Category: United States of America

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 26, 1970 – British PM offers US a “new special relationship” on pollution. (Conservative then tries to outflank him.)

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 26th 1970 Harold Wilson held out a green olive branch…. As per the Tory MP Christopher Chataway, speaking in the House of Commons on 3 Feb 1970.

In New York on Monday [26 January 1970] of last week, the Prime Minister said:

“The British people today offer you, the American people, a new special relationship.”

As the Prime Minister went on, a no doubt grateful American people learned that the new special relationship was to help them with, among other things, the problems of pollution; in his words, “the problems of pollution of the air we breathe”. I have no evidence whether or not the great majority of Americans were over-impressed by this offer of the Prime Minister, but they would surely have been less impressed had he mentioned that the highly successful clean air policy which his Government had inherited was even then being brought to a grinding halt.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1970-02-03/debates/fd90bff8-118d-4988-b0a2-074afcdfdf88/SmokelessZonesAndPollution?highlight=%22alkali%20inspectorate%22#contribution-0e5f6776-1edd-4f82-b06f-c094e863e036

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that both major political parties, Conservative and Labour had discovered the environment issue. In 1969, Wilson had used the word environment in his speech to Labour Party Congress, in Blackpool in September of ‘69, and had set up a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and a white paper. 

Chataway was a then rising star, he’d been an athlete and a television presenter, and he was landing blows against Wilson. 

What we learn is that by 1970, there was a competitive consensus. The parties were competing to gain kudos for their green credentials. 

What happened next, Wilson lost the June 1970 election. A Department of Environment was still set up as a super Department under Peter Walker. And onward the caravan went to the Stockholm Environment conference. 

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 27, 1989 – UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27, 1986 – Engineers try to stop NASA launching the (doomed) Challenger Space Shuttle

Categories
United States of America

January 26, 1958 – “Mystery of the Warming World” in Washington Star

Sixty six years ago, on this day, January 26th, 1958,

At the same time NAS was channelling Revelle, Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and an avid advocate for building hundreds of nuclear power plants, warned at the December 1957 meeting of the American Chemical Society that increasing CO2 might someday melt the polar icecaps and flood the world’s coastal regions.

Teller’s remarks and Revelle’s testimony to a congressional committee sparked a Washington Sunday Star article by Phil Yeager and John Stark in January 1958: “Mystery of the Warming World.” It was published on page 26 and included the prediction that CO2 warming of the climate might generate” a type of control regulation, law, interstate compact, and international agreement which could scarcely help clashing with some of our cherished notions of free enterprise. Industry, which might blossom in some directions … would be hamstrung in others. … Further, in view of the global nature of the problem, ordinary international agreements might prove inadequate for effective regulation.” International controls backed up by penalties, the prescient pair wrote, would be “sure to foster great heat and controversy.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/01/14/436446/-Blast-from-the-Past-8211-James-Hansen-1988

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that people had been talking about the greenhouse issue. And including Edward Teller. And two journalists had used it as the opening topic in a series of science articles.

 What we learn – we knew. We really knew. 

What happened next The issue kind of went away in 1959-60, and only started to seriously come back in the late 1960s. And I think it’s just too big for people to understand. And it’s still too big for them to understand the idea that we could have a global impact. I mean, it’s just bizarre. 

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 26, 1970 – US science bureaucrat writes “what’s going on?” memo about #climate

January 26, 1978: “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” article in Nature…

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 16, 1919 – banning things that people like turns out not to work

One hundred and five years ago, on this day, January 16th 1919, a social movement got what it wanted. Utopia did not ensue.

The United States ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, authorizing Prohibition in the United States one year after ratification. 

Legislation versus habit… ends badly… Baptists and bootleggers blah blah

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 303ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Temperance groups had been pushing for decades for a law banning booze. And they’d gotten their way. And of course, this meant an explosion of organised crime because people still wanted to drink. And health implications from bathtub gin, the bootleggers’ violence, you name it. So not everything that a popular – or at least powerful – social movement wants and pushes through the legislature is automatically good or democratic, who knew? 

What we learn is that there is such a thing as “Baptists and bootleggers,” there can be an unholy symbiosis between religious zealots and banning things to create black markets. Yes, that is a right-wing talking point against climate legislation. 

I suppose the other thing we learned is that banning stuff can feel good. And certainly with the case of fossil fuels, you really need to push the alternatives hard and stop the people trying to stop you. Am I making any sense? 

What happened next. Prohibition lasted for 14 years, gave us organised crime, gun battles, gangsters, you name it. And then one of the first things that Franklin Roosevelt did, upon taking office, was to abolish it and everyone could get legally drunk again. What an extraordinary episode in human history, one that I haven’t thought about enough. 

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 16, 1995: There’s power in a (corporate) union #auspol

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Categories
United States of America

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

Forty-three years ago, on this day, January 15th 1981, as the Reagan gang were about to take over, there was a plaintive plea…

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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context 

This is the last throw of the dice for the Council on Environmental Quality under Jimmy Carter. It had done some good stuff. The CEQ staffer Gus Speth had spent the last four years trying to push climate up the agenda. There had also been the Global 2000 report, which was produced by a separate body. Carter had lost the November 1980 election to Reagan who literally does not give a damn about conserving anything but is keen for ever greater exploitation.

What we can learn from this is that we knew what needed to be done. And we kept electing people who didn’t want to do it because they appealed to our ego, or our greed or something. 

What happened next? Reagan came in and shat all over climate action, environment action. See James Watt, etc, etc. And the emissions kept climbing and it was 1988 before presidential candidates were forced to speak about it. (There’s a more interesting story of Republican senators like John Chafee and so forth, actually understanding what was at stake in the mid-80s.) And the journo who wrote this story, Shabecoff? He also wrote the June 24th 1988 story on Hansen.

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 15, 1971 – greenwash before it was called greenwash #propaganda

January 15, 1990 – A political lunch with enormous #climate consequences for Australia #PathDependency #Denial  

Categories
United States of America

January 14, 1962 – As much truth as one can bear, James Baldwin

Sixty two years ago, on this day, January 14th 1962, American thinker and writer James Baldwin delivers a crucial bit of wisdom –  “Not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” – in a New York Times opinion piece.

AS MUCH TRUTH AS ONE CAN BEAR: To Speak Out About the World as It Is, New York Times Jan 14, 1962 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 318ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Baldwin had fled the United States to France, simply to stay alive. Being a queer, smart black man well, you were in a “bummer of a birthmark Hal” situation, weren’t you? But he’d obviously stayed in touch with what was happening. And my god, he was a brilliant essayist, and thinker. And the reason I’m citing this is that it contains the apparently first use of his crucial phrase, “not everything that can be faced, can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

What we can learn is that there are smart people all around and we ought to pay more attention to them and to their ideas.

What happened next. Baldwin was heavily involved in advocating for civil rights. There is a movie that you simply must see. called I am not your Negro. Baldwin died in 1987.

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 14, 1972 – “A Blueprint for Survival” hits the headlines

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk

Categories
United States of America

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

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 11th, 1970, The Washington Post ran a story extrapolating from the previous decades and… well,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nobody was quite sure what the implications of industrialization might be. Yes, carbon dioxide would build up. But also dust and sulphur. And they had been reducing temperatures globally, or at least in the northern hemisphere for good 20 years. What if that process were to continue? Would it be possible to tip the incredibly complex, but possibly fragile and labile atmospheric system into a new ice age? We can look back now with hollow/grim laughter, but in 1969 1970, it wasn’t quite so clear cut. 

What we can learn from this is that people were having these debates and the Washington Post and others were covering them. 

What happened next? Well, although the Ice Age schtick continued for a few years, by the late 70s, it was pretty clear to everyone with the possible exception of Robert Jastrow that we were heading for warmer times (see here, in 1978). 

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

Peterson et al. 2008. The myth of the global cooling consensus. BAMS Vol 89, 9.

Also on this day: 

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

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

Categories
Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 9, 2004 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor lays into President over climate inaction

Twenty years ago, on this day, January 9th 2004, the UK Chief Scientific Advisor, David King lays into Bush Administration on climate inaction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422 ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bush had been doing sweet FA. And he had had the British scientist Robert Watson removed as chair of the IPCC – it’s hard to play Athens to their Sparta when they won’t even give you a bow….

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had been making the right noises about climate change but doing sweet FA, it was obvious that there was failure baked into the Kyoto process, which many at this point time were thinking was just dead. And that UNFCCC might be dead. And therefore emissions reductions were dead. China was galloping forward with its emissions, the US was not cutting it. And therefore, of course, you’re gonna speak out of school and hope for technofixes. 

What we learn is that chief scientific advisors can, on occasion, be troublesome priests. They tend to denounce someone over the water or across the border, rather than their own bosses. And when they are fed up with their own bosses, well, it’s more likely that they’ll quit and keep tight lips. For example, the Australian CSA Penny Sackett in February 2011. 

What happened next, King kept being Chief Scientific Adviser until 2007. Most notably, in 2023. Sir David King signed the letter in the aftermath of the acquittal of the Barclays nine, and is also being cited by Just Stop Oil in their standard powerpoint deck.

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 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

Jan 9 1995 – “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

Categories
International Geophysical Year United States of America

January 9, 1957- Daily Worker ponders climate change

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, January 9th, 1957, The Daily Worker posed some questions, in the context of the International Geophysical Year, which was to begin six months hence.

“Can we predict earthquakes? Can dry spells be predicted in time to warn farmers? Is the earth warming up? Will the melting of ice caps and glaciers containing one per cent of the earth’s water, eventually submerge populated coastlines?”

Woods, P. 1957. Forty countries set to collaborate in a gigantic scientific experiment. Daily Worker, January 9, p.6. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that two years previously, on January 2 1955, The Worker had posed similar questions.

Also, the International Geophysical Year was about to begin, it was well understood that the planet was warming. And that if it continued to do that, the ice caps would melt and that would have an impact on sea level rise. This was an empirical finding. People didn’t necessarily ascribe it to carbon dioxide build-up. But by the time the Daily Worker article appeared, there had been several articles in the mainstream press and some scientists speculating about the problem. 

What we can learn as with January 2, left-wing papers had a view on environmental destruction and environmental issues. That perhaps belies or at least complicates the easy caricature of them as “industrialise, industrialised industrialise and worry about green stuff later.” 

What happened next, the International Geophysical Year kicked off six months later. Accurate measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere started to be taken in March of 1958. It quickly became apparent that the levels were indeed rising as had been suggested by Guy Callendar. That it was at that point that if the species had wanted to stick around for a few centuries, it would have started thinking about not burning fossil fuels. But there is no such thing as the species having a central organising committee, or even a body for discussing this. And so we blundered on thinking that the lunch we were eating was free. And those who tried to stop the blundering, were smeared, well, ignored, dismissed. And if they persisted, then they smeared and attacked, because that’s the way it works. 

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 9, 1974 – The UK sets up a “Department of Energy”

Jan 9 1995 – “Efficiency” promises vs hated and feared regulation/taxation #Predatory Delay #auspol

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 7, 1970 a pre-Earth Day radical student group called “Ecology Action East” was ahead of the game, in terms of how it’s a BIG puzzle. They said that they believed:

– that the ecological crisis is fundamentally a social problem, deeply rooted in the structure of society and in the cultural values that this society generates and reinforces.

–that all social institutions of domination and exploitation, from the patriarchal family to the modem nation-state, must be dissolved.

— that… the ecology movement is also inseparable from the liberation movement of colonial peoples, black and brown people, American Indians, working people, gay people, women, youth, and children.

(Rat, January 7, 1970, p. 10) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, from 1968 onwards, people had started to think seriously about the consequences of modernity, (good title – someone should write a book. Oh, wait they have) and the ecological impacts that might be coming down the pipe, and because of the pipe. In September ‘69, there’d been the announcement that an Earth Day would happen. But this was sponsored by a US senator, albeit a liberal one. And in the context of the Vietnam War a lot of activists were taking a serious look into the mouth of the gift horse. And groups like Ecology Action East, marrying the radical as in root cause, to critique of US imperialism as it applied to Vietnam with an ecological sensibility, and seeing that it was also connected to all these other issues. This is really intersectionality long before the word was invented. 

What we can learn is that most of us have, a lot of us have known for a long, long time that the issues were linked, even hyperlinked, and that you weren’t going to “solve” any one without solving a lot else, though, you might have some short term gains. 

What happened next. Groups like Ecology Action East were unable to sustain their momentum. And it all went tits up for them within a couple of years. And it was only another 20 years almost later, that ecology was really kicked off. 

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

Ecology Action East. 1970. The Power to Destroy – The Power to Create. Root & Branch No. 1, pp. 8-14

https://libcom.org/library/manifesto-ecology-action-east

Also on this day: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013 – Paper (briefly) wraps rock. But coal wins in the end… #auspol

Categories
United States of America

January 6, 1883 – The New York Times reports on the Atmosphere

One hundred and thirty-one years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1883, the New York Times took the righteous mickey out of something that had recently appeared in the UK scientific journal Nature…

Anon, 1883 – The Atmosphere, New York Times, January 6, p.4. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 293ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that everybody talks about the weather (but nobody does anything about it). And there was all sorts of speculation back and forth about what air quality might do to people. And this, of course, is one of the denialist “arguments”; “people have always been worried about the weather, therefore, there’s nothing new under the sun. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.” This is every bit as vacuous as it appears at first sight, but it’s very effective among people who just want to stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la, which seems to be most everyone most of the time. 

What happened next? Well, there’s other stuff that’s interesting (watch this space) but then in 1896, Svante Arrhenius’ article about carbonic acid was published. 

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: 

Jan 6, 1971- the whiff of sulphur (taxes) and 20 more years of #PredatoryDelay

January 6, 1995 – Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument