Category: United States of America

Categories
Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

February 8, 1991 –  New York Times and climate tech nonsense

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 8, 1991 the “Grey Lady” was peddling the usual soothing lullabies…

Technology Is Found to Exist To Cut Global Warming Gases – The New York Times

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

The broader context was that “technology will fix it” is the first cry of technocrats and politicians wary of upsetting their incumbent donors.  Sometimes technology does indeed fix things – vaccines are pretty fantastic, and so many other things.  But not always…

The specific context was that the climate issue had finally broken through in 1988. By early 1991 the negotiations for an international treaty were beginning, and the US line would be “technology will fix it.”  The New York Times, one mouthpiece for this worldview, was doing its job.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are a bright species, but not quite as bright as we think, and not bright enough to see that our brightness is causing problems that our brightness might not be able to fix.

What happened next:  The Times kept peddling this credulous nonsense. People wanted to believe it, so they did.  Only by the 2020s was that particular lullaby beginning to take on fingers-on-the-blackboard characteristics.

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: 

February 8, 1956 – Roger Revelle sexes up the dossier to House Committee on Appropriations 

February 8, 1973 –  American ecologist explains carbon build-up to politicians

February 8, 1988 – BBC Horizon on The Greenhouse Effect

Categories
United States of America

January 31, 1963 – Malthus and technology, via Roger Revelle

Sixty three years ago, on this day, January 31st, 1963

At a meeting of the Federal Council on Science and Technology in 1963, Revelle, then the science advisor to Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and the chairman of the PSAC’s Committee on Natural Resources, observed “a shift from earlier ‘Malthus’ attitudes of apprehension over scarcity … to an optimism that science could help meet resources needs, but with a new concern on man’s contribution to pollution of his own environment.”195

 Revelle’s words are quoted in: Edward Wenk, Executive Secretary, Federal Council for Science and Technology, “Minutes and Record of Action,” 31 Jan 1963, I. I. Rabi Papers, LOC, Box 45, “Meetings, agenda and minutes, 1957-1972 (1),” 4.  Loetscher 2022

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was as that after World War Two, and especially from the 1950s with coming in military Keynesianism, there was an enormous explosion of economic innovation, activity growth, partly to do with pent up consumer demand from the war, growing populations, but also all the new technologies of production that had been invented during or refined during World War Two; radar, sonar, jet engines, computing, the list goes on and on. This has become known as the “Great Acceleration.”

The specific context 

So the early 60s is an interesting period, because people like Revelle are well aware of carbon dioxide build up and probably some other long-term issues, and they’re thinking about a switch over from scarcity thinking ie Malthus to cornucopia, but not a cornucopia without consequences.

What I think we can learn is that thoughtful people like Revelle were “on it”. 

What happened next. Climate change, oddly, continued  Revelle kept being relatively into climate issues

Then in his literally dying days in the early 1990s he was scammed by a failed scientist called Fred Singer, who put out a bullshit article under both their names. 

You also had Murray Bookchin tackling similar issues to Revelle here in his post scarcity anarchism essay. And, of course, Bookchin was aware of CO2 build up, as per his “Crisis in our Cities” book, published in April 1965. 

The other thing to think about is the tensions between impact science and production science.

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: 

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
United States of America

January 29, 1968 – LBJ talking about supersonic flight. 

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, January 29th, 1968,

Far from deploring the possible damage to people and property, the  President of the United States, on January 29, 1968, proposed the spending of $351 million for the development of a supersonic liner in fiscal 1969; this represented $223 million in new appropriation. l8 318 feet long, is designed to carry 300 passengers at 1800 miles per hour. It was estimated by Senator Clifford P. Case of New Jersey that the U. S. 19 supersonic transport fleet may eventually number from 200 to 1200 planes.

Concerned physicists have supplied us with information about the generation of a boom that is unavoidable for any object which travels in the air at a speed exceeding that of sound. The sonic boom produced by a supersonic transport plane accompanies the plane throughout its supersonic flight path; thus, a single flight across the U. S. would affect 10 to 40 million people. 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19690009717/downloads/19690009717.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that in June 1963 JFK said yes to SST. 

June 5, 1963  – JFK says yes to SST – All Our Yesterdays

The specific context was Lyndon Johnson was on his way out. It was an election year, and there had been a growing “Dump Johnson” movement in the Democrats. There was also the small matter of the war in Vietnam, which wasn’t going so well…

What I think we can learn from this is that there was huge opposition to supersonic travel (sonic booms etc etc) and concerns about ozone depletion and climatic impacts were a part of all that.

What happened next Johnson had to declare he wouldn’t contest the 1968 election. In 1970 Congress basically killed supersonic transport, de facto if not de jure. This led, amusingly, to the creation of the Heritage Foundation…

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: 

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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: 

January 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
United States of America

January 27, 1888 – National Geographic Society incorporated

On this day, January 27, in 1888

“The National Geographic Society began as a club for an elite group of academics and wealthy patrons interested in travel and exploration.[8] On January 13, 1888, 33 explorers and scientists gathered at the Cosmos Club, a private club then located on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., to organize “a society for the increase and diffusion of geographical knowledge.” After preparing a constitution and a plan of organization, the National Geographic Society was incorporated two weeks later on January 27. Gardiner Greene Hubbard (co-founder of AT&T) became its first president and his son-in-law, Alexander Graham Bell (also co-founder of AT&T), succeeded him in 1897.[9]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 294ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that through the 19th century, with advances in transport, communications, the ability to measure and detect the “Golden Age”, if you want to call it that, of colonialism and also industrial depredations. Outfits like the National Geographic Society sprang up to record what was out there so it could either be exploited or protected. The two are not mutually exclusive.  

What I think we can learn from this is that institutions have histories. They are formed by real human beings in response to challenges/conditions which may no longer pertain.

What happened next

It kept going and did some nice magazines.  Climate change has been “in the mix” in those magazines. Not enough, obviously, but eh, whaddyagonnado.?

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: 

January 27, 1967 – James Lovelock told to keep schtum about climate change by Shell science boss

January 27, 1989 – UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27, 1986 – Engineers try to stop NASA launching the (doomed) Challenger Space Shuttle

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 26, 2006 – Major Climate March by vulnerable minorities in the USA  

Twenty years ago on this day, January 26th, 2006, a climate protest march took place in Washington DC.

Nation’s snowmen march against global warming https://www.theonion.com/nations-snowmen-march-against-global-warming-1819568251

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that for decades – centuries – civil society has ignored the most. vulnerable groups. It is only when those vulnerable groups can come together, form coalitions and make a “critical mass” that they will be paid any attention.

The specific context was that by 2006 it was clear that climate change would not be dealt with unless the state and corporations were forced into it. This was a noble but doomed effort by a minority, very endangered group to make that happen. Perhaps they should have tried seizing the means of production.

What I think we can learn from this is that you have to take a stand, even if you’re doomed.

What happened next

Well, the movement just kind of melted 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.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 26, 1970 – British PM offers US a “new special relationship” on pollution. (Conservative then tries to outflank him.)

January 26, 1972 – “Enhance Oil Recovery” with carbon dioxide kicks off.
Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 22, 1970- 747

Forty six years ago, on this day, January 22nd,1970

The Boeing 747, the world’s first “jumbo jet”, enters commercial service for launch customer Pan American Airways with its maiden voyage from John F. Kennedy International Airport to London Heathrow Airport.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that by this time, humans have been flying since 1903 and in the post war era, commercial jet liners had become to be “a thing” thanks, in part, to Boeing using money they were given by the Department of Defence to create a cargo plane to prototype – aka the 707. There were also just a lot of surplus aeroplanes and pilots with the necessary skills. So commercial aviation in the 1950s is a good example of the Great Acceleration.

The specific context was that in the 1960s it was assumed that supersonic passenger travel would become a thing. Both JFK and Lyndon Johnson signed off on proposed jetliner funding for them, etc. But it turned out physics and economics had other opinions. There were also environmental issues around, for example, sonic boom and ozone depletion. 

In the midst of this, the 747 was designed as a kind of stop gap. It would be big, not slow, but not fast, and would be rendered obsolete by the coming of not just, you know, Concorde, but the Boeing etc, equivalents.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is sometimes the standby technology that is supposed to be there for a little while. Sticks around because it is good enough. (Kind of a flying QWERTY keyboard – kind of.)

What happened next 

And as we now know, for various reasons, that never happened. And the 747 stayed with us. It continued to be built with minor modifications, like those upturned wings. I think it’s still in use as cargo, but I’m not sure that anyone is still flying them for passengers because they’re heavy and out of date. Nope – there are still, as of Jan 2025, four airlines still using them! Which Airlines Still Fly The Boeing 747 On Its 55th Flight Anniversary?

I travelled on it a lot (never upstairs!) and it did the job. And in some ways, it was elegant. There’s all the airport films in the 70s. There’s this explosion, the bringing down of the Lockerbie plane, and of course, KAL-007

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: 

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
Media NotClimate United States of America

January 22, 1945- Journalist running his mouth pays price. #NotClimate

On this day, January 22, in 1946

“Kasherman quickly resumed publishing the Public Press, and set his sights on Mayor Marvin L. Kline, a Republican, whom he accused of allowing gangsters to run rampant. The December 1944 issue of the “Public Press” featured the headline “Kline Administration Most Corrupt Regime in the History of the City.” A month later, on the night of Jan. 22, 1945, Kasherman was ambushed after eating dinner with a friend and shot dead on a sidewalk at 15th and Chicago avenues in Minneapolis. His death made the front pages of newspapers across the Twin Cities, but few in the city were surprised when the police investigation quickly petered out…”

Arthur Kasherman – Wikipedia

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at 310 parts per million.

As of 2026 they are 428 ppm at and rising rapidly. Enjoy yourself, it’s later than you think. 

Btw, the point(s) of this project is …. the how, the who the hell am I and the what do I currently believe?

The context was the usual corruption!

Why care?

Journalists who don’t get the memo about afflicting the poor and comforting the rich sometimes need reminders of who is in charge….

(How) does it connect to climate change?

Most journalists are basically mostly-house-trained lapdogs. Occasionally they are allowed to nibble a finger to make themselves feel Independent. But pretty much a wing of the public relations industry…

What happened next

How does it help us understand the world?

Know that what you are seeing is, well, filtered.

How does it help us act in the world?

“All the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit” etc etc.

The source that it comes from, if necessary, 

Xxx

The other things that you could read about this or watch 

Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model.

Horace McCoy’s 1937 short novel “No Pockets in a Shroud”.

What do you think?

If you have opinions or info about this, or other things that happened on this day that are worth knowing, let me know!

Also on this day

Wikipedia – January 22

Working Class History – January 22

Etc

Categories
United States of America

1979 report warns of warming world (CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2)

The carbon dioxide issue attracted more and more attention from scientists through the 1970s. They worried that plans to expand energy production using fossil fuels would lead to catastrophe. They (and some far-sighted politicians) began to lobby President Carter, and in July 1977 Carter’s Science Advisor Frank Press wrote a memo to Carter about it. But Carter as trying to boost the “synfuels” (synthetic fuels, basically turning coal into liquid fuel) as a way of reducing vulnerability to price shocks.

In early 1979 Press asked top scientists to look at whether the CO2 problem was indeed a real issue to worry about. An ad hoc panel, chaired by Jule Charney (a very big fish), met for a couple of weeks in July, and then released its report, under the title Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. In October 1979 William Barbat released the first issue of his CO2 Newsletter. The lead article on the second issue’s front page was about the Charney report.

Report to president’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change climate

The introduction of the CO2 issue into U.S. energy policy moved a step closer in November as a scientific advisory panel reported “If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled… our best estimate is that changes in global average temperature of the order of 3 degrees C will occur and that this will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns.”

At the request of Frank Press, science adviser to the President, the National Academy of Sciences had convened this group of experts who had little previous involvement in CO2 studies to make an impartial examination of the validity of CO2 forecasts.

The group stated in its report that the basic model relating CO2 to global warming is correct, so far as they can see. “We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether.”

The report is summarized in Science 23 November 1979 under the title “CO2 in Climate: Gloomsday Predictions Have No Fault.” The panel was chaired by Jule G. Charney, MIT.

What happened next?

This is the famous Charney Report – interestingly, it didn’t stop Frank Press trying to chide Gus Speth into silence the following year.  April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report

Citations

Barbat, W. (1979) “Report to President’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change the climate.” CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 1, No 2, p. 1

Wade, N. 1979. CO2 in Climate: Gloomsday Predictions Have No Fault. Science, Nov 23.Vol 206, Issue 4421 pp. 912-913 DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4421.912.b

Categories
Denial United States of America

January 20, 2010 – RFK on the side of the angels. WTAF happened… ?  

Sixteen ago, on this day, January 20th, 2010, 

“It was an event billed as the smackdown between the baddest coal baron around and the environmental heir to the liberal Kennedy legacy, live on stage and in the heart of Appalachia mine country. Stage right, appropriately, was Don Blankenship, chairman of Massey Energy, a meaty impassive presence, his Kentucky drawl never picking up speed or volume. On the left, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has spent his life defending waterways, making lawyerly argument out of staccato bursts of statistics.

The pairing at the University of Charleston was the perfect personification of America’s deep divides: Republican versus Democrat; old industry v new, global warming denier v impassioned advocate for climate change laws.”

Goldberg, S. 2010.  Kennedy takes on the coal baron in mountain duel. The Guardian, January 22.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that his dad RFK Snr was making the “right” noises about conservation and economics a couple of months before he got whacked in 1968.

The specific context was RFK wasn’t bonkers. Or he was, but hiding it better?

What we learn is that people can have some good ideas and then completely off the rails.

What happened next

Yeah, well, read a newspaper. He’s killing millions, helping diseases were were keeping in check stage a comeback.

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: 

January 20, 1992 – Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions   

January 20, 2014 – Gummer sledges “green extremists”