Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

January 18, 1972 – Plastic is in your blood..

Fifty three years ago, on this day, January 18th, 1972, the Washington Post runs a story, well

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Stockholm climate conference was coming. Eeryone was still therefore very aerated about  environmental issues, generally.

Plastics were on a kind of  similar trajectory as DDT. They’d gone from wondrous scientific, technological gift in the 1950s “Better Living Through Technology” to something regarded as potentially or actually dangerous. And the generational shift here is, of course, captured in the scene from the film The Graduate where Benjamin Braddock’s father’s friend, Mr McGuire,says “One Word. Plastics!”

 But here we are with plastic even being found in the blood. It turns out, as per Barry Commoner and his laws of ecology, “there is no ‘away.’” 

What I think we can learn from this is that these problems, these dangers, have been with us for two generations or awareness of them, but some of them are simply too hard to solve. DDT could be erased like the CFCs that were depleting the ozone. BUt carbon dioxide could not, and neither could plastics. 

What happened next

Plastics continued to be everywhere in every sense. Oceans are full of them. They’re in the clouds, and we have doomed ourselves. So it goes. 

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: 

January 18, 1964 – Nature mentions atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up

January 18, 1993 – Australian unions and greenies launch first “Green Jobs” campaign

January 18, 1993 – Job’s not a good un. “Green Jobs in Industry Plan” achieves … nothing. #auspol

Categories
United States of America

January 15, 1981 – US calls for efforts to combat global environmental problems

Forty four years ago, on this day, January 15th, 1981,

The Carter Administration called today for a major, sustained national and international effort to cope with what it said were ”increasingly critical global resource, environmental and population problems.”

A report prepared jointly for the President by the State Department and the Council on Environmental Quality warned that excessive world population growth, dwindling resources and environmental degradation represent serious threats to the political and economic security of the United States.

Shabecoff, Philip (1981). “U.S. Calls for Efforts To Combat Global Environmental Problems.” New York Times, January 15

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the people with a green tinge in Carter’s administration, mostly, but not entirely, huddled in the Council for Economic Quality, had tried to get environmental issues to the fore, despite being told by Carter’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press to ignore the carbon dioxide issue. 

Carter had lost the November, 1980 election comprehensively. Everyone knew that Reagan was not a fan of environmental issues. He wasn’t even aware of the Global 2000 report, and therefore this was a desperate last effort, perhaps to say to other nations “hold on. We’ll be back in hopefully four years.” It would, of course, be a bit longer than that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs within these systems have to try to save the furniture, that you can never look at an individual news item without thinking about the broader context. 

What happened next

 Reagan’s goons went too hard too fast, and there was pushback against them, so people like James Watt and Gail and Gorsuch became hate figures and had to be removed, and as per McCright and Dunlap, what the right have largely learned is to keep the edifice and maybe even some of the rhetoric, if you like, but to gut everything from the inside in terms of funding. I. And powers and so forth and so it continues down unto this day you. 

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:

Categories
United States of America

January 13, 1967 – crucial editorial in Science – “Man is changing the earth’s atmosphere…”

Fifty eight years ago, on this day, January 13th, 1967, the editor of the most prestigious American scientific journal, Science, writes about the carbon dioxide threat,

“Man is changing the earth’s atmosphere.  Most obvious is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that almost exactly two years before Lyndon Johnson, President of the United States, had made an address to Congress that included mention of CO2 build up. And in the intervening period, there had been a report in November 1965  by the President’s Scientific Advisory Panel Council and other reports. Abelson, who had trained as a nuclear physicist, clearly had his finger on the pulse (part of the job spec for editor of the premier scientific journal in the United States!) 

What we learn is that at the beginning of 1967, readers of the journal Science would have been aware of this as a potential issue. Now, it turns out that the estimates of temperature increase were vastly overblown, overstated. The word could is doing a lot of work. Nonetheless, it shows us that this was an issue that scientific political elites were aware of. 

What happened next  Ableson did keep talking about CO2. So for example, there’s him at a symposium later that year. 

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:

January 13, 1965 – President Lyndon Johnson gets a memo about carbon dioxide build-up and climate change

January 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading

January 13, 2005- UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change  

ps – from Wikipeia-

Abelson was outspoken and well known for his opinions on science. In a 1964 editorial published in Science magazine, Abelson identified overspecialization in science as a form of bigotry. He outlined his view that the pressure towards specialization beginning in undergraduate study and intensifying in PhD programs leads students to believe that their area of specialization is the most important, even to the extreme view that other intellectual pursuits are worthless. He reasoned that such overspecialization led to obsolescence of one’s work, often through a focus on trivial aspects of a field, and that avoidance of such bigotry was essential to guiding the direction of one’s work.[7]

Categories
United States of America

January 13, 1965 – President Lyndon Johnson gets a memo about carbon dioxide build-up and climate change

Sixty years ago, on this day, January 13, 1965, Lyndon Johnson got a memo about environmental problems, including carbon dioxie buildup. We know this thanks to the sterling investigative work of Rebecca John, writing for DeSmog. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 320ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that US scientists, including Roger Revelle and Charles Dave Keeling had been measuring and pondering. A couple of years before this  memo, in March 1963 the Rockefeller-funded Conservation Foundation had held a meeting on carbon dioxide build-up.  The following year Revelle had chaired a group looking at environmental problems (the group included Margaret Mead!).  

What I think we can learn from this is that the information was getting to the very top quite quickly.

What happened next

A month after the memo, LBJ gave a special address to Congress on environmental problems included a mention of C02 build up

Two years to the day later an editorial appeared in Science pointing to … carbon dioxide as a 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.

Also on this day: 

January 13, 2004 – Bob Carr rallies states for emissions trading

January 13, 2005- UN Secretary-General calls for “decisive measures” on climate change

January 13, 2021 – New Scientist reports on types of intelligence required to deal with #climate change   

Categories
Air Pollution Canada United States of America

January 11, 1909 – Boundary Object(ions).

One hundred and sixteen years ago, on this day, January 11th, 1909, a deal on international pollution gets inked.,

Since early in this century the Consolidated Mining-and Smelting Company of Canada, Ltd., has operated a smelter for refining lead and zinc at Trail, B.C., in the Columbia River Valley. The plant is seven miles (eleven miles along the river channel) north of the international boundary line between Canada and the United States. As the capacity of the plant increased through the years, its emissions of SO2 increased correspondingly. Between 1924 and 1926 the amount doubled, and beginning in 1925 damage to crops in the Columbia River Valley south of the border became serious enough for the United States to request indemnity and corrective action.

The claim for damages was referred in 1928 to the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, under Article IX of the Convention of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain.’ 

page 23-4 of Neiburger, Morris. (1973). International Aspects of Air Pollution. Stanford Journal of International Studies, 8, 16-30. 

Boundary Waters and Questions Arising along the Boundary with Canada, January 11 , 19o9, art. IX, 36 Stat. 2448, 2452 [9igog T.S. 548

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 299ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US and Great Britain, who had fought various wars against each other and were apparently close again in 15 years before this, signe an agreement about boundary issues. This treaty that was invoked much later, 15 years later, because of a giant Canadian smelter causing environmental problems in the US. Now this is really obviously very obscure, and I only found it via a Google Scholar search for “January 11” and “greenhouse effect”. But what it tells us, what we learn, is that trans boundary air pollution has been on the agenda in the courts, etc, since, well, for 100 years, at least, 

What happened next? Well, I didn’t know how that was resolved. I do know that in 1971 the Nixon government was thinking about imposing a tax on sulfur emissions, and of course, emissions trading, using the example of The Clean Air Act of 1990 has held us up for a long time as a really small policy solution to much bigger, transformative issues. 

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: 

Jan 11, 1964 -: The Merchants of Doubt have work to do

January 11, 1970 – A new Ice Age on its way?

January 11, 2010 – Bad news study about trees and the warming Arctic…

Categories
United States of America

January 4, 2005 – Senator James Inhofe exemplifies denialist bullshit

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 4th, 2005, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) was at it again…

To cite one of innumerable examples – provided by realclimate.org – during a speech given at the opening senate session on January 4, 2005, Inhofe said: “we are (…) in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age”, which was a reference to the novelist Michael Crichton and contradicts all published scientific papers, including the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report, which states that human activities are having a significant influence on our changing climate.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame

Senator Inhofe on Climate Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 379ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, after a brief period of agreement, largely that the greenhouse effect was a serious issue, the Republican Party had by the early 90s fallen largely into step with the fossil fuel and industrial interests it used to fully represent, and said that this was another liberal hoax.

You can read about the ways that the culture war started in the late Ross Gelbspan’s two books, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle over Earth’s Threatened Climate, and then later The Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis–And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster

What I think we can learn from this is that old white men have a heft their words, no matter how demented are given far more credence because of their positions, often

What happened next

Inhofe kept being Inhofe, until he died in July 2024. The emissions kept climbing and in and our fate is sealed. To be honest, it was probably sealed already before 20 years ago,

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: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

January 4, 1982 – Global 2000 Report updated
Categories
United States of America

January 1, 1970 – President Nixon says 1970s is the critical environmental decade – “It is literally now or never.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, January 1st, 1970, President Richard Nixon released a statement about the National Environmental Policy Act.

IT IS particularly fitting that my first official act in this new decade is to approve the National Environmental Policy Act.

The past year has seen the creation of a President’s Cabinet committee on environmental quality,1 and we have devoted many hours to the pressing problems of pollution control, airport location, wilderness preservation, highway construction, and population trends.

1The Environmental Quality Council, established May 29, 1969, by Executive Order 11472 and renamed the Cabinet Committee on the Environment on March 5, 1970, by Executive Order 11514.

By my participation in these efforts I have become further convinced that the 1970’s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.  https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-about-the-national-environmental-policy-act-1969

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the Sixties there had been growing alarm at “localised” forms of pollution (air, water etc).  The climate issue was there in the background, slowly growing, as demonstrated by many posts on this site.  By 1968 the global problems – of population growth, resource use and air pollution – were becoming common knowledge.  There had been repeated efforts to get legislation, at a national level. Finally in 1969 these efforts bore fruit.  Meanwhile, Nixon was trying to use environmental problems to get the Europeans talking about, well, anything except Vietnam.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians will say whatever is convenient, and people who want to believe will believe.

What happened next

1970 also saw the Council on Environmental Quality’s first report (with a climate chapter, written by Gordon MacDonald).  The first big wave of global “eco-concern” basically peaked in 1972 with the Stockholm Conerence on the Human Environment.  The 1970s were not the decade Nixon said they needed to be. Oops.

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: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Media Science Scientists United States of America

December 29, 1972 – Schneider meets Sullivan

Fifty two years ago, on this day, December 29th, 1972,

In Baltimore in December 1972 I gave a talk on the issue of human weather control to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). AAAS meetings are internationally known because they bring together research scientists and policy makers to discuss the societal implications of new knowledge…. After speaking for half an hour or so, on how various kinds of human activities could change the climate, I concluded that, unfortunately, only a relatively few people were aware of the possibilities. I then quipped: “Nowadays, everybody is doing something with the weather, but nobody is talking about it.”

At the front of the audience, a distinguished-looking gentleman was taking notes: he turned out to be the doyen of all science writers, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times….

Sullivan, W. 1972. Goals for US Urged on Weather Control. New York Times, Dec 29, p.50.

(Schneider, 1989: 200)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider is perhaps being a little naive here, because he’d already made headlines the previous year, thanks to a paper that he had co-written that had talked about the possibility of an ice age thanks to all the dust and smoke that was being put up. That paper turned out to be wrong and was used as a club by denialists to hit Schneider over the head with it for the rest of his life. Because that’s who they are. As for Sullivan, he had been aware of the CO2 possibility at the latest 1961 but much more likely, by 1957; he had after all written a book about the International Geophysical Year. 

What we learn is that by the early 1970s carbon dioxide buildup as a problem was getting more attention. There had been an article earlier the same year in May I want to say 1972 in The New York Times. There was of course by now, the United Nations Environment Program setting up shop. 

What happened next: The carbon dioxide build-up issue kept getting random reports all through the 1970s. Only in 1988 did it finally punch through.

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 29, 1969 – AAAS symposium on “Climate and Man”

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

Categories
Energy United States of America

December 23, 1973 – Solar Patent issued..

Fifty one years ago, on this day, December 23rd, 1973,

5. P. E. Glaser, “Method and Apparatus for Converting Solar Radiation to Electrical Power,” United States Patent 3,781,647, December 23, 1973.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Glaser had been aware of carbon dioxide build up at least since 1967. Possibly significantly earlier than that. He had mentioned it at a 1967 Solar Energy Conference in Tucson, Arizona and he had been talking about space satellites and microwave energy since ‘68. And here was his patent. 

What we learn is that smart people were knocking out actual plausible technofixes. 

What happened next? The idea of space-based systems was later used, I think, by the Reagan administration apparatchiks to undercut and undermine land-based systems. We should, of course, have had both. If we were smart species, that’s what we would have done. But we’re not a smart species. We are a technologically adept species, but that is distinct from being smart. And here we are with the emissions still rising. 

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 23, 2003 – Vestas opens Tasmanian wind turbine factory

December 23, 2009 – Kevin Rudd told to call double-dissolution #climate election… (spoiler – he didn’t)

Categories
United States of America

December 20, 1969 – AGU on climate change…

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1969,

By contrast, the first reference to “global warming” doesn’t appear in Google’s archives until the end of the next decade. This Dec. 20, 1969 story by United Press International headlined “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution” is the first in Google News’s archives to unambiguously use the phrase “global warming” to describe the phenomena. https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:

J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had held a seminar in 1968. And the American Meteorological Society held one in October 1969. The RAND Corporation had done a piece on fossil fuels, and that was being reported at this meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which readers will remember, is the same place that Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass made his bombshell announcement in 1953. It was one of the first times (and probably the first) that “global warming” was referred to in the press. 

What we learn is that there is a finite number of venues for influential commentary on the science of all this. The AGU was one AAAS was another. 

What happened next? As the 60s turned into the 70s it became less surprising to find carbon dioxide build-up mentioned as a potential environmental problem. Already in the same neck of the woods in San Francisco 9 months earlier there had been “teach-ins” about the issues – about ecology, People’s Park and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, we knew. 

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 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…