Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

October 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

Forty years ago, on this day, October 21, 1983, another climate change report was released, just a couple of days after the Environmental Protection Agency one. It took a much more “yeah, nothing to worry about really” line.

and – https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/21/us/haste-of-global-warming-trend-opposed.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was –

The report had been commissioned in 1979, thanks to the efforts of a Democratic Senator, the lead author William Nirenberg. It is now seen as a direct rebuttal if you will, of the EPA report though, obviously, it wasn’t written as such. For the lowdown, see two articles, one by Naomi Oreskses and the other by Nirenberg’s daughter.

 The point of the Changing Climate report is that it gave aid and comfort to those who were saying “oh still nothing to see here.” The Reagan administration was still pretty deep in denial, having shat all over the Global 2000 report. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

A variation on the “horse race politics”

What happened next

“Despite their conflicting conclusions, both reports actually confirmed the inevitability of greenhouse warming, but George Keyworth and Whitehouse counsel Ed Meese played up the disparities between Nierenberg’s “sober” NAS report and the “unnecessarily alarmist” EPA study, imbuing press coverage of the climate issue with a sense of confusion rather than concern. The press, not surprisingly, took more interest in the “debate” between the EPA and NAS scientists than in the broader implications of the science itself. Both studies were soon forgotten.“

(Howe, 2014:134)

See Merchants of Doubt chapter about this – argues it is two different reports, the physical scientists agreeing with other reports, and two chapters by economists…

MOD page 180

Has also led to two articles – From Chicken Little to Dr Pangloss

It would be another four years or five years before climate was able to properly take off again. And Nirenberg was still in the thick of nonsense like the George Marshall Institute.

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

Nicholas Nierenberg rebuttal of Oreskes

https://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/1166378/oreskescritique.pdf

And William Connelly

https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/10/nierneberg-concluded-oreskes-i

Categories
Australia United States of America

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 20, 1983, the Murdoch-owned newspaper The Australian gave a tolerably accurate summation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s report.

The Australian page 3 climatic change (based on EPA report)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Australian runs a page three greenhouse gases story that isn’t a complete shit show?! By this point, climate change was well understood as a potential long-term problem in Australia, various magazines, newspapers would run stories. Senators would make speeches… 

What I think we can learn from this

 I guess, what we learn is that The Australian newspaper has decayed markedly, perhaps never from a particularly high baseline. But now it’s just a fucking rag.

What happened next

There was another climate report released by the National Academy of Science the following day. And that is the topic of tomorrow’s blog post….

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

Forty years ago, on this day, October 18, 1983, your average television-watching American gets a dose of reality.

On October 18, 1983, all three U.S. television networks ran two-minute stories on the greenhouse effect, and CBS and ABC placed their stories at or near the top of the news programs. What had happened? The Environmental Protection Agency had issued a report analyzing the impact of the greenhouse effect on the temperature of the earth. CBS and ABC featured John Hoffman of the EPA urging that preparations be made for the future.

Sachsman

EPA report – https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/10/18/EPA-report-predicts-catastrophic-global-warming/2626435297600/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” had come out. It said that, well, you could institute a global carbon tax or rather even if you could, which was a long shot, it would only delay warming by a few years. This was, I think, the first time that all three major networks simultaneously covered the environment story.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that Walter Cronkite had been talking about climate in his documentary, The 20th Century, in the episode, The Power of the Sea on March 22 1960. Spilhaus had said what he said.

What we can learn is that 40 years ago, American people were told what was happening pretty clearly. I don’t think there was any massive spike in membership of the Sierra Club or EDF or whatever. And as Joshua Howe in his excellent “Behind the Curve” notes, they just weren’t taking it on as an issue because it’s too big. It’s too diffuse,

“Joseph Smagorinsky, author of the climate-modeling chapter for Changing Climate, was highly critical of the EPA report. Speaking at Youngstown University, he said, “Evidently the EPA was hell-bent on coming up with spectacular numbers. . . . It’s bad enough when an individual does this kind of thing, but when a federal agency does it . . .”105” (Nierenberg et al. 2010:344)

What happened next

The American people did not rise up and save themselves, because some of them at least probably thought “why bother, we’re all gonna get nuked anyway?”

This, you see, was also the time of the Second Cold War fears of the nuclear winter, if there were a “nuclear exchange” (of course that also got people thinking about the atmosphere as something that humans could seriously fuck up.)

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.

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

Thirty one years ago, on this day, October 5, 1992, REM’s album Automatic for the People was released. It contains the stone-cold classic “Ignoreland.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that twelve years of Republican Party presidents were close to coming to an end – if Clinton could win the presidency which of course he did.

REM were global superstars by this point and memories of the “Republican Revolution” were still fresh in the minds of people who had an inkling of how doomed we were.

What I think we can learn from this

This along with Bobby Conn’s “Never get ahead” is one of the great songs about neoliberalism – and the media in this case. If you can’t grok the role of the media within the state-corporate nexus, as a means of limiting information and debate, then there’s no hope for you. Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model is necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) for you, my friend…

What happened next

REM got paid silly money. Did some great songs bless. 

Neoliberalism continued in people’s minds and hearts and was ultimately responsible for the collapse of human civilisation in the 2030s.

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.

Categories
United States of America

October 3, 1975 – Three members of Congress introduce first bill for a national #climate program.

Forty eight years ago, on this day, October 3, 1975, a couple of members of Congress (One Republican and two Democrat) introduced some legislation. It failed, but next year…

“In October 1975, Brown, Lawrence Winn (R-KS), and Phillip Hayes (D-IN) introduced the first bill in American history to establish a national climate program: U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 10013, A Bill to Authorize and Direct the Establishment of a Coordinated National Program Relating to Climate (Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office, 1975). First attempt at climate program legislation https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/hr10013

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been ongoing concern about changing weather patterns, famines, ice ages, you name it. So having George Brown and others try and get some money for science and scientists is not terribly surprising. You’d had by this point Wally Broekers article in Science as well…

What I think we can learn from this

Decent politicians – and they do exist – try and mobilise state funding for decent science it’s always an uphill battle

What happened next

 the bill fell as these sorts of bills usually do first time round Brown persisted and and in 1977 Jimmy Carter signed the first climate act meanwhile in the United Kingdom and Australia they were f****** around and would ultimately find out

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.

Categories
Activism United States of America

September 30, 1969 -US activist publication mentions climate change

Fifty four years ago, on this day, September 30, 1969, a US alternative paper The Spectator (as opposed to the British right-wing one!)  ran a story about environmental problems, including build up of carbon dioxide and the effects it might have…

30 Sep 1969 Bruce Williamson squib in Spectator mentions climate, channels Moynihan line on “goodbye New York”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by late 1969 and in the aftermath of Daniel Moynihan’s comments people were familiar with the problem of carbon dioxide enough to be make knowing jokes.

What I think we can learn from this – the question of carbon dioxide build-up was well enough understood by the late 1960s to be the object of squibs and comic asides.

What happened next

In late January 1970 a documentary called “And on the 8th Day” appeared on British television, helping people understand what was actually at stake.

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.

Categories
United States of America

September 29, 2000 – On campaign trail, George Bush says power plants will require carbon dioxide cuts

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 29, 2000, George Bush, trying to shore up his vote among Republicans who cared about conserving a habitable planet (they did exist, back then), makes a promise that he wouldn’t keep.

 “We will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Bush was in a tight race with Al Gore. Ralph Nader was taking votes maybe more from Gore than him, but Bush needed to make the right noises so that centrist Republicans and independents who cared about climate might consider voting for him. Bush’s daddy had, in 1988, made similar “I will act on the greenhouse effect” promises and then done fuck all.

What I think we can learn from this as per Nick Tomalin, “they lie they lie they lie,” especially at elections.

What happened next

When de facto president Cheney took office he shat all over this fantasised about building new power stations and pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations

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.

Categories
United States of America

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

On this day seventy five years ago at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium the famed biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned carbon dioxide buildup as something to be aware of, in his pivotal article Circular Causal Systems in Ecology:

The problem of the constancy or variability of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere as a whole is a difficult one, owing to the large number of possible sources of purely local disturbance. The earlier data have been reviewed by Letts and Blake (1900) and, more recently, practically all the available information has been considered by Callendar (1940). … Meanwhile, it seems far more likely that the observed increment in the carbon dioxide of air at low levels in both Europe and eastern North America is due to changes in the biological mechanisms of the cycle rather than to an increase in industrial [[p. 228]] output. It is quite probable that the net effect of the spread of the technological cultures of the North Atlantic basin has been to decrease the photosynthetic efficiency of the land surfaces of the earth. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that English steam engineer Guy Callendar had been collating what carbon dioxide measurements existed, and said they were going up, in line with Svante Arrhenius’s late 19th century suggestion. But all this was very sketchy – precise measures were not yet a thing.

What we can learn – the biologists and ecologists (stocks and flows, flows and stocks) were paying attention. 

What happened next – Evelyn Hutchinson mentioned it in a big 1955 US conference about resources and conservation – crickets. He also mentioned it to King Hubbert (him of the Peak) and so it ended up in Hubbert’s Energy Resources report in 1962…

Categories
Agnotology Denial Propaganda United States of America

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.

As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.

Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…

What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…

What happened next

The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.

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.

Categories
Media United States of America

September 13, 1976 – US news broadcast on ozone and climate.

Forty seven years ago, on this day, September 13, 1976, a major US news network did a story on climate change.

“On September 13, 1976, ABC’s Jules Bergman did a two minute 10 second story on a National Academy of Sciences committee report on the damage done by fluorocarbons (from aerosol spray cans) to the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Like most fluorocarbon/ ozone stories, this one cited the medical dangers of increased skin cancers, but in this case, the committee said that the most dangerous result might be a warming of the earth’s poles.” 

Sachsman, 2000 The Role of Mass Media in Shaping Perceptions and Awareness of Environmental Issues

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that journalists were, by 1976. very sensitised to the climate issue. There was the prolonged drought in the United Kingdom. Stephen Schneider had released “the Genesis Strategy,” and had made various appearances on the Johnny Carson Show. So getting the climate issue into a discussion of ozone was not that much of a stretch.

What I think we can learn from this is that decent journalists will give you a tolerably accurate version of the truth. You may need to reframe some of the factoids, but especially if it’s the business press, you will more or less be able to figure what’s going on. For all the good it will do you. 

We have known for 50 years that there was serious trouble ahead – longer in fact, but really from the early mid 70s both the theory and the evidence were coming together… And here we are.

What happened next

In 1977 the National Academy of Science released its report. George Brown managed to Shepherd the climate protection act or whatever it was called into law Carter signed this time next year ear and there was a flurry of newspaper articles and presumably television reports about the dangers of continuing to rely on coal and here we are.

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.