Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

August 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

August 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

On this day 30 August 1971, Bob Carr (future Premier of New South Wales and Foreign Minister] watches television. No, seriously. That’s the post. 

Oh, alright. Here are some slabs from his memoir “My Reading Life”

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

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.

Categories
Uncategorized

Beer goggles, oil goggles and not seeing what is right in front of us.

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.

See also Imperial Mode of Living

Categories
Science Scientists Uncategorized United Kingdom

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

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.

You can read more about this,and where I got the above information from, in the excellent paper “Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political”“by Janet Martin-Nielson. The specific quote is this –

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.

Categories
Ignored Warnings Uncategorized United States of America

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

On this day in 1988 we were warned. Again.. With the Toronto conference on The Changing Atmosphere approaching, the WMO released a report, and scientists tried to alert the media.

This from the Associated Press- 

“Things are going to change too fast,” scientist Michael Oppenheimer said as the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations Agency, released a report last week on the climate change that could be triggered by the “greenhouse effect.”

The report painted a picture of a global civilization heating its atmosphere in a myriad of ways, from burning fossil fuel to destroying tropical forests.

Those actions could force the average temperature up by 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the next three decades, the report says. That might not sound like much, but the scientists say it would be enough to wreak havoc.

Such a temperature increase, for example, would cause the sea level to rise by 10 inches, bringing seawater an average of 83 feet inland, according to Oppenheimer.

“The potential for economic, political and social destruction is extraordinary,” said biologist George Woodwell.

‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say The Associated Press June 13, 1988

Why this matters. 

We knew. Never forget that we knew.

What happened next?

We did nowt, unless you count toothless treaties and wishful thinking as action. Personally, I don’t.

Categories
Uncategorized

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

On this day, June 9, 1989, Australian Labor Party heavyweight and Environment Minister Graham Richardson faced off with (then-powerful) trade union figures.

The ALP were facing a very tight election soon. Bob Hawke was ageing, Paul Keating was wanting the top job. The economy was not good (interest rates very high) and the Liberals looked credible and were making green noises. The Tasmanian election of May 1989 had seen a huge green vote.

So, it was crucial to get this right. But what about the workers??

AN ODDLY portentous scene was played out behind the closed doors of the ALP national executive’s last meeting in Canberra on June 9 by two of the party’s toughest right-wing figures: the Federal Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, and the AWU general secretary, Errol Hodder.

Hodder, who had left the executive meeting briefly, returned to be told that while he was away Richardson had spoken of how the union movement had to reassess its position on the environment, and that someone present had said that the ACTU’s attitude on the issue was “stupid”.

Never backward in coming forward, Hodder leapt up to make a strong defence of the union movement’s reaction to the growing importance of the environmental debate.

What he said, in essence, was that the unions were well aware of the significance of the issue but the Government had to recognise a few things too. A tree might be a pretty thing to look at, but the view paled when you’d been put out of a job and you’d a mortgage to pay and a family to feed.

Clark, P. 1989. Unions may as well be talking to the trees. Sydney Morning Herald, 20 June, p13

This is a cheat – this is a 1992 document. There IS a 1989 policy, I just can’t find it right now…

Why this matters. 

Have we squared this circle yet? Really? Maybe the red-green alliance we need is at hand. I will believe it when I see it. Here’s a picture of “Richo” back in the day.

What happened next?

In order to win the next election the ALP promised an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. And then filed the results in the circular file, obvs (more on that in August…)

Within a few months, the ACTU had changed its tune –

Moffet, L. 1989. ACTU turns a decided shade of green. Australian Financial Review, 26 September.

The ACTU has signalled it is changing its colours and turning green by making its first major policy statement on environmental issues.

The statement – to be debated at the ACTU Congress this morning -represents a concerted attempt by the organisation to overcome public opinion that the union movement is full of pro-logging rednecks.

The ACTU hopes that by tapping into the groundswell of concern over environmental matters it will prove its relevance to the community and boost its membership numbers. ACTU delegates privately conceded yesterday that the union movement had allowed itself to become an irrelevant voice in public debate on environmental issues.

Personal disclaimer/pre-emptive statement

The “right” has been extremely successful at driving wedges between environmentalists and trades unionists, with caricatures of each. Without organisation by working class people, it is not going to be possible to do anything meaningful about climate change. It just isn’t. Unfortunately, given how hard the struggle for them to even get to organise (laws designed to make it impossible to unionise), “abstract” issues like, oh, the fate of the planet, often don’t resonate. I have, in my looong life, seen moments for red-green co-operation squandered, gulfs of mutual-incomprehension and antipathy grow. We need to do better…

Categories
Cultural responses Uncategorized United States of America

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

On this day, June 1st 1965, Tom Lehrer sang his song “Pollution” at the hungry i nightclub in San Francisco, as part of his “That was the week that was” gig.

Lehrer had basically “retired” from his tours, when asked to write topical songs for a weekly satirical TV show called “That was the week that was” (the songs were brought together in an album called “That Was The Year That Was”).

The song, picking up on growing concerns about air, water, noise and – well – everything – pollution, contains priceless lyrics such as

If you visit American city,

You will find it very pretty.

Just two things of which you must beware:

Don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air!

YEAR: 1965 Lehrer singing “Pollution” at the hungry i

https://www.tumblr.com/tomlehrer/10285628382/tom-lehrer-hungy-i-nightclub-san-francisco-june-1-1965

Why this matters. 

We knew for a long time about the local problems. This concern preceded the big “global concern from 1968-1972”.

What happened next?

Lehrer is still around – properly ancient. I met him once in 1992, he was extremely gracious.

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings Uncategorized

May 23, 1980 – Aussie senator alerts colleagues to #climate threat. Shoulder shrugs all round. #auspol

On this day, 23 May 1980, Don Jessop,  a Liberal senator from the great state of South Australia raised the alarm about climate change from carbon dioxide build-up in the Australian senate.

 Senator JESSOP (South Australia) – “I also welcome the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980 and will make a few brief remarks about it. “ “The first article, entitled ‘World ecology is endangered’, is from the Melbourne Age of 16 April, and deals with an examination by a panel of internationally recognised scientists. They told the United States Congress: . . that the world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled. The second article is older, having been written on 28 February 1977. It is entitled ‘Heating Up: Global Race for Antarctic’s Riches’, [From U.S. News & World Report] and I wish to have only highlights of that article incorporated in Hansard.

Leave was granted.

Here’s the wikipedia picture of Jessop

DonJessop1968.jpg

Why this matters. 

We knew. The people who get elected to look after the future, who are paid to look after the future – they knew.

What happened next?

Jessop, who had raised the climate issue as early as 1973, was dropped by his own side-

Grattan, M. 1987 SA Libs demote Hill, drop Jessop. The Age, 9 June. p 3 Senator Jessop “is known for his independence and willingness to be outspoken”

Categories
Uncategorized

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

On May 19, 1997, 25 years ago, and months before the Kyoto meeting at which the world’s richest countries are supposed to agree binding emissions cuts, the Chief Executive Office of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, John Browne of BP, makes a speech at Stanford University.

This marks the end of the united anti-climate front of the oil majors, exemplified by the “Global Climate Coalition.”

Browne said, in part

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.” He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

You can read the whole thing on the Climate Files website.

And here’s the video.

What happened next

BP changed its logo.

Why this matters

Fracture points and critical junctures that turn out to… well, not matter as much as they seemed to. What can ya do?

See also

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”. (Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)

Categories
Science Scientists Uncategorized United States of America

May 18, 1976 – US congress begins hearings on #climate

“On May 18, 1976, the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere (of the Committee on Science and Technology) met under the chairmanship of Congressman George Brown (D., Calif.) for the first of 6 days of hearings on the subject of climate and related research”(Hecht, 1981).

The early-mid 70s had seen a series of droughts, crop failures, cold winters and generally weird weather. Public and policymaker interest/concern were all high. This quote below, from an excellent 2014 paper called “The Dilemma of Reticence” (Henderson, 2014) gives useful info.

“Given Schneider’s rise as one of the most visible climatologists in the United States, Rep. George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) asked him to testify soon after the publication of The Genesis Strategy in front of the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere.

Given an increased reliance of Americans on a stable climate, Schneider argued that increased climatic variability was taxing existing technological and agricultural systems to a breaking point. Aware of the deficiencies of current climate models to account for the complicated feedback mechanisms of the global climatic system, he testified that it was crucial to change the “political consciousness” of the United States and overcome the short-term perspective and whimsical interests of policy makers.

“The worst mismatch in the future I see is the political system, whether it socialist or capitalist or totalitarian or democratic … is to short-term issues,” he cautioned.

While he could not specifically address whether the climate would change for the worse in the near future, he did believe that climate change issues provided a “sort of last-ditch symbol” for governments to realize the importance of thinking on generational time-scales.”

The Genesis strategy (1976 edition) | Open Library

Why this matters

We really knew enough by the late 1970s to be seriously worried, and to act. That “we” didn’t become aware until the late 80s, and have NEVER acted, is only partly down to human willingness to ignore problems/procrastinate. There have been wildly successful campaigns to confuse, to delay. Oh well.

What happened next

Schneider and Brown kept on trucking. Schneider, a mensch, died in 2010, just when we needed him the most.