Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

May 14, 1972 – An Observer journo is “funny” on climate…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, May 14th, 1972, American journalist John Crosby was making fun of ecology. Smart fella.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Crosby had been a big deal in the US, before moving to the UK in the 60s. He’d fronted one of those ‘harrumph, the green freaks are wrong’ documentaries, that I should write about some day.

The specific context was that the Limits to Growth report had come out, the Stockholm Conference was coming up, and harrumphing was what Sensible People were doing. It is always “punch a hippy” day, isn’t it?

What I think we can learn from this. To hell with these assholes.

What happened next. The harrumphing continued. The old white men could never admit they were wrong – their world would implode. As to the actual world burning, well, what of it?

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.

Also on this day: 

May 14, 1979 – The greenhouse effect is … “almost common knowledge” – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2007 – another C40 large cities summit – All Our Yesterdays

May 14, 2002 – well-connected denialists gather in Washington DC to spout #climate nonsense

May 14, 2009 – First bite at the CPRS apple

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

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 10, 1989 – Bush announces conference

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 10th, George Bush says he will hold a conference.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was thatAmerican politicians had been warned about the climate threat since the late 70s. Under Reagan/Bush between 1981 and 1989 these threats had been largely ignored until it was no longer politically feasible to do so on. 

The specific context was that in August 1988 on the campaign trail, George H.W. Bush,feeling vulnerable on environmental issues, because his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, had a record to stand on, proclaimed that he would call an international conference on climate change in his first year in office. 

The other specific context is that – he – Bush had been caught trying to suppress the scientific and alter the scientific assessment of a NASA scientist, James Hansen, and so was needing to do some reputational repair. 

What I think we can learn from this is that when leadership was needed, we got Bush instead.

What happened next. The conference was finally held in 1990 and somebody somehow “forgot” in inverted commas, to invite the head of the IPCC, Bert Bolin. 

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.

Also on this day: 

May 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse…. – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned… – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

May 10, 2007 – Future Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan “punches the Liberal bruise” on climate and emissions trading 

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

May 9, 1989 – the Brits want a global climate pact. The US? Not so much…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989, Crispin Tickell tried to move things along. 

Boston Globe, May 10 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tickell was a career diplomat. In 1975 he had done a sabbatical at Harvard University and wrote his thesis on Climatic Change and International Affairs. He could see what carbon dioxide build-up would do to geopolitics. He tried repeatedly to get Margaret Thatcher to be concerned about the question. Eventually, in 1988 he succeeded.

The specific context was that in the second half of 1988 the problem had become an issue. Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Society in late September 1988 that was, in effect, the starting gun for international diplomacy. The administration of George H.W. Bush, however, was dragging its heels.

What I think we can learn from this. There was a chance to fix this – or if not actually fix it, then manage it. To buy us extra time. Instead we went lead head and lead foot off the cliff. Oh well.

What happened next. The US threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries was in the text of the Climate Treaty. This threat worked, the targets and timetables weren’t in, and we have spent the last 34 years trying to get them in. 

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.

Also on this day: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 1989- Tony Blair says market forces can’t fix the greenhouse effect…

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
United States of America

May 8, 1989 – Bush Administration exposed gagging climate scientist James Hansen

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 8th, 

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/NYTimes.1989Week07May.pdf

“All three networks on May 8, 1989 did greenhouse effect stories based on Senate sub-committee hearings in which NASA scientist James Hansen told Senator Al Gore that he had been ordered by the Bush administration to change the conclusions in written testimony regarding the seriousness of global warming.”

Sachsman 2000:5)

And

“More specifically, on 8 May 1989, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed that it had altered the Congressional testimony of NASA’s James Hansen, thereby weakening his conclusion that enough was known about the phenomenon to justify immediate action. The Whitehouse defended this action by claiming that it wanted to avoid the appearance of policy disagreements within the Administration. The political fallout from this episode was considerable, not only within the United States but also internationally.”

Rowlands (1995) Page 76 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning politicians and had mostly been simply ignored. But from 1988 onwards, ignoring came with costs.

The specific context was that James Hansen had given testimony to a Senate Committee on 23rd of June, 1988 and this, as much as anything else, had set the ball rolling. Happy dogs. But new president, George H.W. Bush was opposed to an environmental agenda. I think it’s fair to say, despite his promises on the campaign trail. And here we see evidence of Hansen’s testimony being altered and sidelined, and this being exposed by Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re a politician, you can ignore people, but actually actively changing their words… well, someone is going to leak it, and you’re going to get in hot water. 

What happened next. Hansen decided just to go back to doing his science, understandably, but he changed his mind in 2005 and has since then been an incredibly effective, active scientist and advocate for action. Bush continued, and scuppered the chance of any strong response to the climate threat by threatening to boycott the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries were in the treaty on climate that was up for signature. This worked. Targets and timetables for rich countries were taken out of the text. And here we 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.

Also on this day: 

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound. – All Our Yesterdays

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2008 – Carbon Rationing Scrapped

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
United States of America

May 5, 1980 – Frank Press to Jimmy Carter on climate

Forty six years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1980, Frank Press writes to President Jimmy Carter

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that American scientists had been trying to raise the alarm for some years about carbon dioxide, and even before his inauguration, Carter was being lobbied in December ‘76 about the CO2 issue. And from early days, early in ‘77 that had been ongoing, his Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press, was, I think it’s fair to say, relatively lukewarm on the issue. He had been lobbied in early ‘77 by, I think Weinberg and someone else.

In 1979, Press had, perhaps feeling a little bit cornered on the CO2 issue, asked the National Academies of Science people, especially Jule Charney, to look into the question. And the Charney report that had said, basically, there’s no reason to believe that if we continue putting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, then the temperature will do anything other than rise markedly. 

The specific context was that here we are in an election year, and Frank Press has already chided Gus Speth of the Council on Environmental Quality, about CO2 as a non issue. We’ve already had the Global 2000 report, which mentions CO2, and Press writing to Carter, minimising what the Charney folks wrote, because a slightly more equivocal report had been produced by an ‘ad hoc panel’…

What I think we can learn from this. is that chief scientific advisors are human beings with their own biases and blind spots and while there was a much bigger scientific awareness in the States than in the UK, there was still the roadblock of politics. I’m not saying that Frank Press was anywhere near as bad as the Met Office’s John Mason…

What happened next. Well, Carter lost the 1980 election, the Council on Environmental Quality released a report in the interim period before Reagan took office. Reagan was a catastrophe on so many levels, and it would be 1988 before policy making around climate change was even spoken of. 

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.

Also on this day: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

May 5, 1990 – Coal barons have to pretend to care

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues”

Categories
United States of America

May 4, 1989 – hearings yes, listenings not so much

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 4th, 1989,

GLOBAL WARMING HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (USA)

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007606238

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Congress had been holding hearings about carbon dioxide build up since, well, the first ones I can find are the Tsongas one in 1977 (and a bigger one in 1980). And there had been plenty of others through the course of the 1980s. Famously, in December 1985 Carl Sagan had explained the greenhouse effect and the need to do something about it to Senators. Then in ‘87 push the aftermath of Villach gained momentum and adherence and various American NGOs with three or four letter acronyms,

And in 1988 their push succeeded, and the issue broke through. 

The specific context was that George H. W. Bush had won the 1988 election, and on the campaign trail, he had promised to convene an international meeting. It was becoming obvious, however, that the Bush administration was not going to listen to scientists like James Hansen. It was instead going to listen to people who were telling it convenient truths.,

What I think we can learn from this. that politics is the long hammering of hard boards, as per Max Weber.

What happened next. Bush was exposed as silencing Hansen by Al Gore. And then the following year, Bush tried to not invite Bert Bolin, the head of the IPCC, to his much-delayed international conference.

And the emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed and doom approaches.

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.

Also on this day: 

May 4, 1985 – world leaders promise to solve “climatic change”

May 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4, 1992 – Liberals to be terrible on environment, for once.

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit

Categories
United States of America

May 2, 2006 – “While Washington Slept” by Mark Hertsgaard…

Twenty years ago, on this day, 

While Washington Slept article by Hertsgaard

The Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.’s are nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear. If global warming isn’t halted, devastating sea-level rises will be inevitable by 2100. So how did this virtual certainty get labeled a “liberal hoax” in the U.S.? Try the same tactics Big Tobacco used to deny the dangers of smoking.

“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that American journalists had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem for a very long time. One of my favourites is from the Chicago Tribune front page in March of 1982, but there are others.

And here we see Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey, among others, doing a magazine feature at a time when the Kyoto Protocol has finally been ratified, and there was clearly going to be an international process to replace it with something “better”, and at a time when the Bush regime had lost all credibility because of both international factors such as the resistance to the occupation of Iraq, and its useless response to Hurricane Katrina. It was at this point, nine months since New Orleans…

What I think we can learn from this. that there have been think-pieces in chin-stroking liberal magazines for a long time. but the question is always, “who’s going to make something happen?”, which is then a question of “who is going to mobilise what resources and find new resources and intervene how in ‘the system’ (man)?”

What happened next.  Everyone kept writing chin-stroking pieces. One of my favourites is the one about Australia in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

May 2, 1989 – a DC forum about “Our Common Future” – All Our Yesterdays

May 2, 1990 – Nairobi Declaration on Climatic Change – All Our Yesterdays

May 2, 2009 – Australian Liberals warned of wipe-out if seen as “anti-climate action” #auspol

May 2, 2012 – CCS is gonna save us all. Oh yes.

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Categories
United States of America

May 1, 1978 – Comprehensive plan for CO2 effect research and assessment

Forty eight years ago, on this day, May 1, 1978, 

Comprehensive plan for carbon dioxide effects research and assessment. Part I: the global carbon cycle and climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide

Technical Report · 01 May 1978 as cited in CO2 Newsletter Vol 1 no 1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2026 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up as a definitive fact since the late 50s. Through the 60s and into the early 70s, it had slowly built up momentum as “something to worry about.” In the mid 70s, that changed because of new science, a consensus that we were on the brink of a pronounced global warming, as per Wally Broecker in August 1975.

 The specific context was that the Energy Research and Development Agency, which was transmogrifying into the Department of Energy, had funded by this stage, a bunch of studies into CO2 build up, some of which had been published, but most which had not. The obvious one is Oliver Markley.

And you see here in this scientist trying to figure out who should study what, or what should be studied, when and how, what assessments etc.

What I think we can learn from this. 50 years since the work began, and here we still are, 50 years later: “how many angels on the head of a pin.” The caravan should have moved on to “Why haven’t we been doing anything about it?” and perhaps even to “Why didn’t we do anything about it?” And here we are still not tackling those questions, because they would be way too painful. 

What happened next. Well, the DOE and AAAS held a four day symposium in Annapolis, Maryland, April 2 to April 6, 1979 which should have been an important event for UK climate. Tom Wigley of CRU was there, as was Crispin Tickell, and there was an editorial, presumably by David Davies in Nature of May 1979, which we will come to in a couple of days. 

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.

Also on this day: 

May 1, 1971 – May Day anti-war actions in Washington DC

May 1, 1972 – Walter Orr Roberts and the need for black climate scientists

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

May 1, 1981 – scorching editorial about Energy and Climate received at Climatic Change

May 1, 1996 – US Congressman says climate research money is “money down a rat hole

Categories
Denial United States of America

April 22,  1996 – Denial on Earth Day  

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1996,

A more organised opposition to the IPCC’s conclusions began in the USA on Earth Day (22 April 1996), with a message distributed widely, including to every member of the US Congress, and with the first issue of the State of the Climate Report attached in which the IPCC conclusions were challenged. However, just as this report was about to be published, the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced it in a press release, based on earlier contributions to the media debate about global warming by the man in charge, Patrick Michaels: “The forthcoming climate change report sponsored by Western Fuels Association is like a lung cancer study funded by the tobacco industry.”

(Bolin, 2007) Page 128

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the denialists had won major battles in 1989 to 1992 by convincing George Bush to play hardball and to threaten to boycott the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change the Rio treaty, if targets and timetables were included in the treaty text.

Then denialists had also defeated Bill Clinton’s BTU tax in 1993.

The denialists were also gearing up for a battle royale over the upcoming Kyoto conference, and here we see them sending a message on Earth Day to all congresspeople as part of the day-to-day routine of blitzing politicians with talking points, which will be picked up and used by friends and allies and will be a reminder to those who were not their friends and allies that they the bad guys still exist and can make trouble.   

The specific context was that the Kyoto battles were just beginning…

What I think we can learn from this is that evil never sleeps, never takes a step back unless forced to.

What happened next: Evil has kept on winning. Oh well.

Also on this day: 

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming – All Our Yesterdays

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

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

Categories
Farrington Daniels, Renewable energy Solar Energy United States of America

April 22,  1971 – “Utilization of solar energy” (because fossil fuels = CO2)

Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 22nd, 1971,

UTILIZATION OF SOLAR ENERGY-PROGRESS REPORT  FARRINGTON DANIELS

 Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin:    “Fifth, a whole new emphasis on the use of solar energy comes now from the widespread concern over pollution of our environment. Solar devices produce no pollution-chemical, radioactive, nor overall thermal-and under some circumstances could replace some of our power generators which now do produce pollutant carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, radioactivity and excessive waste heat.”

(Read April 22, 1971)   Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 115, No. 6 (Dec. 30, 1971), pp. 490-501

Published by: American Philosophical Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/985842

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the solar lobby had been talking about carbon dioxide for a while!

The specific context was that everyone was running around talking about energy supplies – and this is BEFORE the oil shock. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 60s, early 70s, solar energy proponents were pointing to carbon dioxide build up as a reason for advancing solar development as quickly as possible. It wasn’t always or ever their first argument, but it was in the mix.  

What happened next:  The  environmentalists got contained, exhausted, and then the Oil Shock came and delivered the coup de grace.

See also 

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-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.

Also on this day: 

April 22, 1965 – Manchester Evening News article on C02 and global warming – All Our Yesterdays

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

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