Category: United States of America

Categories
Business Responses Denial Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 26, 1998, The New York Times runs a story, probably not that different from the one on the 26th of December 1997 in the Washington Post. That, lo and behold, industrial interests, coal miners, auto makers, etc. are going to continue to try to – to use the academic terminology – shit all over climate action. And I think this is front page news but certainly not a surprise. 

Anyone who’s paying any attention knows that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy, and that the ability of powerful cashed up vested interests, to shape policy to prevent policies they don’t like, is enormous. Just because the power is enormous doesn’t mean that they always win all the time. But it means the game is rigged, y’all.

1998 Cushman of NYT breaks story – Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp368.8m. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the US had been at COP-3 Kyoto meeting. I think Al Gore even signed, but it was never going to come to the Senate for ratification. But the danger was that in two years time, if there was a Democrat in the White House, things could somehow change…

What I think we can learn from this

Opponents of action take nothing for granted and are always trying to keep their muscles, their attack muscles fresh, in case they’re needed.

What happened next

Cashed up denialist kept doing their denying.

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
Academia Science Scientists United States of America

April 25, 1969 –  Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 25, 1969, Dave Keeling gave a speech at the “Symposium on Atmospheric Pollution: Its long-term implications” just over 10 years after he started measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa.

He was asked to change the title to “Is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel changing man’s environment? from  If carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is changing man’s environment, what will we do about it?”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now Charles Keeling had been collecting atmospheric co2 data at Mauna Loa for 10 years and there was a distinct upward trend. So his first title was proposed as this and then for whatever reason, he had to tone it down. Which is interesting. 

What I think we can learn from this

There are pressures within communities be they scientific activist, academic, political, designed to minimise disruption. One to hammer down any tall nails. And you can argue that human society is not possible, really without those mechanisms. You  could also argue that by hammering down nails by cutting down the “tall timber” in the words of the Skyhooks, you’re less likely to get important shit done in the time that you need to. 

See also that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Half a Life,”  with David Ogden Stiers Willis, where he’s a 60 year old guy who’s going to have to be Logan’s Run, even though he possibly has the way out for his endangered society.

What happened next

Keeling kept taking his measures. He gave an even more interesting speech in May 1969. Keeling was proved right. And we are toast 

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

April 24, 1980 – the climate models are sound…

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 24, 1980, a US administrator said the models were good…

DH Slade, Director of the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide and Climate Division, who stated in his introductory remarks to the participants in the Carbon Dioxide and Climate Research Program Conference held in Washington DC on April 24-5, 1980: “I think it would be very remarkable indeed if today’s results in the general circulation model community were shown to be fundamentally incorrect at some future time.”

LE Schmitt, ed, 1980 Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment Program 011.
(Idso, 1982: 52)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that US scientists were on an upward trajectory around climate. The NAS report in 1977, had started institutional wheels, turning the Charney report in 1979 had shown that yes, indeed co2 was a problem. And the work of the Department of Energy, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc. was continuing. There were international workshops afoot. The disappointment of the First World Climate Conference not being stronger, was a minor irritant.  

What I think we can learn from this 

Something Slade said is very important. You know, the models are good enough. One of the things that the denialists will tell you is that the models have exaggerated. They’ll also say there’s no physical evidence, which is a lie. They’ll say the models are exaggerated. The models have actually been rather good. Some of the extrapolations, maybe not, but see here for an assessment of what the models have achieved. 

What we learned from this is that smart people 40 plus years ago, had begun to really nut this out.

What happened next

 Reagan put the kibosh on all of this. And it would be 1988 before the issue could properly break through 

(see Stephen Schneider contact sport for gory details).

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

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

The New York Review of Books had its finger on the pulse. In its 23 April 1970 issue, Robert Heilbroner had a review of Population, Resources, Environment  by Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich under the heading “Ecological Armageddon”.

It began with the observation

Ecology has become the Thing. There are ecological politics, ecological jokes, ecological bookstores, advertisements, seminars, teach-ins, buttons. The automobile, symbol of ecological abuse, has been tried, sentenced to death, and formally executed in at least two universities (replete with burial of one victim)…

And quickly predicted what would happen – 

 the ecological issue has assumed the dimensions of a vast popular fad, for which one can predict with reasonable assurance the trajectory of all such fads—a period of intense general involvement, followed by growing boredom and gradual extinction, save for a die-hard remnant of the faithful.

(This got dubbed, in a 1972 article by someone else, the ‘Issue Attention Cycle’).

And then, when he is paraphrasing the Ehrlich argument – 

The strain consists of the limited ability of the soil, the water, and the atmosphere of these favored regions to absorb the outpourings of these fast-growing industrial processes.

The most dramatic instance of this limited absorptive power is the rise in the carbon dioxide content of the air due to the steady growth of (largely industrial) combustion. By the year 2000, it seems beyond dispute that the CO2 content of the air will have doubled, raising the heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere. This so-called “greenhouse” effect has been predicted to raise mean global temperatures sufficiently to bring catastrophic potential consequences. One possibility is a sequence of climatic changes resulting from a melting of the Arctic ice floes that would result in the advent of a new Ice Age; another is the slumping of the Antarctic ice cap into the sea with a consequent tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind and raise the sea level by 60 to 100 feet.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328,1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

“Everyone” was talking about it. This issue hit the newsstands in time for the first  “Earth Day”

What I think we can learn from this

Issues come and go, independently of the actual problem.

What happened next

The issue went away again. The problem did not…

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 IPCC Science Scientists United States of America

April 23, 1998 – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick paper published.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, April 1, 1998, American climate scientist Michael Mann’s paper about temperatures during the last thousand years was released.

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/04/04/how-creation-mann-s-hockey-stick-led-counter-attack-climate-deniers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in 1995/6 said that there had already been a discernible impact of human activity on the climate. This enraged the denialists, who were looking for new scientists and science to attack.  Michael Mann’s work, which was clearly going to end up in the Third Assessment Report (published in 2001) was one such target. 

What I think we can learn from this

Denialists are always looking for targets, and what they perceive to be easy ones – what Mann has since dubbed ‘The Serengeti Strategy’.

What happened next

It properly kicked off, with endless attacks on Mann, lawsuits back and forth. You can read the Wikipedia page here.  The science was robust.

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

Mann, Michael E.; Bradley, Raymond S.; Hughes, Malcolm K. (1999), “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations” (PDF), Geophysical Research Letters, 26 (6): 759–762, Bibcode:1999GeoRL..26..759M, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070

see also

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2167127-why-the-hockey-stick-graph-will-always-be-climate-sciences-icon/

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing United States of America

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22, 1993, Clinton’s announcement was used in the low-intensity conflict over carbon pricing…

A PLEDGE by the US President, Mr Clinton, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the pressure on Australia to take tougher action, according to a senior Australian bureaucrat and Australian business and environment groups.

A first assistant secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Peter Core, told business lobbyists yesterday at a private seminar organised by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, that Mr Clinton’s announcement would put renewed pressure on Australia’s stance on the issue.

And an assistant director of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Chris Burnup, said yesterday the move would dramatically change the complexion of talks on global climate change.

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. The Australian Financial Review, 23 April, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The business lobby and its proxies (including plenty in the Labor Party) had defeated the first attempt at a carbon tax during 1990-1991.  They knew it would be back soon-ish though.  This briefing to an AFR hack may have been an effort to smoke out proponents, force them to show their colours so they could be crushed. Alternatively, it might have been from a proponent, hoping to slowly raise the pressure, build a new normal…see the post from a few days ago about Keating…

What I think we can learn from this

You have to read newspaper articles thinking “which lying liar fed this to the hack, and what is the hack trying to push?” It’s exhausting to do this, and most of us most of the time just pretend that if it is in the paper (of our choice) it is ‘true.’ That’s nonsense, but there are rarely any personal consequences, so as an energy-saving habit, it persists.

What happened next

There was indeed another push for a carbon tax. It was defeated.  Australia didn’t get carbon pricing until 2012, and then only for a couple of years. To be clear – carbon pricing is one very small part of what you would do if you were trying to respond to the threats of climate change.  But it’s a brown M&M when it comes to how serious your government is..

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

 April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 21, 1993, new President Bill Clinton made some promises, while giving a shout out to an Australian politician who had bottled a carbon tax.

His stand is a reversal of that taken by the former US President, Mr Bush, who refused at the Earth Summit to support specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or to back the biodiversity treaty.

At the start of his speech, Mr Clinton made an unexpected acknowledgement of Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

“We should introduce a guest from another country who is here with us – the environmental minister from Australia, Ros Kelly,” he said. “Would you stand up? We’re glad to have you here.”

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. Australian Financial Review 23 April p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Clinton had come to power in the 1992 Presidential election without ever really saying terribly much about climate change on the campaign trail (his running mate Al Gore had a book come out during the campaign – “Earth in the Balance.”)

This ‘Earth Day’ announcement came two months after the Feb 17 1993 starting gun for a short, sharp and er – failed – attempt to put a tax on petrol (or ‘gas,’ as the Americans call it).

What I think we can learn from this

Those looking to tax energy to a) reduce emissions and b) pay for research and development into renewable energy, do not have a particularly glorious track record.

What happened next

Clinton’s BTU tax was defeated (you can read about it later this year on this site, or, if you’re really impatient, see here). But not before it was reported in Australia (see tomorrow’s 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..

References

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
Academia Agnotology Denial United States of America

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

Twenty five  years ago, on this day, April 20, 1998, the National Academy of Sciences had to hold a press conference and release a statement because climate deniers had been using its logo and type-face for one of their demented petitions…

.

1998 April 20 NAS statement that Oregon petition not connected to NAS  https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/1998/04/statement-of-the-council-of-the-nas-regarding-global-change-petition

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Well, as per wikipedia – 

The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as “a small independent research group”) in 1998, and again in 2007.[4] Frederick Seitz, then chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a supporting cover letter, signed as “Past President National Academy of Sciences USA, President Emeritus Rockefeller University“.[5][6][7] 

More deeply – despite keeping the US from having any likelihood of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the deniers were not happy. They wanted to continue to fling mud, and to sow doubt and confusion. The phony petition was a part of that…

What I think we can learn from this

There are NO – nada, zilch, none – depths of intellectual and moral depravity to which goons like these would not be happy to sink.

What happened next

The Oregon petition was latched onto by the usual type of scientifically-illiterate ‘libertarian’ and ‘contrarian’ as somehow showing there was still debate about carbon dioxide build-up. Worked a treat, because thick pseudo-smart people lap this crap 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

April 19, 1973 – first film to mention global warming released (Soylent Green)

Fifty years ago, on this day, April 19, 1973, the first Hollywood film to mention global warming was released…

1973 Soylent Green released http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Harry “Stainless Steel Rat” Harrison had written a novel called “Make Room, Make Room”, published in 1968. This became Soylent Green.

The timing wasn’t as good as it could have been – the “Malthusian Moment” was passing/had passed, but such is the danger with films, which inevitably have a long lead-time.

See also other films of the time that have interesting things to say about “ecology”-

Silent Running (1972)

Rollerball (1975)

The Omega Man (1971) (starring C. Heston)

Planet of the Apes  (1968) (starring C. Heston)

What I think we can learn from this

Global warming was considered by the script-writers and director to be well-enough known as not to mystify the audience…

It’s hard to talk about societal conspiracies/conspiracies of silence. This film was a decent effort, imo.

And the stuff with Edward G. Robinson is great…

What happened next

Heston, who had been a liberal darling, went further and further “right” – a common but not universal or inevitable path.

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.

See also

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425972-1/1973-film-soylent-green-environmental-movement

Categories
United Nations United States of America

April 15, 1974 – war criminal Henry Kissinger gives climate danger speech

Forty nine years ago, on this day, April 15, 1974, war criminal, sorry “Secretary of State” Henry Kissinger gave a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. It used a security frame around climate change (which at that stage was not ascribed just (or even at all) to carbon dioxide build-up – plain old dust was also seen as a culprit).

 Kissinger Speech at 1974, the sixth special session of the General Assembly (which called on WMO to undertake a study of climate change). “The poorest nations, already beset by man-made disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes in the monsoon belt and perhaps throughout the world.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The US had been trying to use environmental concerns as a way of distracting from or re-dressing (but not redressing) concerns about its military activities (a euphemism for napalming babies).  So, Nixon had tried to get NATO to look at environmental problems – see Hamblin’s book “Arming Mother Nature.”.

And here we still were, with Nixon mired in the Watergate scandal that would force his resignation within months, with Kissinger trying a different angle.

What I think we can learn from this

“Climate change” was, is and will be a political football. That does not mean it is not real and very deadly.

What happened next

One amusing outcome was that Kissinger’s speech was used as ammunition by Nugget Coombs, Australian civil servant (retired by this stage) to get the Whitlam Government to request the Australian Academy of Science to look into the issue.  The AAS did this – holding a conference of experts, including Hermann Flohn.

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.