Seventy years ago, on this day, June 13, 1963, high-powered scientists Werner Von Braun and Roger Revelle spitball the future, but don’t seem to talk about climate change…
13-14 June 1963 Teller Von Braun and Revelle at UCSD The Future of Science conference
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 321.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Revelle had been at the Conservation Foundation’s meeting in March of 1963. Teller had written and publicly proclaimed about climate change, but neither of them particularly mentioned it on this occasion, as far as I can tell.
What I think we can learn from this is that carbon dioxide buildup was only one issue among many at the time, and didn’t warrant a lot of attention.
What happened next
Revelle kept publishing, kept working, died in 1991, and was used as a pawn in the culture war. Teller went on with his Dr. Strangelove obsessions and the Space-Based Defence initiative (Star Wars). And the carbon dioxide kept accumulating.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, June 11, 2003, AEI + IPA vs, well, life on earth.
On June 11, 2003, AEI and an Australian think tank, Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), cosponsored a conference titled “Non-governmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few,” held at the AEI offices in Washington, D.C. The conference laid the ground for the launch of “NGO Watch” – a website and political campaign cosponsored by AEI and The Federalist Society.
(Hardistry and Furdon 2004)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Public Affairs were both long-lived think tanks which had been captured by the neoliberals in the 70s and 80s. And were now launching a full frontal assault on civil society and NGOs. In order to get the ignorant rabble in line.
What I think we can learn from this is that there is a never-ending war for public perception and the power struggle to make sure that the state is insulated from popular pressure and can be a trough for favoured industries and research and development, and also function to continue to batter the proles until they submit.
And the “DDT is good for you” myth never goes away.
What happened next
As you’d have predicted, the IPA then set about trying to attack and smother civil society organisations in the United in Australia. It set up a fake environmental group in 2005 in order to try to confuse people, because that’s who these scum buckets 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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 10, 1969, the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission gave carbon dioxide build-up as an anti-coal/pro-nuke argument.
“Speaking today before the opening session of the 37th annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute, Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the AEC said that
“While tremendous efforts were under way to cut the sulphur content of coal, oil and gas – fossil fuels – there were “no methods known of eliminating carbon dioxide that results from combustion.” ”
The Times goes on to report “Nuclear power adds no pollutants to the atmosphere.”
(Smith 1969)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the nuclear lobby was starting to realise that it could use the alleged low carbon nature of its power stations versus coal. You’d seen Teller to do this in 1957-59. You’d seen an article in the 1964 “Population Resources” book that did the same thing. And I think the editor of the journal Science Philip Abelson had also mentioned climate change as an argument for nuclear in the late 1960s…
Seaborg had already warned about this in 1966 at a commencement address at UC San Diego.
“At the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tons a year), within the next few decades the heat balance of the atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate–changes which we might have no means of controlling even if by that time we have made great advances in our programs of weather modification.” [wikipedia]
The “nukes will save us from climate” thing goes back longer than a lot of people would think.
What happened next
Nukes didn’t save us from climate.
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
Smith, G. 1969. UTILITIES URGED TO BACK A-POWER. The New York Times; Jun 10, pg. 63
Thirty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton runs up the white flag on BTU tax
President Bill Clinton and his allies in Congress confirmed the obvious on Tuesday: There will be wholesale revisions in his five-year budget plan, including major changes in a proposed energy tax.
Negotiations are continuing with dissident Democrats in the Senate over the details as the president fights to collect enough votes from his own party to pass his plan.
Despite the impending changes, which will include more spending cuts and fewer taxes, none of the Senate’s 43 Republicans is expected to vote for the plan, their leaders said.
On the chopping block is Mr. Clinton’s proposal to tax the heat content of fuels – the so-called Btu tax.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Clinton and Gore had underestimated the strength and guile of the opposition to the BTU. And key Democratic senators had been flipped.
What I think we can learn from this is that the bad guys are very good at what they do. Money buys the smartest people, or the ones with the best low cunning.
What happened next
Congresspeople who had voted for it lost in the 1994 elections “got BTU’d”. Did the Australian bad guys learn from this? Never saw it mentioned but I wasn’t looking.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.
6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.
What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.
What happened next
Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, June 2, 1986, US Senators got going…
The year of 1986 was significant in terms of congressional interest. Influential congressional leaders asserted that the issue of greenhouse warming was no longer only a science issue; policy options had to be considered. 19 in Congress, the likes of Senators Chafee, Stafford, Bentsen, Durenberger, Mitchell, Baucus, Leahy and Gore, began to pressure the White House to take action on climate change.
These Senators signed a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of NAS on June 2, 1986, requesting the NAS to review the scientific issues. These senators were ‘deeply disturbed’ by the implications of published reports on CO2 induced climate change.
(Hecht and Tirpak 1995)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various US Senators had been getting well informed about the risks of climate change by various National Academy of Science reports. And scientists such as Jim Hansen, and David Burns, and so on. In October 1985, there had been a meeting at Villach in Austria, which had really concentrated everyone’s minds. Carl Sagan had given testimony to Seators in December of 1985. LINK
Joe Biden introduced a climate bill, in 1987, and this letter by various senators, is part of the run-up to that. And we should remember that Frank Press was previously Jimmy Carter’s Chief Scientific Adviser. And he would have been very well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, having been lobbied on it and having taken action on it before (and in April 1980 having pushed back against a report advocating a policy response).
What I think we can learn from this is that before the breakout in 1988, there were lots of people in the policy stream and politics stream and the problem stream to make stuff happen, and to couple the streams. There are always efforts to couple streams before they are successfully coupled.
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.
On May 28, 1969, there was a ‘teach-in’ in Berkeley, California.
BERKELEY—About 2,000 persons attended—off and on—a six hour teach-in on “Ecology and Politics in America” May 28 at the U-C Berkeley campus. The idea was to relate the People’s Park issue to broader questions of planetary survival. A lot of language under a hot sun—but hopefully the thing will get made into a book to help people past the old politics and into a root politics of ecology. Sponsors were American Federation of Teachers locals 1474 and 1795. Their leaflet for the occasion put it succinctly where it’s at:
“The battle for a people’s park in Berkeley has raised questions that go far beyond the immediate objects of public attention. They are questions about the quality of our lives, about the deterioration of our environment and about the propriety and legitimacy of the uses to which we put our land. The questions raised by this issue reach into two worlds at once: the world of power, politics and the institutional shape of American society on the one hand, and the world of ecology, conservation and the biological shape of our environment on the other.
“The People’s Park is a mirror in which our society may see itself. A country which destroys Vietnam in order to liberate it sees no paradox in building fences around parks so that people may enjoy them. It is not at all ironic that officers of the law uproot shrubbery in order to preserve the peace. It is the way of the world! Trees are anarchic; concrete is Civilization.
“Our cities are increasingly unlivable. The ghettos are anathema to any form of human existence. Our back country is no retreat; today’s forest is tomorrow’s Disneyland. Our rivers are industrial sewers; our lakes are all future resorts; our wildlife are commercial resources.
“The history of America is a history of hostility and conquest. We have constituted ourselves socially and politically to conquer and transform nature. We measure ‘progress’ in casualties, human and environmental, in bodies of men or board-feet of lumber.
“Ecology and politics are no longer separate or separable issues…”
The context was that people were realising that what was being done to the people of Vietnam – wanton murder and mayhem using ‘advanced technology’ was, (checks notes) also being done at a planetary level, with fewer explosions. And people were (rightly, it turns out) worried about the long-term viability of such a strategy.
What happened next
The momentum stalled as the war wound down, the first oil shock sealed the deal and although the struggle continued, we were doomed…
A WEATHER station in southeast Texas spots a threatening cloud formation moving toward Waco on its radar screen; the shape of the cloud indicates a tornado may be building up. An urgent warning is sent to Weather Control Headquarters. Back comes an order for aircraft to dissipate the cloud. And less than an hour after the incipient tornado was first sighted, the aircraft radios back: Mission accomplished. The storm was broken up; there was no loss of life, no property damage. This hypothetical destruction of a tornado in its infancy may sound fantastic today, but it could well become a reality within 40 years. In this age of the H-bomb and supersonic flight, it is quite possible that science will find ways not only to dissipate incipient tornadoes and hurricanes, but to influence all our weather to a degree that staggers the imagination
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in the 1950s the species – especially the American wing of it – was rolling drunk on Hubris.
What I think we can learn from this
If you were at all switched on in the 1950s, you knew about weather modification, both inadvertent and inadvertent. But you probably assumed either a nuclear war would mean you had nothing to worry about, or there would be some technological fix…
What happened next
Through the mid 50s, a bunch of these sorts of articles – others that explicitly talked about carbon dioxide build-up [something Orville would do a few years later] got published. They must have been read, both by policymakers and ordinary people. But the signal really wasn’t emerging from the noise. And of course, the planet was not getting warmer the way that it is now 60 or 70 years later. And we have to try to remember that these people simply didn’t know what we know now.
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.
“Illustrative also would be the covering of much land by water should continuing population growth so step up man’s production of carbon dioxide that the oceans failed to absorb all of it, with the result that the carbon dioxide content, and hence the temperature, of the atmosphere rose sufficiently to melt the polar ice caps.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319 check ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by the late 1950s carbon dioxide build-ups existence and possible long term consequences was not confined to a tiny tiny minority. Anyone who read a newspaper, could understand exponential growth and 19th century could see that there might be some writing on the wall…
What I think we can learn from this
We knew enough to think about worrying.
What happened next?
No economist bothered to think about the problem until Nordhaus in the 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.
Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial
“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”
(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)
“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”
He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue.
What I think we can learn from this
Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much.
What happened next
And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look.
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.
