Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

June 23, 1969 – Cuyahoga river catches fire. Again

Fifty six years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1969,the Cuyahoga river in Ohio caught fire again.

As per Wikipedia –

As Cleveland emerged as a major manufacturing center, the river became heavily affected by industrial pollution, so much so that it caught fire at least 14 times. When it did so on June 22, 1969, news coverage of the event helped to spur the American environmental movement.[8][9] For many Americans, the Cuyahoga’s burning helped connect urban decay with the environmental crisis at the time in many American cities.[10] Since then, the river has been extensively cleaned up through the efforts of Cleveland’s city government and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).[11] In 2019, the American Rivers conservation association named the Cuyahoga “River of the Year” in honor of “50 years of environmental resurgence”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the river had actually caught fire before, at least 14 times, but this time it was captured on camera and came six months after the pivotal Santa Barbara Oil Spill.

What I think we can learn from this is that an “event” on its own is neither here nor there – it’s how it is mobilised/can fit into an existing set of concerns and understandings.

What happened next is that the first big wave of global environmental concern gathered pace, cresting and breaking in 1972. Lots of nice legislation and some local improvements (depending on where you live – if you’re in one of the sacrifice zones, not so much…).  But the big ones – plastics, carbon, growth, they were not tackled, can’t be tackled within the logics of our systems. We are all going to die, quite pitiable deaths. It didn’t have to be this way, but now, well, it’s pretty much baked in, isn’t it?

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

Categories
Activism United States of America

June 21, 1964 – Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner murdered

Sixty years ago, on this day, June 21st, 1964,

Three civil rights workers, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner, are murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi, United States, by members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that black people had been resisting Jim Crow (the name given to the apartheid system in the Southern United States) as best they could, since its inception. But the “massive resistance” of the Southern States was only going to be broken with outside help – both the Federal Government and brave brave people trying to desegregate schools, buses etc.

The specific context was that Ella Baker had managed to protect students and young black people from being swallowed up into other people’s campaigns, and so the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed. It had had some success with education/outreach/voter registration, but decided (it was a contentious issue) that it needed more (Northern) hands on deck and so began the “Freedom Summer” in 1964, where white and black volunteers from the North would join those efforts. At the very beginning of that summer, these three volunteers were murdered.

What I think we can learn from this is that the defenders of the status quo are perfectly okay with murder to defend that status quo. Change costs lives.

What happened next  The Freedom Summer happened. It opened an enormous can of worms, and second wave feminism, queer rights, ecology movements sprang from the ferment of the second half of the sixties.  The Black Civil Rights Movement was the initiator movement, in academic terms.

Oh, and on August 3 1980 Republican candidate Ronald Reagan gave a “states rights” speech in Neshoba County. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, dog whistle, dog whistle.

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 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf… – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Scientists United States of America

June 20, 2005 – RIP Charles Keeling

Twenty years ago, on this day, June 20th, Charles Keeling (known as Dave) died.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Keeling had first measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for a Californian body funded by oil companies (see the great work of Rebecca John). He’d then done it for Roger Revelle as part of the International Geophysical Year. He spent the rest of his life measuring CO2 and warning people about the implications of the build-up.

See 1969 speech- April 25, 1969 –  Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?” – All Our Yesterdays

What I think we can learn from this – the scientists did their job.  The media, the politicians, the “leaders” of social movement organisations?  Not so much.

What happened next – the emissions have kept on climbing, of course. 

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 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax  – All Our Yesterdays

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 19th, 1989  Senator George Brown gave a speech to Student Pugwash, and reminisced about his 1976 hearings.

“Faced with these conflicting predictions, in 1976, as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere, I convened the first congressional hearings ever to discuss the issue of climate research. Over the course of two weeks, our Subcommittee received testimony of relevance to a bill that some of my colleagues and I had introduced to coordinate and improve national climate research efforts. In large part as a result of those hearings, we succeeded in passing in 1977 the National Climate Program Act. Passage of that legislation was a classic example of how politicians tend to deal with scientific uncertainty: we initiate efforts to study the problem further.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Greenhouse Effect had been “discovered” by the media and was omni-present. There were these sorts of “inter-generational” efforts going on…

What I think we can learn from this is that explaining the broad sweep, the patterns and the repetitions, is really hard, especially when we all want a simple victory narrative with us near the centre…

What happened next  The wave of concern crested by 1992, and the defeat of the proposal for targets and timetables in the text of the UNFCCC was, in retrospect, the last nail in the coffin for our species and so so many others. 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: 

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 12, 1996 – scumbag denialists smear a scientist

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1996, scumbag denialists attacked a climate scientist.

1996 editorial-page attack on Ben Santer in the Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to “deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.” Similar charges were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests; specifically, they accused Santer of “scientific cleansing.”[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the attacks on scientists who do “impact science” (as it was dubbed by Alan Schnaiberg in the 1970s) have been going on for a long time. Check out Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”. See also the attacks on those who raised concerns about ozone in the 1970s. From the late 1980s outfits like the George C Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition were honing their skills in smearing any scientist who was warning of trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report had come out and included the conclusion that there was already a discernible impact on the climate of human activity. This drove the denialist fools and liars into a frenzy of hate and wrath. They picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable (what Michael Mann would later dub ‘the Serengeti Strategy’).

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – watch out for old white men (and others, obvs) who no longer have the social power/cachet that they used to have. They are butt-hurt and will act out.  Especially if they’re paid to do so by powerful material interests.

As “active citizens” – name the tactics – name the smearing, the “Serengeti Strategy”.

Academics might like to ponder – their complicities.

What happened next  Santer survived, has had a great career. The denialists no longer deny, they focus on lies about the cost and reliability of renewables as opposed to fossil fuels.  They deserve to be ignored and/or sent to the Hague.

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.

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 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

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

Sixty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1961 the UK scientific publication Nature runs an article by climatologist Gordon Manley about the recent symposium in New York…

It became abundantly clear how large a number of investigators are patiently accumulating evidence of the amplitude, character, effects and especially the dating of climatic fluctuations all over the world. Speculations regarding the causes abound; supporters of each of the popular theories-solar variation, atmospheric turbidity, carbon dioxide, ozone, variations in the Earth’s orbital elements-find their several gods alternately set up and cast down. Workers in one field find themselves unable to judge the validity of the evidence from other disciplines;

MANLEY, G. Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems. Nature 190, 967–968 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1038/190967a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the modern argument that carbon dioxide build-up would heat the planet had been given a huge boost in 1953 by Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass.  The International Geophysical Year (1957-8) had added a bit to the interest.  

The specific context was the New York Academy of Sciences had held a big symposium, and Plass, Herman Flohn and others were present. Manley was there too…The international linkages were there….

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings – we have had so many warnings for so long. The problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

As “active citizens” is that the problem is not our brains, it’s our spines.

Academics might like to ponder – growing spines.

What happened next  By 1963 the Conservation Foundation held a meeting just on carbon dioxide, proposed by the Yale biologist  G Evelyn Hutchinson, though ironically he was unable to attend due to illness.  The carbon dioxide build-up issue also began to work its way through the Presidents Science Advisory Council (LINK).

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.

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

Categories
United States of America

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address

Fifty nine years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1966, the head of the Atomic Energy Commission (hardly a hippie!) gave a commencement address that name-checked carbon dioxide build-up,

10 June 1966 

Seaborg commencement address at San Diego (see Maddow 2019, Blowout)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the issue had been “lurking” in the newspapers (especially but not exclusively the US ones) since the early 1950s.  

The specific context was

By 1965 it had “broken through” – getting name-checked in the special message of LBJ to Congress about Natural Beauty/Pollution, and then getting a whole chapter in the big fat report released by the Presidents Scientific Advisory Council in late 1965.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings we knew

As “active citizens” we knew

Academics might like to ponder – their role in helping people not know.

What happened next

By the late 1960s the carbon dioxide build-up problem was being used by proponents of nuclear (including Seaborg) as a point for them and against coal. Thee years to the day, in fact, there was an article in the New York Times…

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.

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, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article – All Our Yesterdays

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

Categories
Air Pollution United States of America

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

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1967,

“Temperature dip tied to particles,” New York Times, June 9.

 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in the northern hemisphere, at least, temperatures had been dropping. We now know that that was because of all the extra aerosols sulphates in the air, bouncing a certain amount of the sun’s heat away. Keeping the winters nice and chill. And this seemed like a problem for the theory of carbon dioxide induced warming. It wasn’t but it’s still being held up as one.

What we learn is that it wasn’t crystal clear. People like Keeling and Plass would not deny. There was still uncertainty.

What happened next? There was for the next five years or so, the whole Ice/Heat debate. Things started edging towards the heat trap side. C02 buildup was reported in The Times as a cause of concern in 1972. And then, by the late 70s, it was clear what was going to happen. 

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: 

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.

Categories
United States of America

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

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1981, a workshop began. What was it on? Well

“The First Detection of Carbon Dioxide Effects:” Workshop Summary 8-10 June 1981,

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26223159

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid-1970s onwards, scientists were beginning to look closely at what rising carbon dioxide levels would ultimately do.  Various scientific bodies (NCAR, National Academy of Science, AAAS, Swedish outfits) were looking closely.  The 1979 First World Climate Conference, hosted by the World Meteorological Organisation, could have set the ball rolling, but there was blockage from the likes of John Mason of the UK Met Office.

The specific context was that various American scientists were pushing ahead.

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that our systems for finding out about the world aren’t bad. Our systems for stopping damaging it, they needed some work.

As “active citizens” is that there’s not much mileage in just adding “more science” to the recipe for social change. We tried that. 

Academics might like to ponder their role in all this.

What happened next – The scientists kept science-ing.  By 1985 they were alarmed enough – and had credibility from ozone – to start shouting.

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.

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

Categories
United States of America

June 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST

62 years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1963, the administration of US President John F Kennedy,

“ announced a large-scale cooperative program between industry and government to build a commercial passenger aircraft that would travel faster than the speed of sound…. Over the course of the 1960s, however, Kennedy-era military-industrial aerospace projects fell out of favor with an increasingly skeptical public, and support for the SST waned.”

(Howe, 2014:45)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2025 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the Cold War had almost gotten rather hot in October the previous year, and the generals wanted as many toys as they could get their hands on.

The specific context was the dreams of limitless power were still so very powerful – it would take defeat in Vietnam and a lot of “impact science” (not yet named so) for that to change – and really, it still hasn’t (Mars colonies, anyone?).

What I think we can learn from this is that while Kennedy was at the same time doing a certain amount of hand-wringing about “Conservation” things like SST, a Boeing dream in part, had a lot of weight. Politicians and their testeria eh?

What happened next  The SST – with its sonic boom and ozone implications became a VERY hot potato.  Eventually Congress imposed a moratorium (this was after Boeing had realised their blueprints were non-starters, and Concorde was having test flights). The Congress moratorium so enraged right-wingers that the Heritage Foundation (Project 2025 guys) got set up…

xxx

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 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good. – All Our Yesterdays