The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 311ppm. As of 2026, 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 Gilbert Plass had made a splash in 1953 and The New York Times was picking up on something that other papers had already covered, John Hutton’s speech, which you can read more about here.
What I think we can learn from this is that the New York Times was hungry for content and would pick up on what other newspapers had been reporting.
What happened next the Times kept reporting in 1956 and then under Walter Sullivan all through into the 1980s. The Times editorialised about the greenhouse effect, as we then called it in 1981 ran op-eds, and then kept running stories from 1988 onwards. We really cannot say we were not warned.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Seventy years ago, on this day, September 24th, 1956, the Baltimore Sun ran a p.24 article on “Carbon Dioxide Weather.”
It began “A growing group of American physicists is wondering whether the world’s warming up spell since 1900 may not become permanent, due to man’s own activities.”
It’s mostly based on Gilbert Plass, but also this
“Dr Joseph Kaplan, also formerly at the Hopkins and now at UCLA points out that the rate [of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere] is increasingly steeply with world industrialisation; he thinks the net addition may be as much as 175,000,000,000 tons in twenty years.”
FWIW, the amount of carbon dioxide being tipped into the air in 1976 was…18bn tonnes…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been some awareness of the world warming up, and also the various theories that might explain it. However, there was no real certainty, and there still wasn’t in ‘56. But what you had since 1953 was Gilbert Plass and others talking about carbon dioxide build-up as a likely reason.
Thespecificcontext was that the year before Fleming’s newspaper article John Hutton, the general electric engineer, had given a talk, which had been picked up by many American newspapers, Gilbert Plass was publishing and also Roger Revelle was using the possibility of carbon dioxide build up as a way of getting money out of the International Geophysical Year Fund funders, i.e. the US taxpayer. This was the Baltimore Sun, so Fleming had access to Plass, who was at Johns Hopkins – or had been – and the Baltimore Sun had covered Plass’s 1953 talks, so it would have been in the morgue.
What I think we can learn from this is that from the mid 1950s articles about carbon dioxide build up were appearing in newspapers, this was not a state secret.
What happened next Fleming wrote some more articles. The IGY happened. Carbon dioxide build-up was talked about in the 1950s. People knew.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 312ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been some awareness of the world warming up, and also the various theories that might explain it. However, there was no real certainty, and there still wasn’t in ‘56. But what you had since 1953 was Gilbert Plass and others talking about carbon dioxide build-up as a likely reason.
Thespecificcontext was that the year before Fleming’s newspaper article John Hutton, the general electric engineer, had given a talk, which had been picked up by many American newspapers, Gilbert Plass was publishing and also Roger Revelle was using the possibility of carbon dioxide build up as a way of getting money out of the International Geophysical Year Fund funders, i.e. the US taxpayer. This was the Baltimore Sun, so Fleming had access to Plass, who was at Johns Hopkins – or had been – and the Baltimore Sun had covered Plass’s 1953 talks, so it would have been in the morgue.
What I think we can learn from this is that from the mid 1950s articles about carbon dioxide build up were appearing in newspapers, this was not a state secret.
What happened next Fleming wrote some more articles. The IGY happened. Carbon dioxide build-up was talked about in the 1950s. People knew.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Sixty four years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1962,
“In a 1962 report by its international science panel, the PSAC recognized that “alteration of our environment has reached the point of requiring intensive study and understanding on an urgent basis.” Penned in unusual gravitas, the report stated that “never before has man had the power he now has to bring about changes, some of them irreversible, on a scale that can affect people in all parts of the world and that can cause major but indeterminate environmental changes.”145 The panel distinguished between two types of problematic large-scale experiments. The first related to actions that were individually small but whose compounded effects could be serious, and the continuous release of CO2 was cited as an example. The second category comprised nuclear tests, which were comparatively fewer, but had much larger consequences (or so it was thought at the time). The committee thus recommended that ecological factors be considered along the technological, military and scientific objectives….
“Interestingly, the PSAC called for a U.N. conference on “environmental contamination” exactly a decade before the first global environmental meeting took place in Stockholm in June 1972, under the auspices of the U.N. As a matter of fact, the PSAC report concluded: “We urge active consideration of this proposal for a UN conference, especially in the light of what we believe to be an important need for the United States to be a leader on this issue instead of sometimes appearing to be one of the chief offenders.”147
144 E. B. Skolnikoff, PSAC, “International Science Panel: The Problem with Large-Scale Experimentation with Possible Environmental Effects,” 20 Sept 1962,
Loetscher Audrey, 2022. A History of Unsustainability: The U.S. Government, the Fossil Fuel Industry, and Climate Change ( 1957 -1992). PhD Thesis
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. As of 2026, 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 concern about the possible consequences of industrialization were growing. There had already been the invention of the word “fall out” thanks to the (un)Lucky Dragon. There had been the pesticides and cranberries incident of 1959. There had been Rachel Carson’s articles in The New Yorker that were causing one hell of a storm as this came out, and there were fears about H-bomb tests setting fire to the atmosphere and even the planet being knocked off its orbit.
Thespecificcontext was that the PSAC, which had been set up in the aftermath of Sputnik, was beginning to join the dots.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are beneath the headlines, behind the scenes, people beavering away. They are shoved on stage, blinking for their line or two lines, and then they are hooked off stage.
What happened next Roger Revelle and others were looking at carbon dioxide build-up and this was one of the issues that got into Johnson’s mouth in February of 1965, and the PSAC report was released in November of ‘65.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1968,
“Life on earth exists in a thin layer of soil, water and atmosphere near the surface of the planet. All parts of this sphere of live are intricately related, and knowledge about this subject has come belatedly to mankind…. THe growing study of environment is trying to determine in what extent man’s future may depend upon the continuance on earth of other species.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2026, 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 the consequences of industrialization on food chains, on the air quality, water quality, etc. had been becoming more apparent, in part thanks to books like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Murray Bookchin’s Cities in Crisis, and so forth.
The reports about environmental damage were growing, and here we see a newspaper editorialising…
What we learn is that a sense of foreboding and concern was growing even in the late 60s, and again, as I’ve said elsewhere, a cynic might say that environmental concern is a way for people to criticise the American power elite without mentioning Vietnam, and therefore becoming one of the hated lily-livered weaklings, etc.
What happened next in January of 1969 the Santa Barbara oil spill really marked the beginning of the modern environment movement, and within all of that, awareness of carbon dioxide build-up as a problem was most definitely there in the mix, not just among the scientists and the hippies, but also government officials.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
There’s a classic clip from a 2014 episode of the TV show “The Newsroom” that I end up reposting every now and then. An “EPA” administrator is invited onto the show to discuss a just-released report about climate change and its possible impacts. The anchordroid, played by Jeff Daniels, gets a bit more than he bargained for.
Anyway, thanks to the wonders of the Youtube algorithm I just noticed something that had been purloined-lettering for a while.
Take a look at the actor they hired to play the administrator.
It MAY just be a coincidence. In fact, it almost certainly is: I mean, middle-aged white men all look the same, amirite? And of course they’ll be wearing the suit and tie, signifiers of Sober Responsibility (and ‘professionalism’).
But I wonder – I like to think – that whoever was casting the role had Sagan in mind. Who knows?
One hundred and fourteen years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1912, an article based on a book by American geologist Charles Richard Van Hise (May 29, 1857 – November 19, 1918) appears…
Lincoln Journal Star (Lincoln, Nebraska) · Wed, 11 Sept 1912 · Page 5
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 295ppm. As of 2026, 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 in 1895 Svante Arrhenius had given his lecture and written his article for the Philosophical Magazine. It had had some impact, but not necessarily that much.
Thespecificcontext was that, well, see it acknowledged that C H. V. Van Hise had been writing about this and that it had appeared in geography textbooks without anyone raising an eyebrow.
What I think we can learn from this It was simple, straightforward 19th century physics. It wasn’t part of a culture war. It was just accepted.
What happened next Van Hise died in 1918. In 1938 Guy Callendar gave the CO2 theory a big push, and in 1953 Gilbert Plass gave it an even biger one.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Twenty five years ago, on this day, September 10th, 2001,
US President George “Dubya” Bush asks Australian Prime Minister John Howard “will you side with US or go with Europe on Kyoto”
Manne in ‘Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead’ (2008, P28).
(says Guy Pearse was told by well-placed source)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2026, 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 in the late 1980s the Americans had decided to stake out a position on climate that was basically “fuck you” to the entire world except their bezzies, the petro-states of the Middle East. Australia had initially been alongside the middle powers advocating for more action, but then they took a look at the amount of money they were making from exporting coal and how climate goals would upset the domestic apple cart, and they said “yeah, nah.” The president from ‘88 to ‘92 was George H. W. Bush, who had won the ‘88 election fair and square (give or take a little light race-baiting), which is more than you can say about his son, President George W. Bush in 2000.
Thespecificcontext was that Bush had already pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, and it was fairly clear that John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, was minded to do the same, but he had an election coming up and wasn’t going to make the announcement before that. Howard was on a trip to the United States, and this exchange happened according to one source at this time.
What I think we can learn from this It’s not too late to get John Howard and George W. Bush to The Hague for crimes against humanity.
What happened next Well, the next day was September 11th, 2001.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Fifty two years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1974,
The SR-71 Blackbird sets (and holds) the record for flying from New York to London in the time of 1 hour, 54 minutes and 56.4 seconds at a speed of 1,435.587 miles per hour (2,310.353 km/h).
Dromology, Virilio etc
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 329ppm. As of 2026, 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 humans have been fascinated with flight and speed for a long time, certainly long before they could do it quicker than a galloping horse or camel. They had broken the speed of sound in level flight with Chuck Yeager in 1947 and here we see a spy plane, the Blackbird moving with very, very fast.
What I think we can learn from this is that your speed is all you’ll ever need, all you’ll ever need to know.
See also Paul Virilio and the concept of dromology.
What happened next – oh, we’re into hypersonic weapons now…
xxx
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Thirty-seven years ago, on this day, August 26th,1989,
“Top Soviet and American scientists, environmentalists, policymakers, industry leaders and artists today urged President Bush and President Mikhail S. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union to form an “environmental security alliance” to reverse what they fear could be a catastrophic warming of the planet.”
“The gathering urged that the superpowers promote energy-efficient technology and phase out production and use of clorofluorocarbons no later than the year 2000. The group said the countries should “substantially reduce” carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the loss of forests and promote tree planting world wide. Participants asked that the two leaders appeal directly to their citizens to help.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2026, 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 Soviet scientists had been talking about carbon dioxide build-up for as long as American ones, pretty much (it’s only 19th century physics, after all).
Thespecificcontext was that Gorbachev had taken over the boss job in 1985, and his “pereistroika” and “glasnost” quickly ran up against various awkward realities around the culture the Bolsheviks had created, the lagging behind the US etc (so much for “we will bury you”). He was also spectacularly unlucky – Chernobyl basically killed it all off, though the whole thing staggered on for a few more years. Anyway, in 1988 the Soviet top diplomat had been suggesting a kind of one world Eco-government body. That did not fly, obvs.
What I think we can learn from this is that the scientists knew what was at stake, how quickly action needed to happen.
What happened next – in the second half of 1991, the Soviet Union finally disintegrated, gone like a fist when you open your palm.
Meanwhile, the problem of carbon dioxide emissions (it’s broader than that, obvs) continued to grow…
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
Reinhold, R. 1989. Summit of Sorts on Global Warming. New York Times, August 27.
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 412ppm. As of 2026, 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 business lobbies have always regarded environmental concerns as at best an impediment, and at worst part of an International Communist Conspiracy. Business lobbies tend to be made up of today’s successful enterprises, the insurgents chasing new technologies and new production methods don’t have the financial muscle or the spare capacity to form effective lobbying groups, and if they do, that effective lobbying group will probably get taken over by the big powerful actors wanting to make sure that nothing happens.
In the early 1970s Milton Friedman had dismissed environmental concerns by saying that they would be solved under a regime of private ownership. Friedman was well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, and I can say this confidently, because he corresponded with William Barbert, and his correspondence was published in an issue of the CO2 Newsletter. And his Friedman doctrine had basically been “greed is good and everything will work out if we just let the rich people do whatever they think is best.” This is demented. This is hardly new, but it has been at various times convenient for people, not just the rich, to believe. Let me talk to you someday about how most academics are basically the equivalent of monks arguing about angels on the head of a fucking pin.
The specific context. So why did this happen in 2019. I think the Business Roundtable realised that they were doing themselves some reputational damage by failing to pretend to give a shit, and you get this, you get business lobby groups knowing that they have to look sane and reasonable if they want to be effective. See, for example, the Australian Mining Industry Council having to change both its tune and its name after it went in so hard against the Mabo decision on Aboriginal land rights in 1992.
What I think we can learn from this
xxx
What happened next
I’ll have to look and see if the Business Roundtable has suddenly endorsed Greta Thunberg. Somehow I doubt it.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
