, 2004 – “The Day After Tomorrow” released – All Our Yesterdays

May 24, 2007 – James Hansen ponders whether scientists can be too cautious and quiet (or, indeed “reticent”)

Categories
Sweden

December 24, 1895 – Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

One hundred and twenty nine years ago, on this day, December 24th, 1895, Svante Arrhenius explains the work that went in…

“His preliminary calculations showed that the required changes in CO2 were in the order of 50%. Hogbom, who was present, confirmed that those changes could have occurred in geological times. It remained, however, to demonstrate this quantitatively. The construction of the model which enabled him to do so occupied him for most of 1895. Writing to a friend at the end of the year, he found it “unbelievable that so trifling a matter has cost me a full year” (5) ”

Svante Arrhenius to Gustaf Tammann, December 24, 1895, Arrhenius Collection, Center for History of Science, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm in Crawford, E. 1997 Arrhenius’ 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect in Context Ambio, Vol. 26, No. 1, Arrhenius and the Greenhouse Gases (Feb., 1997), pp. 6-11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 295ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Svante Arrhenius had gone through a divorce and partly to distract himself he’d spent a year doing insane calculations about the effects that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have. He had produced this work. He had presented this work and it was about to be published. 

What we learn is that in the days before ENIAC computers, if you were a mathematician it was like that joke “Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He had to work it out with a pencil.” 

What happened next is his work was kind of disregarded thanks to a misunderstanding of how carbon dioxide works in the stratosphere, but it wasn’t lost altogether because some people took it seriously. Then Guy Callendar did the sums also without a computer and presented that work to the Royal Meteorological Society in front of Kenneth Hare and others. 

Fun fact. Arrhenius died in 1927. And Guy Callendar died in 1964, on the same day of the year, October 2nd https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/10/01/october-2-1927-64-svante-arrhenius-and-guy-callendar-die/

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.

Also on this day: 

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Categories
Sweden

December 3, 1970 – Olof Palme looks to the future…

Fifty-four years ago, on this day, December 3rd, 1970, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme tries to get some future-thinking going,

When, on 3 December 1970, he expressed the government’s intention to appoint a working group for futures studies, Olof Palme reiterated this outlook on futures studies, seeing them as a tool for national policy choices and based on Swedish values of neutrality, independence, and solidarity. If Sweden did not engage in the study of the future, Palme said, it would be dependent on future visions foreign to Swedish values. The study of the future was to seek a Swedish path between two seemingly existing alternatives of the future. Heidenblad 2021

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all sorts of futurology, horizon-scanning stuff was getting done. And Olof Palme had just been talking about the threat of climate change. And his point about if you’re not doing it yourself, you’re gonna have to accept someone else’s vision is a really solid one. 

What we learn. Palme was a cut above.

What happened next. More futurology work got done. You can read about it here. All of Palmer kept doing stuff until 1986. 

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.

Also on this day: 

December 3, 1968 – UN General Assembly says yes to a conference about environment. C02 mentioned.

December 3, 1972 – #climate scientists write “gizza grant” letter to President Nixon