Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

July 1, 1983 – Bucky Fuller dies

Forty three years ago, on this day, July  1st, 1983, Bucky Fuller died.

Richard Buckminster Fuller Jr. (/ˈfʊlər/; July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)[1] was an American architect, systems theorist, writer, designer, inventor, philosopher, and futurist. He styled his name as R. Buckminster Fuller in his writings, publishing more than 30 books and coining or popularizing such terms as “Spaceship Earth“, “Dymaxion” (e.g., Dymaxion house, Dymaxion car, Dymaxion map), “ephemeralization“, “synergetics“, and “tensegrity“.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. 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 Fuller, along with Lewis Mumford, was one of those ‘he’s a kinda interesting thinker’ people I was encountering in my teens and early 20s (mis-spent and long long gone youth) – as per Terry Pratchett, “inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened.” 

In her wonderful book Wholly Round Rasa Gustaitis has a really good section on Fuller.

You can read a memoir of hers here – https://www.rasagustaitis.com/blog/blog-post-title-two-5yhzl-y6xwt-ysw2w-zgnfk-3ynym-yra8g-k6pln-h694d-bhmme-3reey-whjes-4g5bl-mtscb-eplya-2gjah-4lxxw-ksl6n

Meanwhile, Buckminsterfullerines get a run in the brilliant film Robinson in Space.

What I think we can learn from this

Fuller, Mumford, Gregory Bateson, Stafford Beer, Ursula Le Guin, Donatella Meadows, Ilya Prigonine and the rest of the systems people deserve more of my attention.

What happened next

Somebody set up a Buckminster Fuller Institute.

 There is also this – https://www.buckyverse.org/en/a_fuller_explanation/index

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).

Also on this day: 

July 1, 1950 – “Is the World Getting Warmer?” asks Saturday Evening Post

July 1, 1957- A key “year” in climate science begins…

July 1, 1959 – Gilbert Plass article on climate change published in Scientific American

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

July 1, 1984 – CSIRO film “What to do about C02?”

July 1, 1999 – GEODISC gets green light 

Categories
United States of America

June 26, 1988 – CBS News tries to raise the alarm

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1988, 

The Inside Sunday edition of the CBS Evening News for June 26, 1988 featured a very unusual eight-minute environmental story that led with the greenhouse effect, linking it to the high temperatures of the 1980s. The Goddard Institute’s David Rind and climatologist Thomas Karl warned of future warming and discussed the need to decrease the production of carbon dioxide.

(Sachsman, 2000: 5)

starts at 14m45secs

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that various news networks, especially CBS, had been broadcasting clips on the greenhouse effect repeatedly. There was one in 1980 and then in response to various congressional hearings, especially in 1982-1983. This was nothing particularly new, except in the length of it (8 minutes is a long time in TV-land).

The specific context was that three days earlier, in the midst of a heat wave and a drought, James Hansen had said to journalists after a meeting, after giving evidence to the Senate inquiry, that “it was time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect was here.” This had been broadcast around the world.

What I think we can learn is this: the media has. Indeed tried to alert us. It’s the rain falling on hard surfaces and just running away. 

What happened next: The media continued to cover the story with more or less accuracy and ethics over the coming years. An important one to remember is the September l88 incident where Stephen Schneider is not invited on because they want someone who’s going to make even more “alarmist.” And you’ve also got Australian science journalist Robyn Williams talking about how they’ll have to be the backlash stories. But that’s science is not a matter of opinion like this, you fucking muppets. And then, crucially, the denialists learn to exploit journalistic norms for their own purposes – “Balance as Bias”, as Boykoff and Boykoff put it. 

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).

Also on this day: 

June 26, 1975 – Denialist Richard Scorer being stupid

June 26, 1986 – Australian Environment Council schooled on climate

June 26, 1986 – “our children will grow old  in a world that fragmenting and disintegrating.”

June 26, 1988 – it’s SHOWTIME for climate…

June 26, 1991 “environment is not flavor of the month any more” 

June 26, 1992 – BCA versus reality (BCA wins in the short-term) – 

June 26, 2009 – Impact on cartoonists 

Categories
United States of America

June 24, 1969 – Ominous Veil reported

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, June 24th, 1969 a Californian newspaper syndicates an article entitled “Air Pollution Hangs Like an Ominous Veil”

“Moreover, his dumping of carbon dioxide into the air (six billion tons a year) threatens to change the climate and may indeed already have changed it.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 for this was that from late 1965, with the release of the President’s Science Advisory Committee report on Restoring the Natural Environment, the question of carbon dioxide had been appearing alongside other, more immediate and prominent pollutants.

What I think we can learn is this: by 1969, you could rely on carbon dioxide to appear in any lengthy article about global pollution. 

What happened next: 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

January 27, 1967 –  Time Magazine talks carbon dioxide build-up

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

References

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).

Also on this day: 

June 24, 1974 – Conference on “Science and Technology for Human Development” opens in Bucharest

June 24, 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis”

June 24, 2004 – UN Global Compact Summit in New York, launches ESG in “Who Cares Wins” report

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway 

June 24, 2010 – Large and small renewables

Categories
Kyoto Protocol United States of America

June 23, 1997 – API versus the planet (spoiler: API wins)

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997

American Petroleum Institute US newspaper advert in run up to Senate Vote, addressed to Clinton…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. 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 for this was that the American Petroleum Institute had been funding research into atmospheric pollution for a loooong time – see Rebecca John’s New Evidence Reveals Fossil Fuel Industry Sponsored Climate Science in 1954. And from 1965 onwards, the API knew, but then so did everyone, because Lyndon Johnson’s PSAC committee had released a report called “Restoring the Natural Environment”, and the API president had name-checked it in a speech in 1965. 

The API had then been involved in a carbon dioxide task force in 1980 along with Texaco Chevron and Exxon. The API knew about the issue. And the API did what Texas Exxon did, which is resist action on climate change.The API will also have been involved, I’m sure, in the Global Climate Coalition. 

The specific context was that the US had signed up to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, and had also agreed to the Berlin mandate in 1995 which said that the world’s industrialised nations would turn up at the third COP with concrete plans for reducing their own emissions. 

That conference, the Kyoto conference, was due to be held in December of 1997 and a proper shit storm of propaganda and legislative blocking had been underway. I.e.he Byrd-Hagel resolution, which had passed 95 to zero, further efforts to fire warning shots across Clinton’s bows, and this, of course, was after Clinton had won his election against Bob Dole in 1996.Clinton had then given a speech at the Great Barrier Reef shortly after being re-elected.

What I think we can learn is this: is that the API has been a force for evil for a very long time, as you’d expect. 

What happened next: Although the US turned up to Kyoto and made the right noises, in 2000 the Supreme Court handed the election to George W Bush; and Al Gore therefore did not become President. It would have been a little bit more interesting on climate if he had, possibly not that much more interesting though.

Anyhoos, the API kept doing what the API does. We as a species, kept burning fossil fuels, for warmth, for locomotion, for light, for you, name it, convenience. 

And therefore the emissions continued to grow, and therefore the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow, and therefore the amount of heat from the sun trapped by that carbon dioxide continued to grow, and therefore the ice caps continued to melt, and the heat waves continued to become sharper, and all the other consequences that flow on from that. 

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).

Also on this day: 

June 23, 1969 – Cuyahoga river catches fire. Again –

June 23, 1980 – G7 in Venice aims to sink Venice…

June 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

June 23, 1989 – Richo gonna save the world… 

June 23, 1991 – Japanese propose pledge and review 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world 

June 23, 1997 – RIP Hermann Flohn

Categories
United States of America

June 10, 2005 – Fossil fuel lobbyist/censor in the White House resigns, gets job with Exxon

Twenty one years ago, on this day, June 10th, 2005, Phil Cooney resigns as chief of staff of Council on Environmental Quality

Cooney joined the George W. Bush administration when he was appointed chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality. On June 10, 2005, Cooney announced his resignation, two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that from the mid-late 1970s Exxon had been looking at carbon dioxide build up, and they had formed relationships with people like Wally Broecker, the famed oceanographer. And there’s an entire website called “Exxon Knew” which is where you can download documents released during court cases which show that Exxon’s scientists were warning the executives of the dangers ahead and indeed. Exxon’s predictions of what CO2 concentrations would be and what temperatures would be were remarkably accurate. However, in the mid 1980s Exxon made a conscious choice that they would resist climate action because it would hurt their profits, and so they then funded various climate denialist groups, became a founding  member of the Global Climate Coalition, which successfully scuppered climate action between 1989 and 2002.

The specific context was that George W. Bush was in the White House for a second term, and he had won this one fair and square (Well, no, he had swiftboated John Kerry, but he hadn’t needed his supreme court justice mates who’d been appointed by his dad to hand him the election the way they had in 2000). Anyhoos, a scandal had broken because it was obvious that the Council on Environmental Quality, which had been set up in 1970 under Nixon to provide environment advice, was soft-pedalling and watering down warnings from actual scientists. Somebody had leaked it and Cooney had then resigned.

What I think we can learn is this: the assholes try to cover all the bases. They usually succeed.

What happened next: Exxon continued to be assholes. The following year, the Royal Society took the quite unusual step of issuing a public letter to Exxon asking them to stop funding climate denial. Exxon didn’t. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

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).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1961 – Nature report on “Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems” 

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address 

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” 

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms 

June 10, 2019 – a booming market for hydrogen….

Categories
United States of America

June 9, 1979 – New York Times covers climate change – “Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1979, the Grey Lady made herself useful… 

Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists – The New York Times

  • By Philip Shabecoff; Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 8 — It is invisible, odorless and poses no immediate threat to human health. Government policies to combat air pollution ignore it completely: But the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is arousing growing alarm among scientists and environmentalists and could impede this country’s efforts to solve its energy problems.

Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a gas released by the burning of fossil fuels. Burning oil produces carbon dioxide, and burning coal produces even more. Unlike other gases released into the air by combustion, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide, or dust particles, it does not make people sick or reduce visibility.

The Government, therefore, has not regarded carbon dioxide as a pollutant and, aside from one small research operation in the Department of Energy, has not paid any attention to it.

Concerned for 20 Years

But that research office recently issued an interim report that stated, “It is the sense of the scientific community that carbon dioxide from unrestrained combustion of fossil fuels is potentially the most important environmental issue facing mankind.”

Scientists have been concerned with the increasing carbon dioxide in the air for the last 20 years. But in the absence of any hard evidence about the consequences of its presence, the issue was more for speculation and the Sunday supplements than for Governmental action.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that the New York Times had been reporting intermittently carbon dioxide buildup since 1953 under then reporter Waldemar Kaempfert, and had picked up the wire service report in 1955 of the GE scientist John Hutton giving testimony. This reporter, Walter Sullivan, was pretty famous. He’d written a book about the International Geophysical Year and was fully aware of carbon dioxide build up. In 1972 he had met Stephen Schneider, and presumably the two had stayed in touch. And here we are. 

The specific context was that by this stage, the Department of Energy, I think, from when it was still called the ERDA had been holding conferences and to a lesser extent, releasing reports about carbon dioxide build up. (That reluctance to release reports had been the final spur for William Barbat, btw.)

What I think we can learn is this: Really by the late 1970s this issue of CO2 build up was not controversial in that people admitted it was happening and that it could cause problems. There wasn’t really, yet an active, coherent denialist lobby. 

What happened next: In August of 1981 Sullivan wrote up a study led by James Hansen, it was front page news in the New York Times, and it had two interesting consequences. One is that the New York Times editorialised on CO2 to build up, and the other that Hansen found his funding withdrawn for a grant that had already been issued. That was how the Reagan administration did things. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

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).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1966 – Lovelock’s report 

June 9, 1967 – New York Times reports on temperature drop… 

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

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

June 9, 2010 – Gina’s protest 

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

June 8, 1953 – two tornadoes and atomic testing… 

Seventy three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 

“Flint-Worcester Tornado Outbreak Sequence.” On 8 and 9 June 1953, two of the deadliest tornadoes in US history destroyed their eponymous towns in Michigan and Massachusetts. 

https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/tornado-was-not-bombs-child-politics-extreme-weather-age-atmospheric-nuclear-weapons-testing

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that after World War Two, with its enormous technological advances, including atomic bombs, but also jet engine development, radar, sonar, you name it, the idea that you could control the weather was becoming plausible. In 1946 there had been a secret meeting about weather modification (that, two days later, had ended up on the front page of The New York Times). And there was all sorts of talk about deliberately melting ice caps, etc, etc. There was huge public alarm at atomic bombs and also hydrogen bombs, which were a thing by this stage. 

The specific context was that there had been atmospheric atomic bomb tests in New Mexico, a week earlier, and now these two tornadoes. People took the boffins at their word and said that it was possible to influence the weather. 

What I think we can learn is this: your rhetoric of control will be heard, and then you will be held responsible or blamed for stuff that you actually didn’t do, couldn’t have done. 

What happened next: There was an attempt to hold hearings about possible influences of the atomic bombs. This attempt to hold hearings was defeated, but the scepticism and the concern about where the control continued.

“Growing demands that the AEC be held accountable for the disaster prompted a Massachusetts congressional representative, Edith Rogers, to file a resolution calling for a congressional inquiry. The House Committee on Armed Services held a hearing to consider Rogers’s motion on 23 June [1953], in which statements from all the branches of the Armed Forces, the Federal Civil Defense Agency, and USWB unanimously agreed that there was no connection between the two. The committee denied the motion.” https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/tornado-was-not-bombs-child-politics-extreme-weather-age-atmospheric-nuclear-weapons-testing

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

December 9, 1955 – Tribune writes on carbon dioxide and Weather Control

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).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1981- “the First Detection of Carbon Dioxide Effect” workshop begins – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1990 – Greenpeace versus the polluters – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Science United States of America

June 6, 1957 – CO2 build up studied by Charles David Keeling

On this day, June 6th, 1957, Charles Keeling submits a paper.

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Volume 13, Issue 4, 1958, Pages 322-334 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 

The concentration and isotopic abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide in rural areas 

Charles D Keeling ∗ Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California U.S.A. Received 6 June 1957,   https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(58)90033-4 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm.  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 for this was that after World War Two, it became possible to study the world with more precision and broader scope, thanks to radar, sonar, jet engines etc.

The specific context was that in 1950 the idea of an International Geophysical Year was proposed. And also by the mid 50s, people like Gilbert place, Charles Keeling, Roger Revelle and the Swedes, Ericsson and Rossby and so forth, were talking about carbon dioxide build up as a possible influence on the atmosphere, and this submission of this paper is part of that context. 

What I think we can learn is this: by the mid-late 50s, it was obvious that CO2 was indeed building up and that some people could foresee that there might be serious trouble ahead. 

What happened next: 

Four months after this, Sputnik was launched…

Roger Revelle was able to shake the money tree and get funding for measurement of carbon dioxide build-up, with stations in Hawaii and Antarctica (it was not necessarily expected that global levels would be increasing).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang – All Our Yesterdays 

References

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).

Also on this day: 

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?” – All Our Yesterdays

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Categories
Activism United States of America

May 29, 2025 – Daughter sues Exxon for mother’s heat death

One year ago, on this day, May 29th, 2025,

May 29 2025 case filed against Exxon etc by daughter of woman who died of hyperthermia in 2021 heat dome – https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2025/20250529_docket-25-2-15986-8-SEA_complaint.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 427ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the late 70s, Exxon was well aware of the carbon dioxide threat, and had even helped oceanographers take samples of CO2 on their oil tankers, and had made many predictions and presentations for the C suite. But Exxon decided in the mid 1980s that it would change its stance on the reality of carbon dioxide build up, and it became one of the chief proponents and funders of outfits like the Global Climate Coalition, established in 1989 to resist both domestic US and international climate policy. And Exxon also funded various denialist groups, so much so that in 2006 the UK Royal Society had published an open letter asking them to knock it off. 

Exxon was also instrumental in the Dubya Bush White House 2001 to 2008 especially with their apparatchik in the CEQ writing climate policy and spreading denial.   

The specific context was that we’re now getting the long predicted weather anomalies, disasters sometimes happening much sooner than the scientists had thought, because, well, that’s nonlinear patterns for you. And what do you do when you’ve been hit by one of these well, you sue, if you can. You use court to try and do what the politics hasn’t been able to do. 

What I think we can learn from this is that most court cases fail, but that doesn’t mean you don’t use it as one of your venues for seeking justice, I guess. 

What happened next. 

On April 9 this year –

State Court in Washington Denied Fossil Fuel Defendants’ Request to Stay Case Pending Supreme Court’s Resolution of Boulder

Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings denied.

A trial court in Washington State denied fossil fuel industry defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The Washington trial court found that the outcome of the Boulder proceedings was “far from certain,” including whether the Court would issue a substantive ruling and whether the Court would resolve the issues in this case. The court also found that a potentially 14-month stay could prejudice the plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery, that the public interest weighed against the stay, and that potential prejudice to the defendants was mitigated by the fact that some documents had already been preserved and some discovery had already been conducted in other similar cases.

https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/leon-v-exxon-mobil-corp_b93f

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 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

May 29, 1969 – “A Chemist Thinks about the Future” #Keeling #KeelingCurve

May 29, 1989- “We will all be flooded” –

May 29, 1992- ANAO says it will look at DPIE’s energy management programme 

May 29, 2007 “Climate Clever” ad campaign in attempt to save John Howard – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Deforestation United States of America

May 26, 1977  – “Forest loss poses threat to Earth” (Do bears shit in those forests?)

Forty eight years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1977, The Grand Island Independent (Nebraska) runs a a story on p34, “Forest Loss Poses threat to Earth”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by the mid-1970s various types of scientists were beginning to look at atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up and go ‘uh oh’. There was a side debate about whether the carbon dioxide problem was down to fossil fuels or fossil fuels and other issues (deforestation).

What I think we can learn from this is that we have had fifty years of this stuff. And we just keep making things worse. Because we are not that smart. And we think we can dump the costs on other people/species. 

What happened next. We dumped the costs on other generations, until it was us.

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 26, 1978 – “Advisory Group on Climate” meeting

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target – All Our Yesterdays

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes