Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

August 6, 2009 – Governor Paterson versus the Greenhouse Effect

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 6th, 2009, 

New York Governor Paterson Sets Greenhouse Gas Targets, Planning Requirements

Executive Order Sets Goal of Reducing Emissions 80 Percent by 2050 and Requires Comprehensive Climate Action Plan

On August 6th, Governor David A. Paterson signed Executive Order No. 24 setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is consistent with President Obama’s GHG reduction goals and the targets established in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 29, 2009, as well as bills currently being debated in the U.S. Senate. It is also consistent with long-term recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 387ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that governors had been pushing climate action during the “Dubya” Bush administrations, when the Federal government was doing less than nothing. And there were executive announcements and so forth stretching back to the late 1980s – see this one from New Jersey’s governor in 1989.

The specific context was that the Copenhagen “last chance to save the earth” conference was coming up in December.

What I think we can learn from this is that talk is cheap.

What happened next. I don’t know if New York a) produced a plan and then b) did anything to make it happen. I have my doubts about 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.

References

Salkin, P. E. (2014). The Executive and the Environment: A Look at the Last Five Governors in New York. Pace Envtl. L. Rev., 31, 705.

Also on this day: 

August 6, 1945 – Hiroshima

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats #auspol #climate

Categories
United States of America

August 4, 1980 – “Towards a Troubled 21st Century” reports Time Magazine

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1980, Time Magazine was reporting on the “Global 2000” report put out by the Carter Administration.

As compared with such doomsday forecasts as that of the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, which predicted mass starvation, political chaos, and general catastrophe by the middle of the next century, the study is cautiously restrained, even muted, giving its warnings more impact in a way…. 

Less predictable, but no less frightening: a possible global heating from the growing volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—expected to rise a third over preindustrial levels by century’s end from continued burning of fossil fuels.

“Toward a Troubled 21st Century: A Presidential Panel Finds the Global Outlook Extremely Bleak,” Time Magazine (4 August 1980): p. 54

Environment: Toward a Troubled 21st Century | TIME

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the warnings had been coming for a long time. Time had covered it in 1953, after all.

The specific context was that the Global 2000 report, begun shortly after Jimmy Carter became President, was a pretty good stab at the problems ahead. Of course it was met with a fierce and stupid backlash by fierce and stupid people at the Heritage Foundation etc.

What I think we can learn from this – any effort to raise the alarm will be met with the cry of “alarmist”, no matter how credentialled, sober and cautious you are.

What happened next – in September 1980 it was obvious that Ronald Reagan, republican candidate for the presidency, wasn’t even AWARE of the Global 2000 report. And the rest? It’s history and emissions, until the latter mean there’s none of the former. Oh well.

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: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored – All Our Yesterdays

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
United States of America

 August 3, 2019 – another eco-fascist massacre

Six years ago, on this day, August 3rd 2019, another of the eco-fascist massacres that I fear we will see more of…

Crusius bought a semiautomatic rifle online and 1,000 rounds of hollow-point 39 mm shells. On Aug. 3, 2019, he got into his gray Honda Civic and drove nearly 10 hours toward El Paso, Texas. Entering the city, he turned into the Cielo Vista Walmart Supercenter parking lot. By some accounts, he wanted a snack, but after briefly going into the store filled with Hispanic shoppers, he returned to his car, posted a vitriolic 2,400-word manifesto to the extremist social media site 8chan and got the gun. He shot 45 people, ultimately killing 23, eight of them Mexican citizens. “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas,” Crusius wrote. “I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 411ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that settler colonialism requires racism – hatred, fear, supremacism. If you’re going to push people off land, you have to stop seeing them as people. This is not rocket science.

The specific context was that the climate issue had been deliberately polarised/politicised in the late 1980s and early 1990s, by “conservatives” seeking to maintain the status quo (which is, after all, what conservatives do). Alongside this, well, the Great Chain of Being/White Replacement Theory and So. Many. Guns.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is going to happen a lot more.

What happened next

From wikipedia 

In 2023, Crusius pleaded guilty to 90 federal murder and hate crime charges,[21][22] and he was sentenced to 90 consecutive life sentences.[23]

In March 2025, El Paso County District Attorney James Montoya offered a plea deal on state charges, allowing Crusius to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty in exchange for a life sentence without parole or appeal. This decision followed consultations with victims’ families, many of whom preferred a swift resolution.[24] Crusius pleaded guilty to the state charges on April 21, 2025, and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.[25]

Victims:

  • Andre Anchondo, 23
  • Jordan Anchondo, 24
  • Arturo Benavides, 60
  • Leonardo Campos, 41
  • Angie Englisbee, 86
  • Maria Flores, 77
  • Raul Flores, 83
  • Guillermo “Memo” Garcia, 36[a]
  • Jorge Calvillo García, 61
  • Adolfo Cerros Hernández, 68
  • Alexander Gerhard Hoffman, 66
  • David Johnson, 63
  • Luis Alfonzo Juarez, 90
  • Maria Eugenia Legarreta Rothe, 58
  • Maribel (Campos) Loya, 56
  • Ivan Filiberto Manzano, 46
  • Elsa Mendoza Marquez, 57
  • Gloria Irma Márquez, 61
  • Margie Reckard, 63
  • Sara Esther Regalado Moriel, 66
  • Javier Rodriguez, 15
  • Teresa Sanchez, 82
  • Juan Velazquez, 77
  •  Garcia initially survived the shooting, but died on
    April 26, 2020, as a result of his injuries.[42]

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: 

August 3, 1958 – under the pole goes the Nautilus – All Our Yesterdays

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.

Categories
United States of America

August 2, 1972, Paul Goodman dies

Fifty three years ago, on this day, August 2, 1972, Paul Goodman died.

Paul Goodman (September 9, 1911 – August 2, 1972) was an American writer and public intellectual best known for his 1960s works of social criticism. Goodman was prolific across numerous literary genres and non-fiction topics, including the arts, civil rights, decentralization, democracy, education, media, politics, psychology, technology, urban planning, and war. As a humanist and self-styled man of letters, his works often addressed a common theme of the individual citizen’s duties in the larger society, and the responsibility to exercise autonomy, act creatively, and realize one’s own human nature.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the “New Left” owed a debt – sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not – to brave smart men and women who kept the flame alive during the 1950s. Goodman was a very big deal for many young Americans who worried about the consequences of modernity (conformity, ugliness, war etc).

What I think we can learn from this – prophets in their own land/time etc etc.

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: 

 August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

August 2, 1991- Pledge and Review… – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1992 – Canberra Times reporting that Jastrow idiot #RelevanceDeprivationSyndrome – All Our Yesterdays

August 2, 1994 – Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating says greenies should ignore “amorphous issue of greenhouse”

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Categories
United States of America

August 1, 1964 – Popular Mechanics says the air around us is changing

Sixty one years ago, on this day, August 1, 1964, the magazine Popular Mechanics ran a story “The air around us: how it is changing” including mention of CO2 build-up – “when you burn anything such as fuel for heat or power you also take oxygen from the atmosphere and give back carbon dioxide.”

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ROMDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA4&dq=The+Air+Around+Us:+How+It+Is+Changing&pg=PA81&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the 1950s had seen an explosion in scientific measurement of, well, everything (see also “The Great Acceleration”). Popular Mechanics had, 11 years earlier, briefly covered Gilbert Plass’s 1953 statements. The International Geophysical Year (1957-8) had enabled accurate measurements of carbon dioxide to be taken in various locations – most famously in Hawaii.

The specific context was “smog” in American cities was becoming a real problem, and journalists looking for newer/broader angles were also beginning to think globally. The journalist here is also drawing upon the report from the Conservation Foundation, of early 1963…

What I think we can learn from this is that anyone tolerably well-educated knew there might be trouble ahead. True, they probably also assumed we would nuke ourselves before then…

What happened next – the following February (1965) President Lyndon Johnson’s special message to Congress about pollution/natural beauty included a glancing reference to carbon dioxide levels… It would be the mid 1980s before serious policymaker concern began.

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

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

August 1, 1976 – Oak Ridge report on “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem” released

Forty nine years ago, on this day, August 1, 1976, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory released a report titled “The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem.” The abstract is just a page – this leaps out

”estimates of the consequent warming … range from possibly acceptable to catastrophic.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 1970s more and more scientists were looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying to themselves “yikes”…

The specific context was that the response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo had been the US announcing “Project Independence” – lots more coal and nuclear….

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew plenty, half a century ago. And here we are.

What happened next was that there was a push for the issue to be taken seriously. If Carter had got a second term, maybe. But that all ended with Desert One…

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: 

August 1, 1980 – Wall Street Journal does excellent #climate reporting

August 1, 2015 – World Coal Association tries to say coal is lifting people out of poverty.

August 1, 2016 – Anti-wind idiots step on their own rake – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

July 31, 1981 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

Forty four years ago, on this day, July 31st, 1981, American politicians held hearings on,

“Carbon Dioxide and Climate, the Greenhouse Effect”

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, July 31, 1981

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 1970s scientists – including American ones – had been studying the carbon dioxide build-up issue and become increasingly alarmed. There had been the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, in February 1979. More scientific work was being done, and there wasn’t much doubt among those studying the issue – there was trouble ahead.

The specific context was that some politicians (Paul Tsongas, Al Gore – who’d been taught by Roger Revelle at Harvard) got it. And at this point, it really had not become a culture war issue – the culture war thing happened thanks to deliberate efforts by incumbents (see Ross Gelbspan’s books on this). 

What I think we can learn from this is that we could have begun to take climate action in the early 1980s. But we didn’t. And we in fact never have. And here we are.

What happened next A 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, led to scientists making bigger efforts to inform politicians and policymakers. In 1988, the issue “broke through.”

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: 

July 31, 1981 – US politicians hold “carbon dioxide and climate” hearings.

July 31, 2008 – another day, another “Strategic Review”

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 28, 2005 – AP6 announced

Twenty years ago, on this day, July 28th, 2005 a bullshit “spoiler organisation” the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) designed to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, which neither Australia nor the US had ratified, was launched.

“The partnership announced itself while tepidly pledging not to undermine the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the treaty to limit global greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto’s supporters clothed their contempt for the new partnership in condescension.

The birth notice of the partnership was a terse statement issued from the White House by US President George W. Bush a few hours before the press conference in Vientiane on July 28, 2005. With paternity clearly established, the US stepped back and allowed Australia’s foreign minister to chair the announcement.”

Dobell – https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-gang-of-six-lost-in-kyotoland/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 380ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was holed below the waterline before it even left port, thanks to the resistance of the United States to targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations going in the treaty text. The Kyoto Protocol had been an attempt to patch the hole in the hull.

The specific context was that the US had pulled out of negotiations around Kyoto in March 2001, with Australia following in June 2002. But Kyoto had, eventually, become international law in February 2005, thanks to Russia ratifying for a) the shiggles and b) WTO membership (a tacit quid pro quo). So President Bush and Australian Prime Minister little Johnie Howard wanted a “technology-led” spoiler organisation so they could distract from their rampant vandalism, and give possibly worried “conservatives” something to point to, a talking point.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a massive effort to manage Joe and Jane Publics anxieties. If their glorious leaders are assholes (i.e. all the time), then there has to be some way of not seeing what is obvious. Most of that is supplied by the normal bias in the media, but sometimes a spoiler proposal is called for.

NB Nothing here should be read as an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol, which was criminally inadequate.

What happened next – the AP6 died, and was not mourned. Other spoiler organisations were formed. Grand sounding but just as empty. 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

Jeffrey Mcgee & Ros Taplin 2006. The Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: A complement or competitor to the Kyoto protocol? Global Change, Peace & Security, Volume 18, 3,  173-192  https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150600960230

Also on this day: 

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report meeting begins

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 

1979 Ad Hoc Study Group on C02 and Climate at Woods Hole from 23 to 27 “Charney Report”

http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 1970s scientists working on climatology, pollution, energy, food were starting to study carbon dioxide build-ups effects and saying in effect “er, we may have a serious problem on our hands”. This was true especially in (parts of) Europe and the US.

The specific context was that the Carter Administration was rather taken with shale oil as a way of securing “energy independence”. This raised the question of CO2 build-up to serious concern, and Jule Charney was asked to come up with a “definitive” answer to whether it was something to take seriously.

What I think we can learn from this – sometimes an issue will be “entrained” because of another one (in fact, that is surely the norm, but we struggle to understand it). In this case, an “environmental” issue gets a boost because of energy policy debates….

What happened next Charney et al basically said “there’s no reason to believe that a doubling in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide – which are likely by 2050 or so – will do anything other than result in an increase of global average temperatures of somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees.”

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: 

July 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Energy United Kingdom United States of America

July 19, 1979 – “a political view on C02”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979, 

“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”

Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0

A political view of CO2 | Nature

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.

The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.

What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.

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: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”