[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 314ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – everyone was blowing stuff up in the atmosphere. The comprehensive test ban was not a thing until a few years later.
Why this matters.
Not all the fears of imminent doom are born out (if they were, we wouldn’t have lasted five minutes on our feet! Humans do like to catastrophise…)
What happened next?
Somebody made a very cool movie – The Day the Earth Caught Fire – about (spoilers) H-bomb tests knocking the world off its axis. Do try to catch it – it’s a corker.
On this day, October 7 [okay, possibly the 8th] 1989, future Liberal leader (for five gruesome minutes) and Foreign Affairs Minister (for one gruesome decade) Alexander Downer spoke out about environmental issues. Clearly he hadn’t received/read the memo that the Liberals were trying to catch soft-green votes at the upcoming Federal Election…
Alexander Downer, who was the Opposition’s spokesman on the environment, outlined another approach at the weekend. [7 or 8 October] Downer’s views were made public when opening a fair at Yankallila on the Fleureau Peninsula south of Adelaide, a venue unlikely to attract too many aggressive miners. This was just as well, as Mr Downer told the fair-goers that the conservation lobby was getting more than a fair go, largely because the mining lobby had allowed conservationists to dominate the environmental agenda. As he had been the Opposition spokesman on the environment during-the last election campaign Mr Downer felt especially strongly about the issue, as while he saw Greenies, coming to the aid of the ALP, the mining industry was not as forthcoming in their aid for the coalition.
At Yankallila, he first called the mining industry “weak and gutless”, then accused them of letting “radical Greens” dictate the agenda so that “what were previously regarded as extreme conservationists have become the mainstream spokesman of responsible conservation”.
“The business community and level-headed conservationists must now change radically the way they approach conservation issues by applying the logic of the marketplace and putting a price on Australia’s natural environment,” he said. Big
Mr Downer’s argument was that if Australia “was to pursue responsible conservation policies it would have to put a price on the environment” which would “change the signals sent out to decision-makers by , introducing market forces”.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 350.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – by this time the Australian Labor Party had been in office 6 years. There was an election coming, and green issues would matter to voters. Who would get which preferences?
Why this matters.
Big picture? It doesn’t
What happened next?
The ALP squeaked home in March 1990 thanks to green-minded voters. Downer was briefly and disastrously Opposition Leader in 1994-5. He was then John Howard’s Foreign Minister from 1996 to 2007.
Google Downer, Woodside and East Timor. Read it and weep.
On this day, October 6 in 1988, the coal lobby said – of course it did – that the greenhouse effect had been “greatly exaggerated.”
Because before the promises for technological fixes, for complicated (and therefore easily gamed) financial instruments… comes flat out denial and minimisation.
The international coal industry hit back yesterday at charges that coal-fired power stations are a prime cause of the climatic changes associated with over-heating of the atmosphere.
The London-based World Coal Institute, representing a wide range of national and private coal utilities and traders, said research by its members showed that the contribution of coal-fired power stations to the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect had been ‘greatly exaggerated.’
Samuelson, M. (1988) Coal Users Fend Off ‘Greenhouse’ Accusations. Financial Times, 7 October, p. 9.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 349.37ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this – Margaret Thatcher – British Prime Minister and not easily dismissed as an eco-loon – had given a surprise speech at the Royal Society a week or so earlier. The “greenhouse effect” was on the agenda, and coal was the bad boy (nuclear was trying to throw it under the bus).
Why this matters.
These industry bodies now promising a gleaming techno-future have a loooong history of, well, um, I believe the technical term for this is “lying.”
What happened next?
The World Coal group spent a long time “in denial” and then switched to promoting “carbon capture and storage.” In that time, emissions kept climbing. And climbing.
“The 16 member South Pacific Forum meeting was held at Rarotonga in the Cook Islands and attended by Prime Minister John Howard. Greenhouse and climate change issues received significant media attention during this meeting. Australia’s position on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions differed strongly from the other 15 nations attending the forum. The AOSIS (particularly Tuvalu) demands were for a binding 20 per cent reduction in 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 2005, while Australia aimed to avoid language calling for binding targets. At the conclusion of the meeting the Forum statement did not support the AOSIS proposal but urged parties to consider it.”
On this day the PPM was 364ish. Now it is 420ish – but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Australia has been ignoring its neighbours on the existential threat of climate change for a very long time.
What happened next?
Australia carved out a sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Then still would not ratify. Kept increasing its coal exports, kept hampering the development of renewables locally.
On this day September 16 1969, Sir Macfarlane Burnet, an extremely eminent Australian scientist pointed to carbon dioxide as a serious potential problem. Yes, 1969.
Call to keep world at 2,000m
MELBOURNE, Monday. — The world population should be adjusted and maintained at perhaps 2,000 million, distinguished scientist Sir Macfarlane Burnet said today.
It was one of five minimum requirements that he set down for a “stable human eco-system” or an harmonious world.
Sir Macfarlane was delivering a paper at the Felton Bequests Symposium at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne.
Sir Macfarlane said the other requirements included a stabilisation of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to avoid the possibility of disastrous climatic change.
The theme of the symposium was the influence of scientific advances on the future of mankind. It was arranged by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in honour of Sir Macfarlane’s 70th birthday.
On this day the PPM was 323 ish. Now it is 420ish- but see here for the latest.
The context is that by the late 1960s smart people were paying attention to – and starting to get worried about – carbon dioxide build-up. Burnet was not alone in this.
Why this matters.
Let no-one tell you this was a sudden surprise in 1988 (and even if it were, we’ve had a generation to start taking action).
What happened next?
More and more people became aware of the problems. But awareness is not political and economic power, and those who were doing nicely from the sale of deliciously cheap and abundant fossil fuels saw no reason to stop. And every reason to stop those who wanted them to stop. So that’s what they did, very well, for a very long time. Eternity, effectively.
On this day, September 5, 2005, then Labor opposition spokesperson for the environment Anthony Albanese (where have I read that name recently?) introduced a private member’s bill
And oh, look, he’s all in favour of climate triggers…
On this day the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 376.89 ppm Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
The context is that the Liberal National government of John Howard was enthusiastically boosting fossil exports, doing everything it could to slow renewables and to scupper international action. Labor were trying to make political capital out of this (and Albanese also – to be fair – seems like a decent human being who understands, on some level, what is at stake for our species).
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, does it? “We knew.” That can be our obituary. Smart enough to understand the dumb things we were doing, not smart enough to stop doing the dumb things.
What happened next?
We kept digging and burning, burning and digging. A small subset of that “we” got seriously rich doing it.
On Monday 30 August 1971 I watched biologist Professor Paul R. Ehrlich from Stanford University on the ABC’s Monday Conference. I was twenty-three. Ehrlich was interviewed by Robert Moore and questioned by a studio audience. It was my first encounter with environmentalism as opposed to a single environmental concern. Here was someone describing things I had long suspected were true but which had lain unformed in my consciousness…
(Carr, 2008:354)
Reading the thirty-three pages of transcript today, my attention spikes when an unnamed audience member asks:
“There was a paper in the New Scientist a few months ago by a physicist who estimated that we could only afford to increase the temperature of the earth’s surface by 3.5 degrees or we would probably flood most of the earth with the water which is now in ice, and we’ve already increased it by one degree, and if we keep producing energy and power from any source, no matter how much the resources we have, you can’t just do it, surely this is relevant?”
Ehrlich’s reply deserves to be weighed word by word, because here was the first emergence in mass media – and I did not see its significance – of the notion of global warming. Remember, this is 1971 and we were looking at this issue ‘through a glass darkly’. Let me quote Ehrlich’s reply – and emphasise the key phrases that pointed to catastrophe.
“The whole question of atmospheric dynamics and what’s happening to the climate is a very difficult one, and certainly it’s absolutely correct. If we continue on the long-range energy course we’re on, sooner or later we’ll melt the polar icecaps and we’ll all be swimming around at least in the coastal area. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple though because you see a great deal of material is being added to the atmosphere in the form of smog which tends to cool the planet, and unfortunately even beyond this we don’t understand enough about atmospheric dynamics though for instance the general warming trend in the planet may very well make Sydney colder, ad the disaster of all this is that when you change the climate you hurt agriculture. It doesn’t even matter [page break] if you change it for the better because agriculturalists like everybody else are conservative. You look around in New South Wales, you know, when you have one of these once in a million year droughts that you have every nine years […] So the whole question of atmospheric dynamics is under detailed study now by large groups of people – everybody’s scared – the recent study from MIT said we haven’t ruined the biosphere yet (it just came out about three weeks ago) but we’re right on the verge and we had better be very careful, but unfortunately we don’t have enough scientific evidence yet to know exactly what’s going to happen first.”
(Carr, 2008:354-5)
[The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 325.43 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.]
Why this matters.
We knew. We know we knew.
What happened next?
Australia kept digging up and exporting fossil fuels. Some people did very nicely indeed out of it, thank you. Future generations? Not so much.
On this day, August 14, 1971, police cars pulled up at various houses in middle-class Stanford and “arrested” a bunch of young men.
These fake arrests happened with the arrestees consent, because they’d agreed to take part in what was supposed to be a two week experiment. Half the participants were randomly selected to be prisoners, the others guards. The experimenters thought they’d have to study video tapes, tease out nuance…
Ha ha ha ha.
After 6 days the experiment had to be ended because the guards had – basically – gone completely fascist apeshit.
Turns out humans are a lot more susceptible to some gnarly ways of thinking and being than they want to believe.
That insight will be a great comfort as the Great Acceleration leads us all to accelerate off the Great Cliff onto the rocks of the Great Post-Anthropocene below.
On this day the PPM was 325.43 ppm. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.
Why this matters.
Obedience, conformity, hatred of “The Other” – all just below the surface, as Dr Bernie Rieux rieuxfully warned us….
What happened next?
No long-term studies on the effects on the young men, but it profoundly affected the grad student, Craig Haney, who went on to do enormous amounts of advocacy work around Death Row inmates, and criminology. I was lucky enough to do a class of his (Social Psychology) at University of California at Santa Cruz, 20 years after the Stanford study.
It’s 2am. The nightclub is still full, but about to empty.
You are lonely, horny and the options remaining are not as great as they were.
More than that, you’re drunk and your vision and judgement aren’t what they might be in the frigid light of day.
So that one over there in the corner, who’d normally be considered an arm-chewer/put-a-paper-bag-over-his-head-and-he-will-become-“mr-right-now”? They’ve just graduated to “warm body, will do for now.”
And if someone tries to mock you later, you can shrug your shoulders and say ‘whatever – I was wearing beer goggles.”
So, if I told you I was going to pivot this towards a thing about climate change, you’d brace yourself for some not very funny joke about ‘reducing emissions.’
Not today!
I want to try to be All Serious and Philosophical, and get into epistemology and ontology and other long-words I learnt at my first go on the rodeo of university, all those years ago.
Our judgement is affected by, well, goggles, lenses, expectations. The Germans have a word for it (of course) – Weltanschauung.
I would say that our last 100 years or so, and certainly since the Great Acceleration began in the 1950s, we (1) have been wearing oil goggles. We have been seeing the world as an inexhaustible orchard and playground, where there are no problems that cannot be solved. All you need is to go to a slightly deeper horizon and find more of The Stuff. And the stuff is all around us, we swim in oil the way that goldfish swim in water.
Scientists and activists have tried to puncture the lens, to rip the oil goggles (or blinkers, depending on your point of view), but we swat them away and duct tape the oil goggles on even more securely (2).
But we’re running out of duct tape, aren’t we?
And we can’t see this world, let along imagine others (there, told you I’d get the ontology stuff in there).
But the world can see us. And the age of consequences has begun.
The second half of (the first half of?) the twenty-first century is going to make the first half of the twentieth century look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. Ho-hum.
Footloose notes.
(1) By “we” I mean people like me – middle-class, raised in the west in relative or absolute prosperity and security, in permanent global summertime, with the expectation that the future was also going to be secure, with ever-cooler and shinier gadgets. That has never been a “we” that covered most people, even in the West. It covers fewer and fewer people as time goes on. But people do cling to their oil goggles.
(2) Vision-smission. The typical western privileging of sight, blah blah. See also John Carpenter’s delirious ‘They Live!’, for a slightly different sunglasses thing.
On this day, June 18 1976 the UK Meteorological Office’s director, John S. Sawyer, replied to a request from the Cabinet Office. Two days earlier they’d asked for his take on Reid Bryson, a prominent US atmospheric scientist. Bryson was predicting imminent climate change (but NOT from the build up of carbon dioxide, which he considered a non-issue.
Sawyer was scathing – Bryson was “completely misleading and alarmist”.
The context is that by the mid-70s, with a series of “weird weather events” (including the 1976 drought, then underway), policymakers were beginning to wonder if something was up with the weather.
In 1976, the Cabinet Office wrote to the Meteorological Office’s director of research, John S. Sawyer, asking for his views on Bryson’s work. Bryson is ‘‘completely misleading and alarmist,’’ replied Sawyer only two days later, and, he continued, ‘‘the evidence that a permanent climatic change of significant magnitude is in train is at best exceedingly sketchy.’’42
J. S. Sawyer to D. C. Thomas, 18 Jun 1976, KEW, CAB 164/1379 Martin-Nielson, 2018 Computing the Climate
Why this matters.
We need to remember that it wasn’t a straight line, that carbon dioxide build-up was only one of the ways that scientists thought the weather could change. That uncertainty can be hard to recollect in the aftermath of 1985 onwards…
What happened next?
Bryson refused to accept that carbon dioxide was driving observed climatic changes. These things happen – people don’t like to admit they backed the wrong horse.
A report on climatic change finally got presented to Margaret Thatcher in 1980. Apparently her response was incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather.” And this, from a chemist.
