The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. 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 onwards, there was a marked uptick in work on global atmospheric change, especially in Europe and the US.
The specific context was that by about 1976 people on either side of the iron curtain were beginning to look closely at carbon dioxide build-up.
What I think we can learn from this – fifty bloody years
What happened next. The 1979 First World Climate Conference could have been the tipping point, but it wasn’t. Oh well.
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).
Fifty years ago, on this day, July 27, 1976, South Australian Labor minister Hugh Hudson (no relation) has this to say during a Parliamentary debate –
“I have heard over the past few weeks environmental arguments against any form of providing energy. It is argued that, even if we use up our existing fossil fuel reserves, we are running serious environmental dangers through the excess emission of carbon dioxide, which may or may not increase the temperature of the earth. Of course, I believe it can be demonstrated that if the temperature of the earth rises by as much as one degree or two degrees, the ice caps will start to melt and cities such as Adelaide will turn out to be inappropriately located. It is important, in this energy debate, to recognise that we cannot discuss one form of energy in isolation.
Every form of energy creation has advantages and disadvantages, and a balance must be struck.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. 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 a huge uranium deposit had been discovered in South Australia’s mid-north and there was a lot of debate about whether uranium should be exported or not (fears of proliferation, safety etc etc).
What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide build-up was being spoken of even in the provinces (Hudson was no relation, btw).
What happened next. In 1982 a Labor politician switched sides on the vote, the legislation to let Roxby Downs get established passed, and the Opposition leader (John Bannon) flagged that a Bannon administration would not try to turn the clock back…
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).
Thirty eight years ago, on this day, July 26, 1988,
CLIMATE
The greenhouse effect took priority when representatives of Australia’s Federal, State and Territory governments met yesterday at World Expo ’88 to discuss water resources.
Although the Australian Water Resources Council decided only to “maintain a watching brief”, the educative process among political and administrative leaders is nevertheless gathering pace.
The Queensland Premier, Mr Ahern, has now established a government departmental committee in an attempt to identify the issues of the global warm-up.
Massey, M. 1988. Government officials start to feel the climate of change. Australian Financial Review, July 27.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 there had been warnings (ignored) all through the 1970s and 1980s about what was coming. Finally, after the Villach meeting in 1985, the pressure had built until, in 1988 the issue began to break through. There had been a drought in the US, James Hansen’s testimony and then the Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto.
The specific context was the Australian government was being kept informed, thanks in part to the work of Barry Jones, Science Minister.
What I think we can learn from this – this was the very small window of ‘we will take positive action’ before, from 1990 or so, the shutters came down.
What happened next The Liberal Party went to the 1990 Federal election with a more ambitious emissions target than Labor, but lost the election and blamed the big green organisations (especially the Australian Conservation Foundation) for ‘betraying’ them. Climate change became part of the culture wars, and Labor then completely bollocksed it all up from 2007 to 2010. The well has been poisoned ever since, not that they give a rat’s arse, clearly.
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).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 314ppm. 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 May 1953, Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass, building on the work of Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar, had catalyzed the world (well, a few scientists) into wondering and working on the question of carbon dioxide build-up.
Roger Revelle was already a Big Fish by this time, and was in the process of getting serious money out of the US government for the International Geophysical Year.
The specific context was the Australians were an integral part of the IGY. I suspect someone in the IGY press team planted this story with the journo, or gave him access.
What I think we can learn from this – by 1956, carbon dioxide stories were appearing in the Australian press
xxx
What happened next. The IGY happened from 1957 to the end of 1958. Huge amounts of data were gathered.
Through the 1960s and 1970s Revelle would return to the theme of carbon dioxide build-up, but as one of the ‘cautious’ commentators (too cautious, we now know).
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).
On this day, July 25, 1933, a Queensland newspaper reports that WJ Chamberlain has given a lecture to students in Melbourne about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 307ppm. 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 the 19th century it had been established that carbonic acid/carbon dioxide acted as a greenhouse gas (by Eunice Foote – though nobody remembered this, and by John Tyndall). In the 1890s Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius had calculated that a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures, but thought this would be fine – it would take thousands of years.
The specific context was that although Arrhenius’s calculations had been (wrongly) discounted, the idea was still there.
What I think we can learn from this – the story of carbon dioxide awareness is more complex than we think.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
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).
Forty-nine years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1977,
In reporting the “Energy and Climate” study, the Ironwood Daily Globe (Ironwood, Michigan) ·of Mon, 25 Jul 1977 tells the truth on page 1.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. 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 newspapers had been writing stories about carbon dioxide build up for over twenty years by this point. A flurry in the 1950s, mostly around Gilbert Plass’s work and then the studies before and during the International Geophysical Year. Then frequency had dipped a bit, but picked up in the late 1960s.
The specific context was that a two year study by the National Academies of Sciences, on ‘Energy and Climate’ had been released with some fan-fair.
What I think we can learn from this – this news was not restricted to the coastal elites – those in ‘flyover country’ were aware too,
What happened next
There was an effort to get the carbon dioxide issue onto the agenda by a host of scientists (and also the geologist William Barbat). It failed not because they weren’t smart or talented enough, but because, well Thatcher, but then Reagan and his goons. It was not until 1988 that the problem finally became an issue.
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).
Fifty six years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1972, Australian journalist Peter Hastings ponders ‘how big is the sink?’
25 July 1972 How Big is the Sink Sydney Morning Herald article abt world resources
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 questions of how much you could exploit fragile eco-systems before they bit your ass were hardly new in Australia.
The specific context was from the late 1960s those questions had been global ones. 1972 had seen the release of Blueprint for Survival and the Limits to Growth, as well as the Stockholm conference. Questions of environmental ‘sustainability’ were still live (though would fade markedly).
What I think we can learn from this – Carbon dioxide was in the mix!!
What happened next – the issue faded by 1973 (fatigue and then the Oil embargo/Price increases).
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).
Fifty seven years ago, on this day, July 25th, 1969, the Frontiers of Science people – not for the first time – tackled climate change from carbon dioxide build-up.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was xxxppm. 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 the “Frontiers of Science” cartoon series had been running in Fairfax newspapers for a few years. In January 1965 there had been a remarkably good strip about carbon dioxide build-up.
The specific context was that by mid-1969 carbon dioxide build-up was being mentioned in articles about air pollution, global problems. It was not a state secret.
What I think we can learn from this – by the late 1960s, we knew to watch out. We then did NOT watch out.
What happened next – in September 1969 carbon dioxide build-up was mentioned in a Senate Report on Air Pollution, by various scientific luminaries on ABC radio and at an Australian Conservation Foundation seminar in Melbourne. The issue had arrived.
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).
2012 excellent (imo – ymmv) piece on complexity of food productivity by Homer Dixon is published.
In the mid-1980s, when I was a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and beginning to study climate change, I attended a lecture by a specialist in plant physiology at nearby Harvard University. He spoke about global warming’s impact on crop productivity. He was quite optimistic. More carbon dioxide in the air, he explained, causes certain kinds of plants to grow faster. So, on balance, food output should rise in a warmer and CO2-rich world.
I chased him down after the lecture and pressed him on things that could make plant response more complex. If plants absorb more CO2, I asked, won’t that change the nitrogen-carbon balance in their tissues and make them less nutritious? And what about other factors that might change in a warmer world, such as soil moisture and the distribution of weeds and pests – shouldn’t we take them into account, too?
He agreed that the issue was more complex than he’d suggested. “But we don’t have good data on these other factors yet,” he said, “so I didn’t talk about them.”
Almost three decades later, we have vastly more data, and the picture is far less rosy. We’ve learned that in the real world, unlike in experimental plots that control everything except ambient CO2 concentration, factors like drier soil and worse pest infestations can swamp carbon dioxide’s positive effect. And one thing that didn’t figure much in experts’ analysis in those days, and which I didn’t ask the Harvard speaker about, turns out to be a really big deal: heat shock.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 395ppm. 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 biologists have known about carbon dioxide build-up as an issue since the 1940s (see Evelyn Hutchinson, of Yale, for example). From the mid-1960s, word was spreading. (It’s important not to restrict understanding of what was known about climate change to meteorologists and climatologists!)
The specific context was that Homer Dixon has written books that I think raise important questions and give useful (which is not automatically to say correct) answers.
What I think we can learn from this – in the 1980s, carbon dioxide build-up was not a contested topic in many circles. People just got on with thinking what the implications would be building on work of people like Stephen Schneider, Robert Schware, Bert Bolin, William Kellogg etc etc.
What happened next – it all got politicised by the fossil fuel lobby in the late 1980s, for entirely predictable and cynical reasons.
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).
On Friday, 23 July 2010, at the end of the first week of the 2010 Australian federal election campaign, Prime Minister Julia Gillard held a press conference to announce her commitments regarding Australian Labor Party (ALP) climate change policy.[1] Central to that announcement was her proposal to convene a “Citizens’ Assembly” (CA)[2] that would involve 150 randomly-selected Australian citizens.
Growing up politically: conducting a national conversation on climate change Lyn Carson 9 September 2010
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. 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 initially under the Labor government of Bob Hawke, from 1988 to 1990 or so, the Labor party had (under significant social and electoral pressure) pretended to give a damn about the climate issue. From 1991 or so, the mask slipped. Once in opposition, they found it useful to use climate as a stick to beat the government of Liberal John Howard (1996-2007). Once in office, Kevin Rudd had comprehensively bollocksed it all up, because he was desperate to keep the powerful mining and energy companies sweet.
The specific context was that new Prime Minister Julia Gillard was keen to try to kick the whole issue into the long grass so she could get on with other, more important (sic) issues.
What I think we can learn from this – there is (or might be) time for ‘citizens’ assemblies’, but this wasn’t it.
What happened next – Gillard’s proposal was rightly derided, and rendered irrelevant by the results of the 2010 election, after which, in order to form a government, she had to do a deal with a bunch of independents, and they all insisted on a carbon price, not a citizens’ assembly.
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).
