Category: United States of America

Categories
Denial United States of America

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

On this day, the 23rd of April 2009 journalist Andy Revkin broke a story in The New York Times about the Global Climate Coalition.

The Global Climate Coalition – cuddly-sounding name aside – was an industry pressure group that had between 1989 and 2002 been a major player in stopping any meaningful international action on climate change.

Revkin’s story – you can read it here – was that the head honchos at the Global Climate Coalition got given the truth about climate change by their own scientists,, and they chose to ignore it because it didn’t fit their in needs for predatory delay and doubt

Why this matters. 

We need to know in the words of Nick Tomalin, the British journalist who died in 1973, that “they lie, they lie, they lie”. If the truth is going to get in the way of their profits, they will lie. And these lies will be repeated by time policy wonks to create a “common sense” that maintains the status quo. Nothing that Gramsci would be surprised that nothing that you or I should be surprised that

What happened next?

People forgot because that’s what people do. 

If you want to know more about the GCC, check out the recently published article in the journal “Environmental Politics” by Robert Brulle.

Categories
International processes United States of America

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

On this day, April 21 1992, George HW Bush, President of the United States, speaking at something called the “Young Presidents’ Organization” said “I’m not going to the Rio conference and make a bad deal or be party to a bad deal.”  (full speech here).

The context is that countries, especially France, had been trying to get a stronger deal agreed and then signed at Rio  Bush who was up for re-election that November didn’t want to be seen as going along with what the French and everyone else wanted and being too environmental, and didn’t want to upset his oil buddy mates. His recently deposed Chief of Staff, John Sununu, had successfully blocked/watered down various initiatives.

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that the actions of the Americans in this crucial period have shaped everything that’s happened since.

What happened next?

The French blinked. Michael Howard, as Environment Minister for the UK, was able to come up with the compromise. There was a final special meeting of the international negotiating committee in May in New York, and the deal was set for the big photo op…

There were no targets and timetables in the UNFCCC process, and what we have now, since Paris, is a warmed over version of a “pledge and review” model disregarded in 1991 as inadequate.

Did I mention I didn’t breed and that it’s looking like a smarter and smarter decision?

Categories
United States of America

April 15, 1974 – Kissinger cites climate concerns…

On April 15 1974, US Secretary of State and all-round mass-murdering prick, Henry Kissinger gave a speech at a special session of the UN General Assembly. In the speech he suggested that further research into climate change(by which was meant weather patterns) was necessary because of its implications for food security, which was and of course remains the hot issue. 

This was at the same time the CIA were researching a report on food security. And it’s a good example of how issues come together. Stephen Schneider had been talking about food security as had a lot of other people at the same time. The consequences of Kissinger’s speech were multifold. In the language of Multiple Streams, the speech was added to the policy stream and the politics stream and the problem stream because Kissinger was a heavyweight. 

What happened next

Kissinger’s speech was used by legendary Australian civil servant Nugget Coombs to get the Minister of Science to commission a report on climate change from the Australian Academy of Science (it wasn’t released until 1976, and sank without trace).

Kissinger committed more war crimes, including permission to the Indonesian military to invade East Timor. About a third of the population of 600,000 died between 75 and 78. It was proportionately a bigger massacre than the much more famous Khmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia. 

Interest in climate and its implications for food production continued to be very high. So you have Reid Bryson’s Climate and Hunger book published in I think 1977. And of course, you’ve got Stephen Schneider’s the Genesis strategy, also published in 1976. And by the late 70s our lords and masters knew enough to start taking action. They did not. And here we are.

Categories
International processes United States of America

April 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

On April 14 1989 24 US senators declared that the US should cut its carbon emissions in advance of any international agreement.

The context was that the new Bush administration was still delaying and trying to resist any move towards negotiating a global treaty. They weren’t alone in this. So were the Australian and UK governments.

Why this matters

We have to see declarations and statements as part of a Forever War between action and inaction. 

What happened next?

A couple of weeks later, having been caught trying to muzzle James Hansen, the Bush administration was forced to say “okay” to an international treaty process. It then, of course, proceeded to stomp on this process as hard as it could…

Categories
United States of America

April 9, 2019- brutal book review “a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

On this day, on the 9th of April 2019,, a scathing review of the planning of Rich’s “Losing Earth” was published. The review, which you can read here, included this priceless observation

“Other than Sununu’s vindictiveness and human shortsightedness, we have very little sense of the forces arrayed against Hansen and Pomerance. The inattention to the fossil-fuel industry is most glaring, but Rich also fails to address the consolidation of business interests more broadly against efforts to decarbonize. Nor do we get a glimpse of the movements that might have responded otherwise—say, those outside DC organizing against Reaganomics. So reading Losing Earth often feels like reading a script for a West Wing episode about climate change, only with less repartee.”

FWIW IMO. Nathaniel Rich has told an interesting human scale story of a few individuals in the second crucial decade, the 1980s. But the reviewer is largely correct in what they’ve said. 

Why this matters. 

Mustn’t get bogged down in the he said/she said, the minutiae. Gotta see the big picture, but it can be tricky, especially when you’ve dug up fascinating factoids.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

April 7, 1980 – C02 problem is most important issue…”another decade will slip by” warns Wally Broecker to Senator Tsongas

On this day in 1980, the climate scientist Wally Broecker, the father of oceanography wrote to Democratic senator and future presidential hopeful Senator Paul TsongasPaul Tsongas. 

As historian Spencer Weart,( AIP.org:) “In 1980, the prominent geophysicist Wallace Broecker, who had spoken out repeatedly about the dangers of climate change, vented his frustration in a letter to a Senator. Declaring that ‘the CO2 problem is the single most important and the single most complex environmental issue facing the world,’ and that ‘the clock is ticking away,’ Broecker insisted that a better research program was needed. ‘Otherwise, another decade will slip by, and we will find that we can do little better than repeat the rather wishy washy image we now have as to what our planet will be like…'”

– Broecker to Sen. Paul Tsongas, 7 April 1980, “CO2 history” file, office files of Wallace Broecker, LDEO.

Why this matters. 

Scientists have been trying to get policymakers concerned about climate change for a very long time. Broker, as we saw earlier, had also engaged with Exxon.

This sort of lobbying is part of the effort to get elite policymakers sensitised to what’s going on and this is part of what Hart and Victor write about in their wonderful 1993 article.

What happened next?

Broecker kept trying to warn humanity, which kept ignoring him. Tsongas stood for President in ’92, but lost the nomination to Bill Clinton and died not long after of cancer

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

On this dayApril 5  2008 Charlton Heston died. What the hell has this got to do with climate change? 

Well, two things. One, superficially, Heston was the star of the first Hollywood movie to mention the greenhouse effect.  Soylent Green, released in April of 1973, has the following exchange

More deeply Charlton Heston is a good example of one of the problems that environmentalists face from a demographic and gender perspective. Namely, this Heston was a small-l liberal as a younger man and made the right noises about desegregation and racial justice. But as he aged, he became steadily more right wing, especially on the issue of gun control. And he became a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (which is not a social movement organisation but is a lobby group disguised as a social movement organisation). “You’ll pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.” 

And this move is one that men often make. Especially men as they age, and it means that it’s really hard to sustain the concern for the environment, which becomes framed as a woman’s issue.

Why this matters. 

People take their cues from those they admire. We are very very social animals. And when a “macho” man’s man like Charlton Heston goes all anti-reflexive, it matters…

What happened next?

Well, last time I checked, Heston was still dead and the C02 was still accumulating.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

On this day, third of April 1980, CBS News, anchored by Walter Cronkite had a two and a half minute story on climate change (by reporter Nelson Benton), hooked on some Senate hearings on the subject. 

Cronkite was a vastly respected news anchor. And famously, President Lyndon Johnson had said to Robert McNamara, “if we’ve lost Cronkite, we’ve lost the war.” 

Long before 1980, Cronkite already done stuff about the natural world – he threw CBS’s considerable weight behind “Earth Day” in 1970 – see this fascinating piece  

The Senate hearings were the work of people like X, Y, and they included a young Al Gore. 

“The CBS Evening News for April 3, 1980 carried a two minute 40 second story by Nelson Benton on the greenhouse effect based on a Senate Energy & Natural Resources committee hearing.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that people, elites and everyone knew about this issue as early as 1980 in public and it was getting news coverage. For the love of Gaia, the problem is not information, the problem is sustaining attention, political and cultural pressure. That doesn’t come from ever more clever messaging, it comes from effective social movements and real democracy. But that is beyond our grasp now… But I digress…

What happened next?

Cronkite kept doing stuff he’d already done stuff about the natural world. And Gore famously kept hold of the issue and after the Villach meeting in 1985. Senators Republican, Democrat and Republican, stepped up the pressure. And that period between 93 That’s right. 85 and 88 is fascinating. 

Categories
Science United States of America

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60434299

On this day first of April 1979, the Jasons released their study into climate. Who were the Jasons? They were the elite, high security clearance, nuclear Cold War warriors,of very confident scientists

Wikipedia has it thus-

“JASON is an independent group of elite scientists which advises the United States government on matters of science and technology, mostly of a sensitive nature. The group was created in the aftermath of the Sputnik launch as a way to reinvigorate the idea of having the nation’s preeminent scientists help the government with defense problems, similar to the way that scientists helped in WWII but with a new and younger generation. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members.”

 who had decided to take a look at the burgeoning climate question. 

In the late 70s everyone was doing this including the World Meteorological Organisation, which had in February that year hosted the First World Climate Conference.  

Reading the foreword to the Jasons report, which you can see here, all of the usual names, Revelle, Keeling, Smagorrinsky, etc, turn up. So too William Nirenberg who would three years later, produce a report for the National Academy of Sciences in a heightened period of climate concern (more of that report later in the year).

. 

So what does Jason’s report say? In essence (i.e. a loose paraphrase),  there may be a problem at some point, but we can’t really be expected to do much about it. And our best bet is technology. 

The JASON Report, The long term impact of carbon dioxide on climate (1979)

Why this matters. 

We have been failing to do anything substantive about climate change, other than make it worse for 50 years. And it’s worth therefore having some scepticism about the politics of experts…

What happened next?

Well, Nierenberg went on to produce the NAS report in 1983 – you can read more about that here. Later that year. Jule Charney, who had been quite rude about Stephen Schneider convened a study or chaired a study that was convened at Woods Hole. And it said that there was no reason to doubt that if the atmospheric concentration of co2 doubled then the planet would warm by three or so degrees. This is the so called Charney Report. And so it continued…

Categories
Activism United States of America

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

On March 27th 1977 there was a major aviation disaster;  still the biggest loss of life in a single aviation accident. (Obviously, 911 cost more lives in toto). This was the collision by a KLM jumbo jet with a Pan Am jet in the Canary Islands. And there are various accounts of it and why it happened but the consensus is that the KLM chief pilot was an arrogant “my way or the highway” dick, and the inability of the co-pilot to challenge him [the co-pilot almost certainly understood that the control tower had NOT given them permission to take off, but wasn’t willing to challenge The Boss] led to hella lotta death. 

What are the lessons here?

Firstly that arrogant Dutch men are more trouble than they are worth. And the more we learn to tell them to shut up, the more we ignore them, the happier and safer everyone will be.

On a serious note we could learn a lot from the aviation industry, which is safer than ever (give or take some 787 Max disasters). In terms of notechs for social movement organisations, I think that would be really handy.

You can have the technical systems, but the human factor will still get you all killed. 


For more on “notechs”- 

Nobody really likes it when planes drop out of the sky full of passengers.