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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, July 8th, 1970, a crucial new US state organisation came into existence.
Environmental Protection Agency formed. President Nixon works with Congress to establish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a new Federal agency primarily responsible for United States environmental policy.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Nixon at the beginning of 1970, had signed the Environmental Protection Act. Democrats had been pushing for this for years. That hadn’t happened under Lyndon Johnson. He was too busy fighting the Vietnam War and then trying to extricate himself and so, it happened on Nixon’s watch, and people around Nixon are happy for him to take the credit. But he doesn’t deserve any. Nixon had looked at environmental issues as a chance to distract attention from that war in Vietnam. See his early 1969 speech for the North Atlantic Council, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s memos and so forth, none of which had entirely convinced West Germany. And the British had probably thought to themselves, “are they trying to play Athens to their own Sparta?”
What we learn is that politicians are cynical bastards. I hope you were sitting down when you read that.
What happened next? The EPA is still with us, despite the efforts of Republicans to kill it off, especially in the early 80s, when they went too hard and in public and basically stepped on a rake. Slow defunding, and stripping of its powers is a more clever way of doing it. Leave the husk there. That doesn’t satisfy the real culture wars lunatics who need a bloody corpse.
EPA should be included as a page in the list of organisations, of course it should. Other Greatest Hits as it tried to say that under Bush Jr. had tried to save the carbon dioxide wasn’t a pollutant. And then it was 2003. And then in 2007, the Supreme Court had said you don’t get away with that. But I think it was Massachusetts under Mitt Romney, who had forced that case there.
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 five years ago, on this day, July 7th, 1969, Newsweek was pointing to the environmental problems humans had created. Including CO2 build-up.
The article, the Good Earth, by John G. Mitchell, is based in part on a UNESCO conference and statement in May of the same year.
“Transparent to sunlight but opaque to the earth’s radiation, a blanket of moisture and carbon dioxide could conceivably raise the surface temperatures of the earth enough to melt the polar icepacks and raise sea levels 300 feet. Even 200 feet would inundate New York, Boston and most of Florida.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the environment movement, and Malthusian moment had begun. You can say January 28 1969, when the Santa Barbara oil spill happened. Then a couple of months later People’s Park had kicked off in Berkeley. And so newspapers could and magazines could fill up on hand wringing pearl clutching surveys like this one. And they could do if they so chose, illustrate it all with a picture of Earthrise. And throw in some guff about “our fragile planet” “our imperilled Earth”, whatever, this stuff writes itself.
What we learn is that by 1969, everyone who was reading this stuff was aware that CO2 was probably an issue whether they agreed with it or not.
What happened next? Newsweek and Time kept running the stuff. Senators started calling for it to be written into the record. In September of ‘69. Senator Gaylord Nelson announced Earth day. I think this was the brainchild of Dennis Hayes. Anyway, Hayes ran it. And everyone held hands and sang Kumbaya and achieved not very much. But what was to be achieved?
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 3rd, 1988, the US navy killed hundreds of civilians
United States Navy warship USS Vincennes shoots down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 people aboard.
Their crims and our crimes get reported differently, yes?
Robert M. Entman, Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents, Journal of Communication, Volume 41, Issue 4, December 1991, Pages 6–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x
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 the Reagan lot had decided to intervene physically on behalf of the Iraqis in the so-called tanker wars, part of the Iran/Iraq War that had started in ‘79, or ‘80. The year before a whole bunch of Americans had been killed on the USS Stark, one of Saddam Hussein’s pilots had gotten itchy trigger fingers. Assuming it was an accident, I assume it was. And it’s extraordinary that this was basically forgiven and forgotten. It must have been very weird indeed for the families of the dead from USS Stark very weird indeed. Because of course, part of the narrative wasn’t it didn’t fit.
What we learn is that inconvenient events can be airbrushed out of history.
See also the comparison of coverage between the KAL 007 committed by the Soviets. And this there is actually an academic paper comparing the two.
What happened next? The tanker war finished, Saddam Hussein then miscalculated. You know, maybe he thought, “well, if I can shoot a US destroyer. And they say, ‘No problem,’ then will they really be bothered if I invade Kuwait?” This was perhaps a miscalculation on his part. Eventually, the Americans paid someone 25 million to find Saddam dumped for them in a spider hole, then they executed him. Not for being their ally, but for some stuff. For the avoidance of doubt, Saddam Hussein was a freaking monster. But for a long time he was Uncle Sam’s monster.
Meanwhile, four months later, a Pan Am jet was blown out of the sky. The Iranians were blamed, until their acquiescence was needed for the 1991 Gulf War, and the blame got pinned on Libya.
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 three years ago, on this day, June 29th, 1971, the “national security” argument gets an early run,
The president of the American Coal Association warned that the environmental movement could be radicalised to the point that it could weaken the United States by denying it necessary minerals and other resources.
Carl E. Bagge “Radicalism Perils Supply of Minerals.” Speech quoted in Salt Lake City Tribune, 29 June 1971, p6.
(McCormick, 1991:86)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the American Coal Association was beset by on one hand a nuclear lobby trying to eat into electricity generation and on the other side, the environmentalists. And obviously, if you want to win the argument, you slipped back into a resonant frame, and in this case, the idea of national security. They started to paint environmentalists as unwitting or witting dupes of the Kremlin.
What we learn is that frame wars, frame walls, frame wars. Add that as a page actually.
As per that wonderful scene in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove the concern around “draining our vital fluids”
What happened next? On the American Coal Association the next I know of them in relation to climate change is the rather excellent August 1 1980 article in the Wall Street Journal where they dismiss 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.
