Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

July 31, 1981 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

Forty four years ago, on this day, July 31st, 1981, American politicians held hearings on,

“Carbon Dioxide and Climate, the Greenhouse Effect”

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, July 31, 1981

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2025, 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 through the 1970s scientists – including American ones – had been studying the carbon dioxide build-up issue and become increasingly alarmed. There had been the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, in February 1979. More scientific work was being done, and there wasn’t much doubt among those studying the issue – there was trouble ahead.

The specific context was that some politicians (Paul Tsongas, Al Gore – who’d been taught by Roger Revelle at Harvard) got it. And at this point, it really had not become a culture war issue – the culture war thing happened thanks to deliberate efforts by incumbents (see Ross Gelbspan’s books on this). 

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have begun to take climate action in the early 1980s. But we didn’t. And we in fact never have. And here we are.

What happened next A 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, led to scientists making bigger efforts to inform politicians and policymakers. In 1988, the issue “broke 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: 

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, 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 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. And the emissions kept climbing.

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

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report meeting begins

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 

1979 Ad Hoc Study Group on C02 and Climate at Woods Hole from 23 to 27 “Charney Report”

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, 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 through the 1970s scientists working on climatology, pollution, energy, food were starting to study carbon dioxide build-ups effects and saying in effect “er, we may have a serious problem on our hands”. This was true especially in (parts of) Europe and the US.

The specific context was that the Carter Administration was rather taken with shale oil as a way of securing “energy independence”. This raised the question of CO2 build-up to serious concern, and Jule Charney was asked to come up with a “definitive” answer to whether it was something to take seriously.

What I think we can learn from this – sometimes an issue will be “entrained” because of another one (in fact, that is surely the norm, but we struggle to understand it). In this case, an “environmental” issue gets a boost because of energy policy debates….

What happened next Charney et al basically said “there’s no reason to believe that a doubling in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide – which are likely by 2050 or so – will do anything other than result in an increase of global average temperatures of somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees.”

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: 

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, 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 through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.

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: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
United States of America

July 17, 1968 – Scoop Jackson’s colloquium

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, July 17th, 1968, a Democratic Senator with Presidential ambitions organises a chat-fest.

on July 17, 1968, Jackson organized a Joint House-Senate colloquium in order to hash out the environmental challenges facing the country. Although it was ignored completely by the press, it was an influential event on Capitol Hill. Half of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s cabinet members attended.

“Out of that colloquium grew Jackson’s idea for a National Environmental Policy Act — a sweeping idea that, when it was enacted into law 18 months later, forced the federal government to examine the environmental consequences of almost every one of its actions, whether it was to build a supersonic transport or to carve a barge canal,” said William W. Prochnau and Richard W. Larsen in a biography of Jackson published four years later (Prochnau and Larsen, p. 68-69). https://www.historylink.org/File/9903

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2025, 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 environmental concerns had been growing over the 1950s and 1960s getting a significant boost with the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962. 

The specific context was that there had been repeated efforts by Democrats – especially Gaylord Nelson and Jackson – to get environmental legislation through, against the usual opposition. But pressures were slowly growing, and colloquia like this was part of that slow boring of hard boards (as per Max Weber).

What I think we can learn from this is that they sentence you to at LEAST twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within. Twenty should be considered a very light sentence…

What happened next – after the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of January 1969, things got a bit “easier” – Nelson suggested and got his “Earth Day”. Scoop Jackson, the Senator for Boeing, never got to be president…

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: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
United States of America

July 11, 1995 – Chicago heatwave gets going

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1995,

The July 1995 Chicago heat wave led to 739 heat-related deaths in Chicago over a period of five days.[1] Most of the victims of the heat wave were elderly poor residents of the city, who did not have air conditioning, or had air conditioning but could not afford to turn it on, and did not open windows or sleep outside for fear of crime.[2] The heat wave also heavily impacted the wider Midwestern region, with additional deaths in both St. Louis, Missouri[3] and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[4]

1995 Chicago heat wave – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, 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 poor people are always on the pointy end of “natural” disasters, be they floods, heatwaves, pandemics etc.

The specific context was that 1995 was the year the second assessment report of the IPCC came out. It included the fateful words that there was already a “discernible” impact of human activity, which drove the denialists to new heights (depths) of venality and stupidity.

What I think we can learn from this. We’ve had a lot of warnings about what is coming. But on each step of the way there will be people who want/need to dismiss the warnings – “there have always been heat waves” etc., And then it gets into a sterile attribution debate, and the denialists are happy…

What happened next The emissions kept climbing, and these sorts of one-in-a-hundred year events started happening more frequently.

There is a book about the social dynamics of the mortality risk, btw. I haven’t read it, but someone whose intellect I respect raved about it.

Eric Klinenberg, 2002 Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, 

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: 

July 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

Categories
Coal United States of America

July 2, 2001 – NRDC blasts “Bush” plan to increase reliance on coal

Twenty four  years ago, on this day, July 2nd, 2001, 

NRDC Blasts Bush Plan to Increase Reliance on Coal; Group Says Increased Coal Burning Will Accelerate Global Warming

WASHINGTON (July 2, 2001) – Responding to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham’s appearance today at a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Kentucky coal power plant, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) blasted the Bush administration for its plan to increase U.S. reliance on coal to generate electricity.

“The Bush administration wants to allow dirty coal-fired power plants to increase their pollution dramatically,” said David Hawkins, director of NRDC’s Climate Center. “That would accelerate global warming, poison more of our water, scar more of our landscape, and kill more of our citizens with particulate air pollution.”

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/010702a.asp

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm.  As of 2025, 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 US had decided, under Bush’s dad (George Herbert Hoover – sorry, Walker) not to do anything about climate change. They threatened to boycott the 1992 Earth Summit  if the UNFCCC draft text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And the proponents of that, well, they blinked.

The specific context was that “Dubya” on the campaign trail in 2000 had said that he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions.  And then, once President Cheney – sorry, Bush – took office he said “nah” and also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.  Just plain evil.  

What I think we can learn from this. Politicians will say WHATEVER they think you want to hear to get into office. 

What happened next Bush/Cheney’s plan to build hundreds of coal-fired power stations didn’t work out so well, in part because Michael Bloomberg funded the Sierra Club to stop it all. 

Categories
United States of America

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

Sixty six years ago, on this day, July 1st, 1959, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass has an article in Scientific American about … carbon dioxide build-up.

During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year [as of 2025 it’s about 40 billion tons]. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. Grain fields and pastures store much smaller quantities of carbon dioxide than the forests they replace, and the cultivation of the soil permits the vast quantities of carbon dioxide produced by bacteria to escape into the air.

And 

We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun’s energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth’s temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth’s temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth’s reserves of fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 315ppm.  As of 2025, 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 idea that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the earth can be dated back to the 1890s (it’s slightly more complex than that, but this will do for now), from work by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist who later won a Nobel Prize (for other work).

But Arrhenius’ proposal had been shot down, thanks to arrogance about knowing how carbon dioxide operates in the stratosphere, and Guy Callendar’s 1938 lecture to the Royal Meteorological Society hadn’t changed that.

The specific context was that Plass had been banging on about carbon dioxide build-up since May 1953, and had had various articles published in specialist journals and also in more “Popular” ones like American Scientist and Scientific American.

What I think we can learn from this is that UK elites will have been well-informed. Scientific American was advertised and sold in the UK…

What happened next – Plass was present at a couple more meetings – e.g. New York in January 1961 and again in March 1963, but wasn’t particularly “into” climate – it wasn’t his thing.

And the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, obvs.

Categories
Coal United States of America

June 27, 2013 – Judge versus climate

Twelve years ago, on this day, June 27th, 2013,  

U.S. District Court judge ruled against the expansion of Arch Coal’s West Elk mine in Colorado for failure of federal regulators to consider the social cost of carbon [3] in their environmental review.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal-expansion/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that one of the favoured tools for liberal opponents of climate change is the court system.  And sometimes there are, it seems, some “victories”.  Often reversed, but well, what are you gonna do? 

What I think we can learn from this.  “They make the laws to chain us well”…

What happened next. The courts get stacked with dickhead judges, cases get dismissed and the emissions climb….

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: 

June 27, 2000 – crazy but well-connected #climate denialists schmooze politicians – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United States of America

June 25, 1996 – Wall Street Journal pretends to be a newspaper

Twenty nine  years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1996 the Wall Street Journal pretended to be a newspaper. 

“Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report had said that there was already a discernible impact of human activity on the earth’s climate (It’s hard to remember now, but this was a Big Deal back then). The denialist attack dogs were predictably out for blood, and they had latched onto what they perceived to be a vulnerable scientist, Ben Santer.

What I think we can learn from this:  Assholes like the Global Climate Coalition and the so-called “George Marshall Institute” goons were amplified by “newspapers” like the Wall Street Journal, who were happy to publish hatchet jobs and then refuse significant right of reply.

What happened next  The denialists found a new object of hate – Michael E. Mann.  And the caravan kept rolling on.  The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed, the consequences climbed. 

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: 

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds – All Our Yesterdays