Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

May 14, 2007 – another C40 large cities summit

Seventeen years ago, on this day, May 14th, 2017, the second “C40 Large Cities” summit was held. Backs were slapped, business cards exchanged, palms probably greased, and all the other things that happen at these events happened. And we are not saved.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Climate Group had been set up in 2004. And this summit, well, I wasn’t there, but it was surely another interminable junket, people getting together to display their virtue and swap business cards and give each other copies of glossy reports full of carefully chosen smiling individuals with the solar panel on their roof. 

And it was 2007, being the year that the IPCC fourth assessment report came out, Al Gore, everyone looking towards Bali, for what would be the “roadmap to Copenhagen,” “gosh, we can fix this,” etc, etc. And in the meantime, get some nice contracts.

What we learn is there is an endless circuit of this stuff, this guff. And you can have a nice career feeling good about yourself, going from event to event, talking about how the cat should wear a bell. And some of it does actually happen. Because technology is improved, because social movements have success, because companies see a market. It’s not that nothing has happened. It’s that we smother ourselves in bullshit about how much will happen and how easy it will be to do in the face of obduracy and resistance.

Although the penny does seem to be dropping that we are screwed. So there’s that. 

What happened next C40 kept going. The caravan kept rolling. Occasionally the wheels would fall off and need to be glued back on, as after Copenhagen but it’s too valuable to too many people, too essential, in fact, to pretend that business as usual with some tweaks will get us out of the mess that business as usual has created. And to think or, even worse, say otherwise renders you unemployable and a weirdo who might infect others with their weirdo germs. 

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

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

Categories
Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

May 13, 1957 – Guy Callendar to Gilbert Plass on how easy it is to criticise, how hard to build theories

Sixty seven years ago, on this day, May 13th, 1957, English steam engineer Guy Callendar, who had been pointing to carbon dioxide build-up as an explanation for increased global temperatures since the late 1930s, wrote to Gilbert Plass, who in 1953 had brought the problem to global attention (see my Conversation piece here).

How easy it is to criticise and how difficult to produce constructive theories of climate change! and ““A point of special interest is the large discrepancies between the apparent increase of atmospheric CO2 given by the air-CO2 observations . . . and the predicted increase derived from the size of the exchange reservoirs as now revealed by radio carbon measurements.”

Letter from Callendar to Plass 13 May 1957 (Fleming, 2007: chapter 5)
Guy Callendar

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 315ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Guy Callendar had been banging on about climate change and carbon dioxide buildup since 1938. And Plass had been doing the same since 1953. The two were corresponding and Callendar made a very good point about how the more conventional/mainstream/whatever people were resentful of an outsider committing that terrible crime of being right and proving the experts to be wrong. 

What we learn is that sometimes the experts are wrong. Other times they’re right but sometimes they are wrong. Don’t expect them to applaud you. 

What happened next Callendar had another great piece in 1960 – see here. He died in 1964. Plass kept writing about climate for a few more years but eventually moved on to other things. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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

Fleming, J. 2009 The Callendar Effect – The Life and Times of Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964), The Scientist Who Established the Carbon Dioxide Theory of: The Life … of Climate Change

Also on this day: 

May 13, 1983 – idiots get their retaliation in first…

May 13, 1991 – UK Energy minister fanboys nuclear as climate solution. Obvs.

May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made

Categories
United States of America

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

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 10th, 1968 Time magazine published an article on “The Age of Effluence.” It began thus –

WHAT ever happened to America the Beautiful? While quite a bit of it is still visible, the recurring question reflects rising and spreading frustration over the nation’s increasingly dirty air, filthy streets and malodorous rivers—the relentless degradations of a once virgin continent. This man-made pollution is bad enough in itself, but it reflects something even worse: a dangerous illusion that technological man can build bigger and bigger industrial societies with little regard for the iron laws of nature….

Under the sub-heading “The Systems Approach”

It seems undeniable that some disaster may be lurking in all this, but laymen hardly know which scientist to believe. As a result of fossil-fuel burning, for example, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen about 14% since 1860. According to Ecologist Lamont C. Cole, man is thus reducing the rate of oxygen regeneration, and Cole envisions a crisis in which the amount of oxygen on earth might disastrously decline. Other scientists fret that rising carbon dioxide will prevent heat from escaping into space. They foresee a hotter earth that could melt the polar icecaps, raise oceans as much as 400 ft., and drown many cities. Still other scientists forecast a colder earth (the recent trend) because man is blocking sunlight with ever more dust, smog and jet contrails. The cold promises more rain and hail, even a possible cut in world food. Whatever the theories may be, it is an established fact that three poisons now flood the landscapes: smog, pesticides, nuclear fallout.

There’s this too…

Man has tended to ignore the fact that he is utterly dependent on the biosphere: a vast web of interacting processes and organisms that form the rhythmic cycles and food chains in which one part of the living environment feeds on another. The biosphere is no immutable feature of the earth. Roughly 400 million years ago, terrestrial life consisted of some primitive organisms that consumed oxygen as fast as green plants manufactured it. Only by some primeval accident were the greedy organisms buried in sedimentary rock (as the source of crude oil, for example), thus permitting the atmosphere to become enriched to a life-sustaining mix of 20% oxygen, plus nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide and water vapor. With miraculous precision, the mix was then maintained by plants, animals and bacteria, which used and returned the gases at equal rates. About 70% of the earth’s oxygen is thus produced by ocean phytoplankton: passively floating plants. All this modulated temperatures, curbed floods and nurtured man a mere 1,000,000 or so years ago.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was worrying about air pollution, especially smog in cities, and water pollution and noise and so forth. And Time Magazine, as was its want ran articles like the age of effluence, which has a glancing mention of CO2 buildup, which had really come to some I wouldn’t call it prominence, then at least awareness in 1965 with Lyndon Johnson’s special message to Congress.

Since then, it had been popping up here and there, especially in science publications, but also, Roger Revelle had mentioned it in the Saturday Evening Post. Barry Commoner mentioned it in his 1966 book Science and Survival.

What we learn is that we learned nothing, to go full Hegel. 

What happened next? The following year, the environment broke through in part because of the Santa Barbara oil spill as a focusing event. The time was right. The end of ‘69, you know, there was an Earth Day coming, lots of people talking about all these issues, and one of them was CO2 buildup. 

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

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker 

Categories
United States of America

May 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse….

Ninety three years ago, on this day, May 10th, 1931, an Oregonian newspaper provides some facts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 308ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that newspapers love to write stories about the weather and climate – “is it getting hotter?””Is it getting colder?” “boffins are undecided” This is a staple and it’s easy to write and readers have opinions on the weather and will write in.

So it’s not a huge surprise that the Daily Oregonian would run a piece. Nor is it a surprise really that carbon dioxide and Svante Arrnehius would get a mention because although scientists had wrongly dismissed Arrhenius on the basis of assumptions about how carbon dioxide would behave in the stratosphere, his ideas made a kind of intuitive sense for other people. (Now this isn’t to say that all ideas that have been dismissed by scientists which make intuitive sense are right!. But in this case…)

What happened next? Well, there was in England a steam engineer called Guy Callendar beavering away. And a few years later, he would submit the paper and then present it at the Royal Meteorological Society. And that would interest a German called Herman Flohn, and also a Canadian called Gilbert Plass from 1953 onwards. Meanwhile, the emissions climbed. 

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

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

Categories
Sweden United States of America

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

Sixty five years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1959, a popular science journal, Science News, covered the findings of Swedish climate scientist Bert Bolin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been paying attention. His boss Carl Rossby was now dead and Bolin was stepping up and had spoken at the AAAS meeting earlier that year. 

What we learn – it wasn’t a big secret or surprise or particularly controversial, that CO2 would increase rapidly. Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in 1953 this was common knowledge. 

What happened next Bolin kept working on it, kept pressing. By the early 1970s had got the United Nations Environment Program, created at Stockholm, on side and then became first IPCC chair. He died in 2007.

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, 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, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound.

Forty four years ago, on this day, May 8th, 1980, there was an ironic juxtaposition in the British science journal Nature…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the synfuels battle had just happened. And Americans, political leaders had been warned about the geopolitical consequences of CO2. Other people were saying the same stuff. 

What we learn is that CO2 was a really live issue in the late 70s, early 80s. People knew what was coming, they couldn’t say exactly when. And history is full of these delicious little moments, I guess.

What happened next, Exxon gave up on renewables and being vaguely responsible and all the rest of it and switched to denial very effectively. American politicians continued to be aware of CO2. There were congressional hearings, Senate hearings and then after 1985 it really picked up steam. 

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, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

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

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
Science United States of America

May 6, 1977 – Bert Bolin article in Science about increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations owing to forestry and agriculture

Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 6th, 1977, Swedish scientist Bert Bolin sounded a warning about other sources (besides burning oil, coal and gas) leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source – https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.196.4290.613?casa_token=uAeo-ORaYTsAAAAA:IXMCd01f0aXX1KI_4E-_7x6PZC5_KW3MFgSHKAmDJ9wrZz1GMxc_o0Ga0glPcnCvHTBjvTYBpVnn

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been looking at carbon dioxide buildup and its consequences since the late 50s. There were concerns about food production; these had been voiced publicly by Henry Kissinger in 1974. And other work was ongoing about that. What Bolin was doing here was pointing out how deforestation and agriculture might be contributing to CO2 build up alongside the vast increases in fossil fuel burning for energy production.

 What we learn is Bolin was a mensch and that people reading science knew what was going on.

What happened next? Bolin ended up as the first chair of the IPCC and lived long enough to see the Nobel Prize and died shortly after that in 2007.

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 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

May 6, 2004 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard meets business, to kill renewables

Categories
Activism United States of America

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

Fifty three years ago, on this day, May 1st, 1971, people came to Washington to throw their bodies on the gears of the machine, to stop the Vietnam War.

1971 May Day protests in Washington [Wikipedia]

See also

Mayday: The Case for Civil Disobedience
Noam Chomsky
The New York Review of Books, June 17, 1971

https://chomsky.info/19710617

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the war in Vietnam was continuing. And the war in Cambodia, the bombing, there had been years of marches, petitions, protests, and now they were trying civil disobedience, direct action in Washington DC itself. And I wonder what it was like to be there. So desperate, so exhausted, scared, determined, you name it.

What we learn is that this is written out of the official histories that the war in Vietnam stories tend to end with Kent State. And the ongoing resistance to the war, after Kent State, is kind of largely ignored. It doesn’t fit the narrative because you have to then speak of domestic violence by the state against citizens. Well, also the whole “Weather Underground” thing, blowing themselves in that Greenwich Village townhouse, didn’t really help, did it?

What happened next, Nixon won the 1972 election, which tells you a lot of what you need to know. And the war in Vietnam continued. The Americans left in 73. And my first television memory that I can date was the fall of Saigon in April of 1975. The tank crashing through the gates of the Presidential Palace…

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

See also Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 176

See also this from Jacobin

https://jacobin.com/2021/05/may-day-1971-vietnam-war-nixon

Also on this day: 

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

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

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science Scientists United States of America

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

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1st, 1981, a scorching editorial was submitted to a new-ish academic journal (I know, hold the front page, right?). The writer reviews some recent studies and says, well…

“Still, these studies of energy and climate might lull us into concluding that we can put off worrying seriously about man-made climate change for a half century or so. For both physical and political reasons, both conclusions may be terribly wrong.”

John Perry Energy and Climate guest editorial received 1st May 1981 – https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02423215.pdf?pdf=button

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425.85ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was clear consensus among scientists that there was a problem. They had done their level best to get politicians alert, interested, concerned. And it was fairly clear by the time this editorial was submitted, that they had failed, that there would be at least four years of ignorance and resistance ahead, and that the clock was running out.

What we learn from this is that you have to know enough to be able to contextualise a given document. And the first time I read this, I thought, “wow, gee, this guy was prescient.” And, you know, I still think that he was smart. But now that I know how much was going on in the background, with the Global 2000 report, which I was only dimly aware, Council on Environmental Quality, Charney, Department of Energy, AAAS, the European moves, it was clear that this guy was writing at a time when lots of other people were also pointing at climate change and going “shit shit shit”. Other context would be that the journal Climatic Change was set up by Stephen Schneider. Anyway…

 What happened next? We didn’t take action, the emissions kept rising. It would be 1988 before the alarm bell was heard widely enough. 

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 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

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

Categories
United States of America

April 29, 1939 – Whitestone bridge across East River opens (infrastructure foreclosing)

Eighty five years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1939,

Robert Caro’s book The Power Broker documents how Moses not only destroyed the existing trolley system but also assured that the expansion of roads left as little room as possible for mass transit. Ignoring the arguments of planners, he built the Whitestone Bridge across the East River in the late 1930s with a light load-bearing structure, thus foreclosing the possibility of tits carrying subway lines like two of the older city bridges.

(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 117) 

 Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx%E2%80%93Whitestone_Bridge

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 311ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Robert Moses was a prick, a racist thug, who was transforming New York and not necessarily transforming in a nice way. There are accusations that he made bridges too low. There is also this one that he deliberately made a bridge too weak to allow subways across it. The broader context is that American cities were being, like all cities around the world are being transformed. In America, it was by motorcars. This was a process that has continued, of course. 

What we learn is that infrastructure has politics which is invisible if you’re rich, white, male, and able-bodied. But it’s very visible to the people on the pointy end, or largely visible to them. The politics of infrastructure is something that climate activists need to understand better. In my humble opinion. 

What happened next, Moses was finally toppled 30 years later, having caused immense damage, but not as much damage as he would have if community groups hadn’t resisted. And it wasn’t all down to Jane Jacobs, though she did a good job of publicising the resistance. 

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 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol