Category: United States of America

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

Forty two years ago, on this day, December 2, 1981, a not-particularly good article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor

Starr, Douglas, 1981.. “Is the world getting warmer?”. Christian Science Monitor December 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the https://allouryesterdays.info/2023/07/23/july-24-1980-global-2000-report-released/Global 2000 report had been released. And in the dying days of the Carter administration, in January 1981 the Committee on Environmental Quality’s Gus Speth had released other stuff. Other people were releasing things as well. And this is not as good an article, I think, as the Wall Street Journal one from August of 1980. That’s a “must.”

What I think we can learn from this

There was plenty of awareness about climate change in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

What happened next

There was a pivotal meeting of scientists in Villach, in September 1985. The scientists started pushing hard. 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..

Categories
United States of America

November 30, 1998 – Exxon and Mobil merge

Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 30, 1998, two of the Seven Sisters join at the hip.

1998 – Exxon and Mobil sign a USD$73.7 billion agreement to merge, thus creating ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Mobil had, by this time been doing “advertorials” and so on (see Herb Schmertz- https://marketingcraftsmanship.com/2013/07/05/the-herb-schmertz-era-when-public-relations-had-some-balls/

that the German provocateur and artist Hans Haacke had spoofed.

What I think we can learn from this is that Omnicorp is on the horizon, as per the Onion “Our Dumb Century”. These immensely powerful concentrated interests well, you can break them up and they recombine, recoalesce. It’s like that scene at the end of Terminator two (spoiler), where he’s been in the liquid nitrogen, they shoot him, he is destroyed. And then the pieces and Mercury start to come back together.

What happened next

Exxon continued to fund denialist groups (provoking the Royal Society into writing a public letter in 2006 telling them to knock it off), and is now getting sued for what it did to block action.

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

That Hans Haacke/Bourdieu book “Free Exchange”

https://raphaeldelamer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/bourdieu-pierre-haacke-hans-free-exchange.pdf

Categories
United States of America

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

Sixty seven, on this day, November 27,1956 Waldemar Kaempffert, New York Times science writer dies.

A month earlier, on October 28, the Grey Lady had run this below.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Kaempfert had been a journalist for a long time, and he had done a couple of really good articles in the New York Times about industry warming the world. He was probably good mates with Gilbert Plass. He had written the NYT article about Gilbert Plass’s comments at the AGU in May 1953.

What I think we can learn from this

Smart people were switched on to the threat in the 1950s. It wasn’t rocket science.

What happened next

Walter Sullivan became the chief science writer at The New York Times. Sullivan was heavily involved in reporting on the International Geophysical Year and at that point became aware of the potential problem of climate change from carbon dioxide build-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
Business Responses United States of America

November 20, 2008 – Green capitalism flexes a (weak) BICEP

On this day a new business lobby group was founded…

Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) is a coalition of businesses coordinated by Ceres whose primary goal is to call on the U.S. government to pass broad, bi-partisan energy and climate legislation.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by August 2008 it was likely that – whoever was next president – there was going to be a push for climate action because Republican candidate John McCain was not a climate denier. And Barack Obama as a Democrat was going to have to pander to his constituencies (even though Obama had made vague comments about having lots of coal while on the campaign trail).

So, if you know that the next President is going to be more willing to do something on climate then George Bush (which, frankly, is a pretty low bar) then you’re going to want to get a lobby group together that can credibly push the versions of policy that you want, as opposed to what the radical civilization-hating communist Luddite greenies want.

And of course if you’re a specific company under attack for planet-butchering, then membership of such a pressure group can also be used in your adverts when you’re trying to convince consumers that the latest version of the crap that you peddle – that they maybe need but probably merely want – is somehow “green,” and that they’re doing something good for the planet by buying it (spoiler they are almost certainly not). 

And so BICEP was born.

What we learn

See above

what happened next 

BICEP kept going as far as I know, it’s still going, still doing its thing. Whether it got up on its hind legs, and attacked the Trump administration is another question. Probably played dead.

Categories
Activism United States of America

November 20, 1930 – the Fox is born!! 

On this day, November 20, 19330, the man who would later be known as The Fox – the first “ecotage” of the late 1960s upsurge, was born.

James F. Phillips (November 20, 1930 – October 3, 2001) was an American schoolteacher and environmental activist who became known in the Chicago area during the 1960s for his environmental direct action under the pseudonym The Fox.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 329.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1962 “Silent Spring” had woken everything up to the consequences of industrialisation. Through the 1960s there was more and more concern about pollution – air, water etc.  By the late 1960s, people were freaking out.  And taking (symbolic) action.  See below – 

See also the book “Ecotage 1972

What we can learn – “ecotage” has been around a long long time. And the history deserves more acknowledgement, because it might inspire us…

What happened next.  

Despite the efforts of individuals and organisations, the damage has kept piling up at our feet.  It’s too late now to avoid severe consequences for “our” actions.  It may not be too late to avert the very worst, but I for one don’t think we will…

Categories
United States of America

November 19, 1958 – doctor warns of long-term problem of carbon dioxide build-up

Sixty five years ago, on this day, November 19, 1958, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting Dr C Leake warns of carbon dioxide build up. This is reported the following day in the Times.

Anon. 1958. Air Pollution Menace to Health. The Times, November, 20, p.16

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by the late 1950s scientists (especially American ones) were switching on to the threat of carbon dioxide build-up, and talking about it. 

What I think we can learn from this

Nobody pushed back, really. In a “liberal democracy” the active resistance only starts when you threaten established economic and political interests.

What happened next? It’s unclear if Leake continued warning. The carbon dioxide issue goes a bit quieter in the 60, for various reasons (no news hook, not enough confirmed science/data to justify etc).

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
Denial United States of America

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 16, 1995, a denialist douche-bag testilies…

On November 16, 1995, Patrick J. Michaels, an associate professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, on issues related to human-induced (or anthropogenic) climate change.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 202

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Michaels and a small band of others had for reasons of their own and (in Michaels case, money and attention), decided to attack and smear climate science and climate scientists. And in 1995 the big effort was to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to anyone who would listen. And they had enough Republican friends, especially in the House of Reps and Senate, to be able to do what the proper scientists were doing, which was create venues for discourse. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “ideal speech communities” can get hijacked and perverted by lying liars. The lying liars could never admit that they were wrong. Too demanding, emotionally.

What happened next

The attacks on the IPCC and in this case, especially Ben Santer continued, but they reached such a high vicious pitch that members of the Global Climate Coalition started to worry about their reputations and started to leave. But it didn’t matter. The denialists had won.

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

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Forty years ago, on this day, November 15, 1983, an MIT and Stanford report comes out… (reported on January 3 1984 by New York Times)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from the late 1970s, the US Department of Energy and others were funding studies of global energy demand and the climate impacts. The lead author of this report, David Rose, had been quoted in The Wall Street Journal article in August 1980 [LINK] as saying, if the build up is real, then this is serious. 

The build-up was real, this was serious. 

The report was finished on this date, and it was reported on in January of the following year by Walter Sullivan, of the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, shortly before this was finished, the EPA and the NAS had had reports out. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a hell of a lot of the serious intellectual work had been done by the early 80s. It was simply a question of getting the politicians on board that took another five years. And as soon as that was achieved, there was an enormous, virulent pushback. 

What happened next

We did not heed the warnings. The Age of Consequences is upon us and the dildo of consequence, never arrives lubed.

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

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

Ten years ago, on this day, November 14, 2013, one of the two senators for Rhode Island, gives his 50th consecutive weekly speech about climate change.

2013 Sheldon Whitehouse and his weekly climate speech http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-weekly-climate-speech

but then, “On November 14, 2013, he gave his 50th weekly Senate speech on climate change. The series of speeches highlight the science of climate change and offer paths for the United States to take strong action.”

(from wikipedia)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 396.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had been talking about climate every week. And the broader context is that the United Nations process was slowly grinding back into momentum. In the US, Obama had only tried anything substantive in his first term. And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there are elected politicians who get it and are willing to do the hard work of alerting people.

What happened next

Whitehouse kept going. He thought he’d quit at 279 speeches, but nope…

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/this-senator-thought-he-had-given-his-279th-and-final-speech-on-climate-change-he-was-wrong

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 Weather modification

November 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

Sixty years ago, on this day, November 11, 1963, the magazine US News and World Report runs a story on weather and climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 1950s concern about weather and weather change has grown. The US had started seriously spending money on weather modification experiments..

In 1963, in March in New York, the Conservation Foundation had held a one day meeting about carbon dioxide build up and its possible consequences. So the changes in the atmosphere, the weather, these were all grist for journalists ’mill. And you could quickly cobble together a new story based on old clippings, and maybe phoning up a couple of scientists who would be happy to be quoted, because as long as you’ve got the quote right, it would make them feel important. And keep their names in the papers. Universities would be mostly happy about this. And so the weekly ravening beast that was US News and World Report continued to be fed. Am I too cynical?

What I think we can learn from this

To really understand an individual document, you have to understand the social and political context of when it was written. This is a banal statement, but one that periodically needs repeating.

What happened next

The stories kept coming. By the late 60s carbon dioxide got named a lot more. But everything still got framed around. “We don’t know what will happen because maybe dust.” That didn’t begin to change until the late 1970s.

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.