Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

October 28, 1994 – Give us some green, say greens

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1994,

The federal Environment Minister, John Faulkner, promised yesterday to consider proposals from Australia’s peak environment groups to double green spending and expand conservation programs, but said he must remain “realistic”.

The Peak Conservation Organisation called on the Federal Government yesterday to introduce resource taxes, such as a carbon levy, to fund a doubled commitment to the country’s environment.

In a 60-page submission to Senator Faulkner, the green groups also have sought the removal of tax and subsidy measures, such as the diesel fuel rebate and land clearing subsidies, which they say promote exploitation of the environment.

Anon, 1994. Greens seek more funds. The Canberra Times, 29 October, p.8.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118294681

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2026, 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 green groups had expanded in the late 1980s but had been unable to sustain membership and donations, and were facing near bankruptcy, very tough times.

Inevitably you want to get some money from somewhere, and you get it from the state, but then that comes with both reputational risks, but also you get hooked on it, and before you know it, you’re a handmaiden, um those are the dangers. 

What I think we can learn from this – social change, even maintaining an NGO, is really hard.

What happened next – ACF and the other outfits continued, but have been tamed, inevitably. Marxists would tell you this is inevitable.

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 28, 1906 – the birth of the Press Release

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

October 28, 1968 – Los Angeles Times report on the possibility of an environment conference

October 28, 1994 – UK agriculture and climate change workshop

Categories
United States of America

October 27, 1987- Hansen at Preparing For Climate Change

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1987, James Hansen was at a “Preparing For Climate Change” conference – Nathaniel Rich Losing Earth

“Congress had already begun to consider policy — in 1987 alone, there were eight days of climate hearings, in three committees, across both chambers of Congress; Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, had introduced legislation to establish a national climate-change strategy. And so it was that Jim Hansen found himself on Oct. 27 in the not especially distinguished ballroom of the Quality Inn on New Jersey Avenue, a block from the Capitol, at “Preparing for Climate Change,” which was technically a conference but felt more like a wedding.

The convivial mood had something to do with its host. John Topping was an old-line Rockefeller Republican, a Commerce Department lawyer under Nixon and an E.P.A. official under Reagan. He first heard about the climate problem in the halls of the E.P.A. in 1982 and sought out Hansen, who gave him a personal tutorial. Topping was amazed to discover that out of the E.P.A.’s 13,000-person staff, only seven people, by his count, were assigned to work on climate, though he figured it was more important to the long-term security of the nation than every other environmental issue combined.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2026, 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 James Hansen had been warning people about carbon dioxide build up, especially since 1981 and had suffered career consequences for his team. A grant was withdrawn in 1981.

The specific context was that it was two years after the Villach conference, and these are among the many efforts made by pro-action senators, senatorial staffers, environmental groups, etc. for action to happen, and this conference preparing for climate change really should be seen in the context of Villach and Bellagio, with people pulling every lever that they could think of.

What I think we can learn from this is that before Hansen’s testimony in 1988 the scene was already being set.

What happened next Hansen gave his testimony, and by 1989 organised denial and resistance to sensible policy action was on the rise. It has won, and we have blown our opportunities to avoid (or delay) dangerous climate change.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

COMPARE WITH ON BARAK AND HEAT.

Also on this day: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

October 27, 2002 – International CCS study tour begins

Categories
Science

October 26, 1979 – “Fate of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Budget”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, October 26th, 1979,

“Fate of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Global Carbon Budget” W. S. Broecker, T. Takahashi, H. J. Simpson, and T. -H. Peng 

Science 26 Oct 1979 Vol 206, Issue 4417 pp. 409-418 

DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4417.40

The fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere depends on the exchange rates of carbon between the atmosphere and three major carbon reservoirs, namely, the oceans, shallow-water sediments, and the terrestrial biosphere. Various assumptions and models used to estimate the global carbon budget for the last 20 years are reviewed and evaluated. Several versions of recent atmosphere-ocean models appear to give reliable and mutually consistent estimates for carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence which establishes that the terrestrial biomass has decreased at a rate comparable to that of fossil fuel combustion over the last two decades, as has been recently claimed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2026, 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 from the middle of the 1970s the evidence had begun to firm up the scientific consensus and opinion that carbon dioxide was building up very quickly, and that this would have really significant social, economic, political, military consequences, while there were debates about where some of these carbon dioxide molecules were actually ending up.

What I think we can learn from this – by the late 1970s, if you had time/access to scientific work, you could see trouble ahead. 

What happened next is that the debates about the science were ongoing, but within the general understanding that carbon dioxide was building up, and this would cause mayhem. This paper was relatively influential in the circles in which people moved, and it was excerpted in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

October 26, 1994 – “Global warming is a global warning”

October 26, 2001 – BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage mooted

October 26, 2023 – Happy One Year birthday, Energy Act

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2017 – Dieter Helm’s Cost of Energy Review

Nine years ago, on this day, October 25th, 2017, Dieter Helm produces the “Cost of Energy Review 2017”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 407ppm. As of 2026, 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 we have been talking about taking “cost effective action” around energy and climate for decades without ever really getting the idea of what the costs of not mitigating are, partly because those costs are discounted, because it’s the future, and mostly because we think they’re going to fall on well, obviously other generations, but other colours, colours of people (NB for the sake of clarity – nobody is accusing Prof Helm of being racist or any other -ist).

So there’s always new reviews being done and criticisms of this or that technology and this or that strategy by the current government. 

The specific context was that we were seven years into a conservative regime, initially in coalition and now independent. CCS was on its ass, but being slowly revived. Coal had been pushed out of the energy mix almost entirely, but there were all sorts of debates, and still are all sorts of debates, of course, about where you put your money. 

What I think we can learn from this – we’re toast.

What happened next from this is that the controversies are endless. It is only with the benefit of hindsight, and not even really then that people “agree” or “disagree” on path x or y or z.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 25, 1980 – Australian radio’s The Science Show talks about climate change…

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

October 25, 2006 – David Cameron launches “Can I have the Bill?” campaign for a Climate Act

October 25, 2000 – James Hansen writes a letter

October 25, 2021 – IRENA fanbois CCS

Categories
Australia

October 24, 1999 – utter horseshit about the Greenhouse Challenge

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1999,

99/346 GREENHOUSE CHALLENGE DELIVERS RESULTS

An independent evaluation of Australia’s Greenhouse Challenge program has revealed that the voluntary program has been highly effective in achieving greenhouse gas emissions abatement.

Releasing the Greenhouse challenge Program Evaluation Report today, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, said participants in the program were set to achieve significant emissions savings in 2000.

“The review found that industrial end users will deliver 23.5 million tonnes (Mt) carbon dioxide equivalent or a 16 per cent reduction in emissions and electricity generators will deliver 5 Mt, a 3 per cent reduction by 2000”, Senator Minchin said.

“These emissions savings are being delivered by a broad and diverse range of companies that are participating in the Greenhouse Challenge. Challenge membership includes 98 per cent of electricity generators, distributors and transmitters; all cement manufacturers; all aluminium smelters and refiners; all steel manufacturers and 91 per cent of coal miners.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/SAH06%22

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian governments had resisted carbon pricing and eventually had created, at the behest of the incumbent extractors, (miners and so on) a voluntary scheme, which would take the heat as a political issue, if not out of the atmosphere, so that everyone could pretend that something was being done, and the evil hand of the nanny state was not thwacking anyone. 

The trouble with these voluntary schemes is that they deliver nothing, but you have to pretend that they do.

So you stand there while other people bullshit about them, and you feel unclean and complicit because you didn’t speak up, and then you are complicit, and then it becomes that much harder to tell the truth when there’s an audience that might want to listen to the truth, such as the dilemma specific context. 

The specific context was that the greenhouse challenge was clearly not delivering, and the truth would be breaking through shortly, when in 2000 Robert Hill chided states and corporates.

What I think we can learn from this – voluntary schemes are, as Admiral Akbar would put it – a trap.

What happened next The Greenhouse Challenge was rebooted, and then died an ugly and unlamented death in 2004. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 24, 1967 – Acid Rain

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

October 24, 1991 – Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation launched

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde

Categories
Australia

October 23, 2007 – Ian Dunlop about climate change wars

Nineteen years ago, on this day, October 23rd, 2007,

“We now face nothing less than a global emergency. We must rapidly reduce carbon emissions and encourage alternative energy sources, far faster than either government or opposition are prepared to acknowledge, and begin preparations for a global oil shortage. This is not an extreme view; the extremists are those in government and business who have been in denial for the past decade,.”

Dunlop, I. Climate change is a war that we must fight. The Age. October 23

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australians had been warned vehemently and thoroughly about the greenhouse effect in the late 1980s and had gone back to sleep. They had woken up in late 2006 for various reasons, including the seemingly never-ending millennium drought, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and so on. 

This wave of concern was something that Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd was willing to ride entirely cynically, it now turns out, all the way to becoming Prime Minister. Anyway, the denialists also sprang back into life, of course, and it was a culture war, on for young and old. 

The specific context was that the agonisingly slow and stupid process of having green papers and white papers and all the other papers about emissions trading was ongoing and enabling people to have endless fucking debates about the merits of X, Y and Z. Ian Dunlop had been head of the president of the Australian Coal Association for a year and had since changed sides, as it were, and here we are completely fucked. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve been arguing about doing anything for so long that the moment has passed.

Settler colonies are particularly badly placed to deal with wicked and super wicked problems, because settler colonies are all about exploiting so-called untapped resources and having contempt for indigenous knowledge, fragility limits, etc. If you had any concern or respect, you’d be a very poor settler colonist. 

What happened next. The climate wars never really ended. There are brief ceasefires. There has been a bit of a change since, in which the Liberals have given up all pretence of giving any shit about 19th century physics. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.” 

October 23, 1989 – Republican Governor of New Jersey issues climate executive order

October 23, 2006 – Climate Adverts “put heat on government”

Categories
United Kingdom

October 22, 1970 – Lord Rothschild fails to mention climate change

Fifty six years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 1970, Lord Rothschild gives the fourth Royal Society Technology Lecture and studiously avoids mentioning carbon dioxide build-up, something he was very well aware of (having told James Lovelock to not talk about it).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 Rothschild, as chief scientific officer for Shell, had commissioned James Lovelock in 1966 to write a report about atmospheric futures, and then had told Lovelock to keep schtum about it. 

The other broader context is that the UK had between 1967 and 1970 really woken up to environmental problems. You’d had, for example, the Torrey Canyon in ‘67 you’d had various disasters involving pesticides and dead sea birds and all the rest of it in the intervening years. In late ‘69 you’d had Frank Fraser Darling’s Reith lectures, and the Wilson government had promised action in the form of the Department of Environment and a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which duly happened. But the Heath Conservative Party had narrowly won and unexpectedly won the 1970 election. You’d also had Frank Ireland of the Alkali Inspectorate going off on one in August 1970 about greenhouse ‘doom-mongering’ etc.

What we learn is that environmental concerns have been something that elites have been wringing their hands about and clutching their pearls about for a long time without seriously wanting to change anything. 

What happened next Rothschild became the first head of the CPRS, the Central Policy Research Staff. Rothschild then said, as he was leaving that gig, that he wished he’d done more on the environment. 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – American Meteorological Society symposium on the Future of the Atmosphere, Madison, Wisconsin

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1991 – Denialist says “no more than 1 degree of warming by end of 21st century”. Turd.

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

October 22, 2004 – Russian Duma votes for Kyoto ratification

Categories
Uncategorized

October 21, 1983 – University of Maine student newspaper on Doomsday

Forty three years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1983, University of Maine student paper editorial Doomsday revisited

“The news coming from Washington Tuesday was gloomier than usual. The Environmental Protection Agency warned the continued warming of the earth’s climate due to pollution could create serious problems as early as the 1990s.
The EPA released its report, titled, “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” and concluded that regardless of any future restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels, the warming of the earth’s atmosphere is inevitable….” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 343ppm. As of 2026, 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 from the late 1960s university publications had been going into depth on global environmental issues, including the possibility of climactic change, either colder or warmer. By the mid 70s, it was pretty obvious it was going to be warmer. 

The specific context was that the Environmental Protection Agency had just released a report called, “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” with the answer “almost certainly not.” And then two days later, I think after this publication, the National Academies of Science, Academy of Sciences had released the Nierenberg report, basically pouring cold water on everything.

What I think we can learn from this is that this stuff was understood in 1983 though, to be fair, this was the most dangerous and tense part of the Second Cold War, and you could easily be forgiven for not worrying about climate change and the greenhouse effect, because nuclear war was going to get you first. 

What happened next. Nuclear war didn’t get us first, which is of course a good thing. 

See also University of Wollongong, 1989 

Someone could do a thing about university newspapers and all this shit.?

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 21, 1824 – Cement patent granted

October 21, 1933 – Melbourne Age newspaper tells readers about… carbon dioxide

October 21 1980 – Conference on “Climate and Offshore Energy Resources” in London

October 21, 1991 – “Environment agencies start to flex their muscles”

October 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

October 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability…

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

C02 Newsletter Vol. 3, no. 3 – “Presently no self-proclaimed environmental-protection groups are clamoring for increased funding for CO2-greenhouse studies”

The fifteenth edition of the CO2 Newsletter, published bi-monthly by American geologist William N. Barbat between 1979 and 1982 is live. You can download a pdf and see the full text here.

The eight page issue has a front page story on what the Florida coast looks like when the world is warmer (as we’re now finding out).

There’s a banger of an editorial – Barbat is beginning to realise that, basically, he’s on his own…

Presently no self-proclaimed environmental-protection groups are clamoring for increased funding for CO2-greenhouse studies. Not one scientific organization has issued a position paper on the CO2 problem, and scientific magazines have yet to treat the CO2 problem with genuine concern, especially in editorials.

The news media frequently have reported on the CO2 problem in articles, but with no real continuity or editorial comment. Congressional hearings on the CO2 problem have been brief, infrequent and not well attended by lawmakers. Other governments have not matched the U.S. government in a substantive fashion in CO2-greenhouse research. (emphasis added)

Barbat imagines that there might be, well – read it and weep –

“If the results of such an effort illustrate the seriousness and urgency which we anticipate, it might be possible to generate a well-funded, international geophysical program comparable to that of the International Geophysical Year (the ‘International Carbon Dioxide Year’), with a long-term funding potential for critical programs.

There’s all the reader has come to expect – excerpts from recent reports, Barbat’s own takes etc.

Gaia, what an achievement this was.

Categories
United States of America

October 20, 1955 – carbon dioxide build-up flagged

Seventy one years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1955, a science writer (Joseph Myler) mentions carbon dioxide in an article about smog problems…

“It has been estimated that factory chimneys each year vent six billion tons of carbon dioxide alone. The rise of the motor car with its exhaust fumes and of the chemical industry has added incalculably to the contamination of the once-safe air.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. As of 2026, 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 in 1953 Gilbert Plass had put the carbon dioxide theory on the map, building on the work of Tyndall, Arrhenius, and Callendar. And so there was still a question about whether carbon dioxide was in fact building up, because the accuracy of the measures taken so far was in doubt, and it would, of course, be under Charles Keeling, who had previously done work for the oil companies, that in 1958 accurate measures started to be taken specific context here is dot dot dot. 

The specific context was this article was released to coincide with the run up to the seventh anniversary of the Donora smog incident.

What I think we can learn from this is that the carbon dioxide was popping up hither and thither as a potential problem.

What happened next There’s a series of meetings, there’s the IUG stuff, there’s the International Geophysical Year as well, of course, ah but really, by the early mid 60s there wasn’t that much doubt that CO was rising and would continue to do so. How quickly was it questioned, and that unless the laws of physics were going to be repealed. This would lead to entertaining times. What happened next? Everything that I’ve just said. 

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

The Oceanside Blade-Tribune was a daily newspaper published in Oceanside, California. The paper originated in 1887 and charged ownership and names over decades until finally ceasing in 2013.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/06/archives/joseph-l-myler-68-upi-science-writer.html

JOSEPH L. MYLER, 68; U.P.I. SCIENCE WRITER

July 6, 1973

WASHINGTON, July 5 (UPI) —Joseph L. Myler, long‐time Washington science writer for United Press International until his retirement last December, and a pioneer reporter on atomic energy, died here today of cancer. He was 68 years old.

Mr. Myler handled President Truman’s announcement of the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, covered the first postwar test of a nuclear weapon, in 1946, and the first United States drop of a hydrogen bomb, in 1956.

He wrote magazine articles on the atom and was the author of an article on nuclear energy for the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Before specializing in science writing, starting in 1957, Mr. Myler wrote many of the lead stories out of Washington, including the Allied invasion of Normandy, the atomic bombing of Japan, the end of the wars in Europe and the Pacific and the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

He leaves his wife, the former Helen Elizabeth Austin.

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

October 20, 1970 – Memo about energy research required because power sector too fragmented

October 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels…

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery