Forty six years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1978 a car blows up, and corporate malfeasance was revealed…
On their way to a church volleyball practice, the three girls—sisters Lyn (16) and Judy Ulrich (18), and their cousin Donna Ulrich (18)—chugged along U.S. 33 in a dusty 1973 Ford Pinto….
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Ford was one of the big three motor companies and had produced lemons in its time. People were dying because of a change that had been made to the Ford Pinto. This change meant that if it was hit from behind, while indicating left, then there was a reasonable chance that a spark would set off the gas tank explosion, and kaboom. Ford had been aware of the problem, but it calculated that recalling vehicles, fixing them and changing the production line would cost more than simply paying out to the families of those killed, injured. And therefore they did what any rational corporation would do.
What we learn is that there is rationality and logic and there is also utter fucking madness. I would say immorality, but why would you expect a corporation to behave morally? Have you not been paying attention?
What happened next, Ford got caught. There was a class action lawsuit even and for a little while, people understood that this sort of shit goes on all the time. But the corporate domination of the media means that this message no longer gets through so easily. In a sane world – one that we don’t live in – this would be taught in primary school, and again in secondary school.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, July 30th, 1979, politicians learn that making synfuels would be a Very Bad Idea.
Panel Warned of Synthetic Fuel Danger By Katherine Ellison, July 31, 1979
A group of scientists, warning of potential ecological imbalances and climatic changes, yesterday urged the government to slow its pursuit of a large-scale synthetic fuels program.
The scientists said the ecological changes could result from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — one assured by product of a switch to synfuel production.
They described the so-called “greenhouse effect” whereby heat is trapped close to the earth by increased levels of carbon dioxide, and predicted some long-term effects might be erratic world food production, severe droughts in some regions and costal flooding in others.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various US administrations had been quite interested in replacing Middle Eastern oil and making money at the same time. But of course, that came with fairly heavy environmental consequences, which climate scientists were at pains to point out.
What we learn is that national security and energy security can compete with other demands. Real energy trilemma at play. And that’s been going on a long time.
What happened next – the synfuels thing went away, in part because oil prices plummeted. The emissions kept going up though…
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2008, music was the food of life…
New York’s biggest reggae festival will be held in central New York on Saturday July 26th, 2008 at the Rostropovich Amphitheatre in Gelston Castle Estate.
Reggae festival for climate protection is the biggest party for the environment. Come out and celebrate Mother Earth with great music, food, games and activities.
The festival, an all day event on July 26th, 2008 from 12 pm to 12 am is a fun-filled day of music, games, competitions, cultural activities and international cuisine. Awareness to the environment is the overall theme of the festival and a portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection to support their efforts.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out in 2006. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Everyone is running around talking about climate change. Given that reggae’s roots are in resistance to white people being assholes, it’s hardly surprising that there would be a climate themed reggae concert.
What we learn is that we have been trying to be artistic about resistance to the suicide path we are on, but it doesn’t seem to land because those events can cause a surge of emotion and commitment that will fall on stony ground and sterile soil. If there aren’t effective social movement organisations ready to capture it, the seeds can’t grow. And so it came to pass.
What happened next? More conferences, smoke and concerts. More cons. If you know your history, you will know where you’re coming from.
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.
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 1997, Tim Wirth called out the Australians for being bonkers.
Asked about the economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) on which the Howard Government’s stance is based, he said he had not seen it.
But he was generally sceptical of industry-funded models and said the US Administration believed modelling around the world showed green-house gases could be stabilised at either no economic cost or an economic benefit – a finding strongly at odds with ABARE’s work.
“I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions into models and then they flog those models as if they are the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world,” Mr Wirth said.
“Anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict to points of percentage of increase or decrease, I’d raise an eyebrow . . . or look at what those people have been smoking, because I don’t believe there’s any way in the world you are going to get that sort of accuracy.”
The ABARE modelling draws such conclusions and was partially funded by industry. “Industry groups . . . have points of view that they are paid to advocate,” he said.
Taylor, L. 1997. US rejects Aust `differentiated’ greenhouse goal. Australian Financial Review, 24 July, p3.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that at COP1 in Berlin in 1995, the rich nations had agreed that they would come to the third meeting with plans for their own emissions reductions. That meeting was to be held in Kyoto. International capital, especially oil and gas and coal, had mobilised ferociously against the science – see the attacks on the IPCC’s. second assessment report. And there were also campaigns in the US against Kyoto, Australia’s government, under that thug John Howard, trying to carve out the sweetest deal they could. And that’s what led Clinton’s climate envoy Senator Tim Wirth to say that he wanted to know what the Australians were smoking because he felt that the claims for special treatment were unjustified and demeaning.
What we learn – you can laugh at denialists and obstructors all you like. That doesn’t make them less formidable.
What happened next well, Australia wore down the other nations, it not only got the 108% so-called “reduction” target. But it also managed to insert a so-called “land clearing” clause, which meant in effect, their emissions reduction target was 130%. So, while Tim Wirth’s jibe was a good one, The Last Laugh belongs to Howard.
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.sej.org/headlines/democrats-call-climate-bill-effort
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Obama had come to office with all the hopey changey vibes. And two Congressman, Waxman and Markey, had tried to push a bill through; shades of Gore Lieberman. And this was the day they ran up the white flag because Obama wasn’t willing to spend more political capital and call the Republicans’ bluff because he’s essentially a neoliberal centrist, with no particular convictions about anything, but my God, there was some soaring rhetoric. I did love the soaring rhetoric.
What we learn is that climate legislation is difficult because it touches primarily on energy systems, and energy systems are controlled by rich people who want to keep controlling them, keep being rich etc. They have many weapons at their disposal to achieve those aims. That’s kind of banal, but the world is a kind of banal place.
What happened next? Obama kept giving soaring rhetoric speeches. Climate legislation in the States was dead for another however long, really. And then, eventually along came Joe Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act.
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.
Fifty six years ago, on this day, July 22nd 1968, the New York TImes finally published the smuggled-out-of-the-Soviet-Union of nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov
At one point, Sakharov writes the following-
Pollution of Environment
We live in a swiftly changing world. Industrial and water-engineering projects, cutting of forests, plowing up of virgin lands, the use of poisonous chemicals—all such activity is changing the face of the earth, our “habitat.”
Scientific study of all the interrelationships in nature and the consequences of our interference clearly lags behind the changes. Large amounts of harmful wastes of industry and transport are being dumped into the air and water, including cancer-inducing substances. Will the safe limit be passed everywhere, as has already happened in a number of places?
Carbon dioxide from the burning of coal is altering the heat-reflecting qualities of the atmosphere. Sooner or later, this will reach a dangerous level. But we do not know when. Poisonous chemicals used in agriculture are penetrating the body of man and animal directly, and in more dangerous modified compounds are causing serious damage to the brain, the nervous system, blood-forming organs, the liver, and other organs. Here, too, the safe limit can be easily crossed, but the question has not been fully studied and it is difficult to control all these processes.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323 ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the cold war was kinda sorta maybe thawing: the Czechs looked like they were gonna have more wiggle room than the Hungarians twelve years earlier (the tanks hadn’t rolled into Prague yet).
There’s this fascinating stuff about how it all came about…
Van het Reve, a professor of Slavic languages, had arrived in Moscow in 1967 for a two- year stint and was one of the most fearless correspondents in Moscow. While most stayed clear from the dissident movement, Van het Reve became friends with many of them and was not shy about reporting on them in his newspaper.
After he received a copy of Sakharov’s essay from Amalrik, Van het Reve immediately realized he had something unique in his hands. Here was a prominent nuclear physicist, a member of the upper nomenklatura, or Soviet elite, who openly criticized his government and carefully outlined his vision for the future. In order to maximize the chance of the text reaching the West, Van het Reve decided to give a copy to his colleague Ray Anderson of the New York Times. Both would try to get the text out, and then publish it in their respective newspapers.
Karel van het Reve translated the text into Dutch and turned the manuscript into a two-part publication. The first part he managed to send out with a person who was apparently able to pass customs without any checking. On July 6, 1968 the first half appeared in Het Parool. Realizing it was an international scoop, Het Parool’s editor in chief in Amsterdam was delighted, and immediately called Van het Reve to tell him he wanted his “sugar cake”, meaning the rest of the text. As they were in a hurry, they decided that Van het Reve would read the entire text over the telephone. Apparently, the KGB did not have a Dutch-speaking censor on hand, and thus in the course of several hours the whole text was read unobstructed, and subsequently the second part also appeared in Het Parool. 6 Ray Anderson was less fortunate. He managed to get the text out, but his editor in New York was very hesitant. He was convinced the text was a fake and refused to publish it in the New York Times. After long deliberations, he agreed that Ray Anderson could write an article in which he summarized Sakharov’s main message. The article was published on July 11, 1968. Gradually, the editor realized that the text was real, and that indeed this prominent physicist was the author, and ten days later, on July 21, 1968 the whole text was published in the New York Times.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, July 21st, 1977, days before the “Energy and Climate” report was released, the Washington Post ran a story…
July 21, 1977, staff writer Paul Valentine wrote a page-one story for the Washington Post headlined “100-Year Trend: Warmer; Confirming What You Feel: Our Summers are Getting Warmer.”
(Sachsman, 2000: 3)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Sciences was about to release its Energy and Climate report. Two years in the making, it meant that all things climate-related were newsworthy. The weather had been playing silly buggers for the last few years, crop failures, heat waves in the UK.
What we learn is that if you’re reading a serious newspaper in 1977 you were aware of the climate issue. Yes, there were still people telling you it was wrong. If you understood 19th century physics though…
What happened next The Energy and Climate report was released a couple of days later. “Warning traffic lights at yellow” said scientist Thomas Malone. And then there was the push for the First World Climate Conference, which happened in Geneva in February of ‘79. We knew enough by then to start shitting ourselves. But we didn’t take action. And so now all we can do is shut ourselves because the emissions keep rising.
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.
Forty seven years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1977 , Stephen Schneider lays it out.
Appearing on the Johnny Carson Show on July 19, 1977 a year after the original release of The Genesis Strategy, Schneider responded to a series of questions regarding the ability of scientists to predict the weather more than a few days in advance, a prospect that – given his experiences with Kellogg and Smagorinsky early in his career – appeared entirely possible. Other conversation topics ensued, including issues of drought, whether the climate was cooling or warming, and even whether a recent weather fluctuation caused a serious black out in New York City. Given what appeared to be signs that society was increasingly sensitive to even small-scale environmental challenges, Schneider argued for building further resilience into society. “The laws of nature frequently are not in line with some of our laws,” he stated in an attempt to distinguish between natural laws – which are stable and enduring – and man-made laws – which tend to be short-sighted, sporadic, and clumsy. Everything in human decision making, he believed, is a trade-off between risks and benefits and therefore decisions require the incorporation of value judgments to maximize margins of safety in spite of existing uncertainties.55
Henderson 2014 Dilemmas of Reticence
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Stephen Schneider was already well known because of his ice age prediction in 1971. He had just published The Genesis Strategy with co-author Lynne Merizow. Him being on Carson was a big deal, though. I think this is the first time he was on.
What we learn is that a small number of scientists were trying to communicate this stuff. early on.
What happened next: Schneider committed a faux pas by going off script and Carson never had him on again. Schneider kept being a public intellectual public figure. He was really good at what he did. RIP Stephen Schneider.
See also this excellent post – https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/when-the-climate-change-fight-got-ugly/
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.
Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1988, the satirical “Grant Swinger” took aim at climate policy in an hilarious article “Racing on Capitol Hill for Title of “Mr Greenhouse” in Science and Government Report. He skewers it, absolutely.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Daniel Greenberg had been doing the spoof Grant Swinger (get it – someone who can swing grants) satirical columns for quite some time. And let’s look at how big science works. And the scramble and scramble a knife fights for funding for prestige. It’s hilarious.
The context here was also, of course, that it was that long, hot summer. It was post-Hansen and Toronto but before Bush finally came out and said his thing on the campaign trail.
What we learn is that good satire is timeless, even if the exact targets are no longer present, because human behaviour doesn’t change (the satyricon and Juvenal, etc.)
What happened next? Grant Swinger kept swinging for the fences. The climate issue burst onto the scene and has kind of stayed there ever since.
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1991, the famed US scientist Roger Revelle died. Just before he died there was an article published (he’d been arm-twisted etc by that turd Fred Singer, whom he’d known for decades) which said climate change was nothing to worry about. This article was used as a denialist talking point for decades, as part of the confusion campaigns funded by Big Oil etc.
Revelle helped to establish that carbon levels in the atmosphere were steadily rising and also taught science to a young Al Gore in the 1960s. As Revelle wrote in 1992: “There is a good but by no means certain chance that the world’s average climate will become significantly warmer during the next century.”
Singer approached him off the back of this statement, asking if the two men could collaborate on an article for The Washington Post.
Conned at death
That night Revelle suffered a heart attack and was rushed from the airport to a local hospital for a triple-bypass, and was not discharged until May that year.
Singer nevertheless continued to press the scientist to work on a journal article. “Whenever Singer sent him a draft, Revelle buried it under piles of paper on his desk. When Singer called, [Revelle’s secretary] would dig up the draft and put it on the top, and Revelle would bury it again,” records American historian of Science at the University of Harvard professor, Naomi Oreskes, in her account of the episode.
“Some people don’t think Fred Singer is a very good scientist,” Revelle told his secretary.
Later that year Singer published his article, with Revelle named as second author, in the journal Cosmos. It stated boldly: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.”
The words were copied and pasted from an earlier article published by Singer – and directly contradicted Revelle’s own publicly stated views.
Revelle died of a heart attack the following July. Family members, friends and students all claimed that Singer had pressured or tricked the dying scientist into signing off a journal article which presented an argument opposed to his own.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Revelle was old, had been sick for some years. He was a giant of all sorts of science. The one is probably most remembered for the climate stuff, but there was a lot of formidable oceanography work going on for decades.
Why this matters is that Fred Singer latched on to Revelle and got him to “co author” a piece that said CO2 wasn’t really a problem. He then used it as part of the denial war.
George Will wrote stupid column (I know, hold the front page). Revelle’s daughter pushed back. Then when Al Gore tried to set the record straight, some anchordroid – I want to say Tom Brokaw – tried to say that it was all part of the culture war.
What we learn is that slinging mud works.
What happened next? The grad student who had to bend recanted that. Singer is dead at last, thank goodness, but my goodness, the damage he did.
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.
