Category: United States of America

Categories
Science United States of America

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

Twenty three years ago, on this day, October 28, 2000, famed climate scientist James Hansen wrote an open letter…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369,4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that James Hansen had not yet retired from NASA – hadn’t yet been pushed out by the Bush administration’s attempts to shut him up. He knew that the IPCC report was coming out. And he decided to do some truth telling. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

The problem is not the science, the problem is not the scientists. The problem is the power structures. This is nothing that radicals have been telling us that for a very long time, but the people who want to “save the world” never quite get their shit together. Here we are. 

What happened next

Hansen started getting nicked on demos, bless him.

And is still Doing The Science. Turns out there’s global warming in the pipeline – https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

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 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

On this day, 40 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the second revised edition of “Projecting future sea level rise : methodology, estimates to the year 2100, and research needs” by John S. Hoffman, Dale Keyes, James G. Titus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measurements.

The context was that the EPA had, like others, been taking an interest in long-term effects. Long-before “the Greenhouse Effect” became a threat (finally) acknowledged by our lords and masters, smart people were doing the sums.

What we learn – nothing. We never learn anything


What happened next – the issue broke through in 1988, for what it was worth. And we have spent the 35 years since then making things worse.

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

Sixty eight years ago, on this day, October 23, 1955, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on the changing weather that included mention of carbon dioxide build-up as one of the possible causes…

“Many scientists believe that the earth’s rising temperatures may be partly due to the six billion tons of carbon dioxide dumped into the earth’s atmosphere each year from the smokestacks of industrial plants…”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that by 1955, there were more and more of these stories because the weather seemed to be changing. And we were taking better measures (not yet satellites, obviously). And talk of “weather modification” (especially as a weapon of war) was all the rage as well. The broader context is, of course, that the people of Los Angeles had more immediate air pollution issues on their plate, namely smog, which they wanted to believe, and were encouraged to believe came from well, anywhere, but the motor car.

(note to self – this was 8 days after the Macleans Magazine article by Berrill; did they just clip it and get a react quote from George Kimble?]

)What happened next

There would be more and more carbon dioxide stories for two years, to the late 50s. And then, oddly, because it was no longer speculation, because it was fact, the whole thing became less newsworthy (especially without the International Geophysical Year hook).

Btw one of the people cited in this article (George Kimble) wrote a 1962 article in the New York Times.

What I think we can learn from this

And I suppose it’s the speculation, “the competing theories” that help a journalist pad out a story and leave the reader with a sense of being informed about an ongoing scientific controversy. Once it’s over, well, the reader then would be focusing on “what can we do?” And certainly on carbon dioxide, not much is the answer, whereas there is a bewildering plethora of solutions for nitrogen, sulphur, etc. See, the “Breath of Life” book published in 1965.

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 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

Fifty four years ago, on this day, October 22, 1969, an article by Edmund Muskie, a senior American politician (someone seen as a contender for president, and had been the prospective VP on Hubert Humphrey’s ticket in 1968) was published. Muskie was aware of the issue (as were many others, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan).

22 Oct 1969 Edmund Muskie article- ENVIRONMENTAL JURISDICTION IN THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE – published which includes the following – “The increased use of fossil fuels affects not only local environments but the global environment as well. The increased introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect, raising temperatures.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

A couple of months earlier, Daniel Moynahan had raised the question to a higher level with his memo which Muskie may or may not have seen. But Muskie would have been aware, presumably, that from a foreign policy perspective the US were trying to create the environment as a separate entity which they could dominate (Nixon had given a speech about it to the North Atlantic Council in April 1969, hoping people would just stop talking about the napalming of babies). The UN Secretary General U Thant was speaking about the issue by June 1969. 

See also ”Arming Mother Nature”

What I think we can learn from this is that from 1968-69 senior politicians in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, we’re talking about fossil fuels causing catastrophic climate change. This is far earlier than I think most people understand.

What happened next

I think Muskie made a bid to be the Democratic nominee and if I recall, rightly, his mental health history talked against him.

MUSKIE WAS CARTER’S SEC OF STATE AT THE END. NAME IS ON THE GLOBAL FUTURE TIME TO ACT REPORT

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 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.