Category: United States of America

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

On this day, November 24 in 1978, the Canberra Times ran a story “All coal plan to flood cities”, based on a UPI wire story about an American Physical Society meeting the day before in Florida where Dr Peter Fong called an all-coal energy policy “tantamount to suicide”

, 

1977 All coal plan to flood cities Canberra Times…p. 4.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110879451?searchTerm=All%20coal%20plan%20to%20flood%20cities#

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

By the late 1970s, carbon dioxide from coal and other fossil fuels was beginning to be publicly talked about as a SERIOUS long-term threat, around the world.

What happened next?

There was a late 1970s attempt to get international action. It failed. We went instead for a second Cold War, bleeding the Soviet Union to death and then rolling drunk on triumphalism into the 1990s…  By which time the chance to take a different path was… well, you know the rest…

Categories
United States of America

November 7, 1973 – Energy security avant la Ukraine: Nixon announces “Project Independence”

On this day, November 7  in 1973 US President Richard Nixon announced “Project Independence” to increase domestic US energy production (especially from coal), in the immediate aftermath of the first Oil  Shock.

Nixon had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up, it was a known thing (see for example August 3, on this site, from 1970 “Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting”) But, as with Shale Gas and synfuels slightly later (under Carter), all bets are off when consumers are facing higher energy prices.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 326 ish ppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

The first oil shock was part of the turbulence that ended the “Glorious Thirty” – three decades of sustained economic growth in the West.  See also “The Great Acceleration”, which has continued non-stop

What happened next?

Vietnam, Watergate, Second Oil Shock etc etc etc.

Categories
Denial Industry Associations Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

On November 5, 1997, twenty five years ago today, the Global Climate Coalition [bunch of oil companies, automobile companies and assorted denialists] co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference. With the third meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations agreement on climate) looming, denialists funded by the oil and car industries (among others), met to try to make life even harder for the Clinton Administration.

1997  “On November 5, the GCC coordinated a national conference opposing the Clinton Administration’s involvement in the Kyoto conference. The conference was sponsored by a number of radical anti-environmental organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, People for the West!, and the Environmental Conservation Organization  

A CLEAR view Vol 4, Number 16

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

“Our” failure to act on climate is not JUST down to ignorance/laziness etc. It has also been helped on its way by determined and clever opponents of action.

What happened next

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed, but neither the USA or Australia ever ratified it. It limped into existence because Russia DID ratify it, as a quid pro quo for getting into the World Trade Organisation.   Kyoto was supposed to be replaced in 2012, but the 2009 Copenhagen meeting ended in chaos etc. And then Paris and… oh, what a shitshow.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

On this day, November 1 in 1975, climate scientist Stephen Schneider tried to keep folks eyes on the prize, given how many various books and hypotheses were already being thrown around

On the Carbon Dioxide–Climate Confusion  Stephen H. Schneider J. Atmos. Sci. (1975) 32 (11): 2060–2066.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By the mid 1970s, a cottage industry had grown up around “weird weather.”

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that there were claims and counter-claims, some outlandish

What happened next?

By the late 70s it was pretty damn clear that it was a carbon dioxide problem…

Categories
United States of America

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

On this day, October 28 in 1956, the New York Times carried another story on the build up of carbon dioxide (something it had written about the previous year too).

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 314ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American scientist Gilber Plass had been making noises about this issue, as were the Swedes. The International Geophysical Year was about to start (i.e. Roger Revelle was in the process of hiring Charles David Keeling)

Why this matters. 

We knew enough to worry and watch, back then, and to act if the worries about a build-up were to be proven (as they were, within a few more years of this article).

What happened next?

Roger Revelle hired Charles David Keeling to take accurate measurements of carbon dioxide.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

On this day, October 24  in 1967, folks at a Public Health conference in Miami Beach… got to hear a warning about climate change, from Philip Abelson Abelson was a big fish, the editor of Science. His list of man-made environmental threats was mostly “local” stuff- DDT, smog etc. But then there is this.

“Each year, tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere and the amount is increasing. As a result, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. By the year 2000, an increase of 25 per cent is probable.(7) Such a change would not have much direct effect on human beings, but it might have substantial indirect effects. Many geophysicists believe that such an increase would affect the world’s temperature by what is called a greenhouse effect. The extra carbon dioxide would slow heat loss from the earth, resulting in warmer climates and possibly the melting of polar ice. “

Abelson paper was presented before a Special Session of the American Public Health Association at the Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, Fla., October 24, 1967.  https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.58.11.2043

(7)  Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President’s Advisory Committee. Washington, D. C.: The White House (Nov.), 1965, p. 120. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 319.39ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

People were beginning to clock to all the different ways we were screwing ourselves. Abelson’s speech was a summary of the state of the art, and included the Revelle warning in the PSAC publication of two years previously.

Why this matters. 

It is via events like this that news percolated out…

What happened next?

By late 1968, various scientific work was more seriously underway, and led to the crucial July 1970 Study of Man’s Influence on Climate workshop in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

On this day, October 22 in 1997, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (nasty neoliberal ‘think’tank) hosted a pre-Kyoto spine stiffening meeting.

“On October 22, 1997, the CEI hosted ABARE’s Brian Fisher at a luncheon with the aim of winning over “economic attaches to embassies of developing countries which might prefer differentiation to uniform reduction targets”. The CEI had “recognized the strategic importance of Australia in the climate change gambit” according to CEI research fellow (and Australian national) Hugh Morley. “If Australia sticks to its guns”, Morley said, “there might not be a Kyoto treaty after all.” (Hugh Morley, 1/11/97, “Australia Cool To Warming”, <www.cei.org/gencon/005,01305.cfm>.)”

From Jim Green “WMC Ltd: corporate greenhouse gangster”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 360.98ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm – but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American corporate interests were solidifying pre-existing links with Australian denialists (politicians, corporates, bureaucrats) – these had begun in earnest in 1990 (Tasman Institute hosting various folks) and then gradually strengthened. The “Countdown to Kyoto” conference had already been staged in Canberra, by this time…

Why this matters. 

Think internationally. Those preventing climate action do.

What happened next?

Kyoto was a joke. Not a funny one. And here we are.

Categories
United States of America

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

On this day, October 18 in 1983, 

“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 2000

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 340.53ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – That day had seen the release of a National Academy of Science report that tried to cast doubt on the imminence of human-induced climate change, in contradiction to, well, all the other reports, including the Environmental Protection Agency one of the same time.

(There has been a “battle of the articles” between Orsekes et al and Nierenberg et al about all this. Buy me a beer and I will give you my two cents).

NB In 1983 everyone terrified of nuclear war Nobody had much left over fear for carbon dioxide molecules…

Why this matters. 

Different interests will try to cloak themselves in the mantle of Neutral Science. Be ready!

What happened next?

The NAS report didn’t really have much impact in the scientific community, best I can tell. The meetings kept happening, the papers kept getting written. By October 1985 in Villach…

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?”

On this day, October 18 in 1973, a prominent US climate scientist, Reid Bryson, testified before a subcommittee of US congress.

Reid Bryson – There is no way right now that we can control the climate to make it more benign. Even if we were to say “let us stop using fossil fuels so that we do not add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because that impacts the world climate,” how on earth could you stop using fossil fuels? Even those countries that are most heavily impacted by the climatic change are the ones who say it is our turn to be affluent and it is in the use of fossil fuels that one gains affluence. U.S. Congress (October 18, 1973). U.S. and world food situation. Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices and Subcommittee on Foreign Agricultural Policy of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, first session. U.S. G.P.O. p. 120.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327.18ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this –  politicians, sensitised by Earth Day and various reports, were beginning to look into the security/geopolitical impacts of a change in the climate (hot or cold).  Food security was a Big Issue.

Why this matters. 

Well, ultimately it doesn’t, but it’s kinda interesting!

What happened next?

Bryson bet all his chips on “not fossil fuels,” and lost. There’s an interesting article about that and him, here,

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 12, 1976 – Jule Charney throws (private) shade on fellow climatologists…

On this day, October 12 in 1976, an eminent US scientist was dismissive (in a personal letter) of Stephen Schneider et al.

12 Oct 1976 None of the “speculative ideas of people like … Schneider on future climate change are worth the paper (usually newspaper) they are written on. They mislead the public and they do the field harm,” Charney concluded in a separate letter.

Jule  Charney to Warren Kornberg, 12 October 1976, Box 13 – NSF, 1955-81, Papers of Jule Charney,  MIT Institute Archives, Cambridge, MA. 

(Henderson, 2014 Dilemmas of Reticence)

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 328.72ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

In the mid 1970s there was a flurry of books about climate change and its impacts. Only a very few of them focussed on the importance of carbon dioxide build-up – others saw the problem in dust, or ‘waste heat’. The grand old men of the field – Charney, Landsberg et al, feared that popularisation/tabloid style claims would damage the credibility of the field. 

Why this matters. 

Scientists – justifiably – worry about large claims and whether they are sound, since if the claims and predictions turn out to be wrong, all scientists suffer.

What happened next?

Charney changed his tune in 1979, agreeing that unless something very odd indeed happened, then a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to serious warming…

Schneider went on to do much more great work.