Category: United States of America

Categories
Activism United States of America

“Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley, May 28, 1969

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…”

Keith Lampe Earth Read-Out  https://fifthestate.anarchistlibraries.net/library/81-june-12-25-1969-earth-read-out

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…

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

May 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, May 28, 1954 Colliers” Magazine had a cover story about “Weather made to order?”

(See fascinating article on this image here – https://picturingmeteorology.com/home/2017/1/6/weather-made-to-order-1954)

The article itself begins thus- 

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.

Categories
Economics of mitigation Uncategorized United States of America

May 20, 1960 – Spengler suggests decline of the … whole shebang

On this day american economist Joseph J. Spengler’s  Science article –  

“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.”

See here

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1705886

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.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

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.

Categories
Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation United States of America

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 19, 1993

Senator David Boren comes out against BTU tax, after Burson Marstellar astroturf campaign (see Agrawala and Andressen, 1999: 470)

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

The context was

There had been enormous – and ultimately successful – local lobbying efforts. Boren had been picked off, in a kind of Serengeti strategy thing, but in the political sphere rather than the scientific. And this really spells the end for Clinton’s BTU. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of climate action, smart, determined, strategic and well funded. These characteristics do not necessarily apply to the proponents of action, unfortunately. 

What happened next

Clinton had to kill the BTU energy tax. And that was basically it for Clinton and domestic climate action (imo). It also meant that the opponents of action really had good proof of concept, and presumably, the Australians were looking at this and saying, “that’s how it’s done.”

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

May 18, 1953 – Newsweek covers climate change. Yes, 1953.

Seventy years ago, on this day, May 18, 1953, the American weekly magazine Newsweek ran a snippet about the ‘carbon dioxide is building up and we should watch out’ statement of Gilbert Plass at the American Geophysical Union (see May 5) 

Newsweek; New York Vol. 41, Iss. 20,  (May 18, 1953): 75  https://archive.org/details/sim_newsweek-us_1953-05-18_41_20/page/74/mode/2up?view=theater

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 313ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that two weeks previously, Gilbert Plass had made some very eye-catching statements at the American Geophysical Union that had been picked up and broadcast. This is the first report by Newsweek that I can find and it was followed shortly after, by something from Time.   

What I think we can learn from this

This is the moment in which the carbon dioxide theory of climate change really starts to enter into popular discourse. The context was that people were sure the world was getting hotter. It was a question of why. 

What happened next

Plass did his scientific work and in 1955/56 released papers about the carbon dioxide theory of climate. There was a further paper in Scientific American in 1959. There’s a direct line between Plass and Guy Callendar with whom Plass corresponded. 

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

May 17, 1972 – New York Times reports carbon dioxide build-up worries…

Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 17, 1972, the “Grey Lady” reported some basic facts.

“The continued use of fossil fuels at projected levels will mean a 20 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere by the year 2000, a leading meteorologist predicted today.”

Andelman, David, “20% Rise Feared in Carbon Dioxide,” New York Times, May 17, p. 6.  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Stockholm climate conference, four years in the making, was about to begin. And there were a significant number – a very small but significant number – of climate scientists and atmospheric scientists looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying “ this could be the problem.” As this site has demonstrated, by 1969/70 lots of people were being exposed to this, both politicians, but also readers of magazines and newspapers. 

What I think we can learn from this

Even before the 1972 conference, there was significant awareness and concern. 

What happened next

The Stockholm conference did give us the United Nations Environment Program, smaller than hoped for with less power and money. But nonetheless, UNEP was crucial in helping scientists do the research that was needed through the 70s and 80s, or rather, to get them talking to each other, across geographical more than disciplinary boundaries…

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

May 14, 2010 – a day of action/mourning on climate

Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 14, 2010, US activists tried to do a “day of action”

2010 Rising Tide US “Day of Action/Mourning” http://climate-connections.org/2010/05/10/nationwide-day-of-action-may-14th/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 394.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the prospects for action on climate change in the United States – at least at the federal level – were bleak af.  Obama had not bothered to fight for the Democratic energy package and climate package, and wasn’t going to punch that tar baby again. The Copenhagen summit had revealed the weakness of the international process and there was more rising despair and rising apathy than Rising Tide.

What I think we can learn from this was

Activist groups are obsessed with “days of action”, perhaps because these give them a sense of punctuation for the meaning of building up to something. It’s not necessarily a bad mobilising tactic but it doesn’t automatically mean that you are movement-building when you are repeatedly mobilising. See my articles about the emotacycle.

What happened next

Rising Tide US I think is dead, but I could be wrong. There are a broad range of other groups sunrise movement etc etc who are are more in the news.

It’s important though to remember that those people who protested were right even if they lost and and that cannot be taken away.

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

May 13, 1983 – idiots get their retaliation in first…

Forty years ago, on this day, May 13, 1983,  the Heritage Foundation made a clever pre-emptive assault on the impending  conference of the “Global Tomorrow Coalition” in Washington DC…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global 2000 report ordered in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter had continued to be a rallying point for environmentalists and those concerned about, well, the future. The Heritage Foundation, which had been set up in 1973, as an attack dog on precisely these questions, wanted to throw a spanner in the works and give journalists covering the upcoming conference, either ammunition or else a quandary. Report it as a “some say/others say ” horse race or, if they did not report on the Heritage Foundation’s critique, they can be smeared as “biased”, and part of the liberal media establishment. 

What we can learn from this is that organisations like the Heritage Foundation are fantastically good at shaping the public discourse. They seek to minimise the splash that their opponents can make. They do this with both preemptive and responsive propaganda efforts. This only comes about if you have lots of money and the people who have lots of money understand for the most part, that funding outfits like the Heritage Foundation, or whatever new group is required, is money well spent. 

What happened next

The conference happened. The Heritage Foundation released a book called The Resourceful Earth in 1984.  Edited by Julian Simon who had already been attacking the Global 2000 report. And in The Resourceful Earth  the meteorologist Helmut Landsberg, who was to die a year later made unfortunate predictions about what the climate would be. Oops. Landsberg, like Brian Tucker in Australia, couldn’t cope with the fact that climate science was undercutting the cherished technocracy and economic growth “values.”

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

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day May 12, 1995, the bet between those who think Technology Will Save Us and those who think that, you know, there are limits, kept going.

The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists “…that any trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get worse.” This article echoes an editorial essay entitled “Earth’s Doomsayers Are Wrong” that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco Chronicle open forum. Simon then said that “Every measure of material and environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved…” and that “All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction of the doomsayers” Thus he implied that few, if any people would likely accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have been “proven entirely wrong.” When my Stanford colleague, Paul Ehrlich, and I took up his challenge1 and named 15 environment-related trends we were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused claiming to the Chronicle (18 May 1995) that “I do not offer to bet on the progress of particular physical conditions such as the ozone layer” (as if its decline were not a negative measure of environmental welfare!).   

Schneider – https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in March 1995 the first meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “conference of the parties” (COP) was about to happen in Berlin. So, everyone was thinking about the future of climate action. Julian Simon, a cornucopian, had been taking bets with Paul Ehrlich and others and winning them. Simon’s bets were useful just-so stories for “owning the libs,” as we now call it, for generations of what’s the polite word … idiots.

What I think we can learn from this

You can be really smart and dumb as a rock at the same time especially if you you have an inability, for psychological reasons, to accept the basic fact that there are indeed limits on human ingenuity and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb damage.

What happened next

Julian Simon died without ever seeing his bets for what they were. And sadly Steven Schneider died when we needed him most.

The atmospheric CO2 kept accumulating and the damage has 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.