On this day, July 19 in 1976, as drought grips the UK, US scientists are pondering.
“In any market, nervousness reflects uncertainty-and there are few things as uncertain as the weather. “We just can’t confidently predict long-range trends in climate,” says Murray Mitchell, a climatologist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington. Mitchell and other specialists have advanced several theories to explain why droughts occur-and they range from speculation about sunspot cycles to a possible tilting of the earth’s axis. One notion holds that man himself is altering the climate with pollution. By burning fossil fuels, the theory runs, the industrialized world adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, creating a “greenhouse effect.” The carbon dioxide traps the sun’s heat, raising temperatures on the earth’s surface. “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century,” Mitchell warns, “then we’ve had it.”
Mayer, A. (1976) A World Praying for Rain. Newsweek, July 19, page 66.
Why this matters.
Again, by the late 1970s, we knew enough…
What happened next?
By the late 1970s, the scientific reports were piling up. Carter paid a little attention. Then along came Reagan. And Thatcher…
On this day, July 18, in 1979, Senator Abraham Ribicoff asked for some advice about “synfuels.”
The context was, the Carter Administration, desperate to reduce US dependency on problematic Middle Eastern Oil (not the dictatorships – that’s fine – it’s the interruptions to supply that’s the problem) was proposing an expensive crash program to develop synthetic fuels (synfuels). These would be incredibly energy intensive to produce… Not everyone was convinced this was a good idea…
“In 1979 [Gordon] MacDonald wrote an article for the Washington Post arguing that subsidizing synthetic fuels, as proposed by the Carter administration, would be a mistake. He pointed out that synthetic fuels would produce even more CO2 than the current U.S. mix of fossil fuels. The article drew the attention of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT), who had recently been warned about the issue by West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt” (Nierenberg et al. 2010: 324)
“Although many complex factors affect the climate, it is generally thought that the result of continued carbon dioxide production will be a warming of the atmosphere “that will probably be conspicuous within the next 20 years,” the report said. “If the trend is allowed to continue, climatic zones will shift and agriculture will be displaced.”
Gordon J. MacDonald, environmental studies professor ad Dartmouth College, who is one of the authors said in an interview that large-scale use of synthetic fuels — made from coal or oil shale — could cut the time involved by half.
“We should start seeing the effect in 1990 without synthetic fuels. . . . but if you use them, the effect would be much more pronounced by 1990,” he said.
Actually, unless I am missing something, Nierenberg et al. have got this wrong – and they don’t actually cite the “article in the Washington Post,” which is pretty poor form.
What Ribicoff appears to be responding to are articles in the Post and the Times about an actual report. This was to the Council on Environmental Quality. And it isn’t just Macdonald – “ the other authors of the report were George M. Woodwell, director of the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory; Roger Revelle, a member of the National Academy of Sciences; and Charles David Keeling, professor of Oceanography of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography” (Shabecoff, 1979).
ANYWAY, that was the 11th, and this blog post is about the 18th. And here we are –
“One incident provides a small example of the work that the Academy does outside the formal structure of reports and out of public view. On July 18, 1979, even as the Charney panel was gathering at Woods Hole, the Academy’s president, Philip Handler, got a call from Senator Abraham Ribicoff. The Senator was cosponsoring a bill on synfuels, and he wanted to know the implications of greenhouse warming. Handler went to the National Research Council’s Climate Research Board, and the very next day, it produced a statement on carbon dioxide and energy policy. The statement confirmed that global warming could be a problem. The statement told Senator Ribicoff that the massive expenditures required to create a national synthetic fuels capability should not commit the nation to large-scale dependence on coal for the indefinite future. This is the first time that an Academy group issued a specific policy recommendation, ambiguous although it may be, related to global warming. Olson 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4077050/
Why this matters.
We. Knew. Never forget, we knew.
What happened next?
Synfuels got killed off by Reagan, along with a lot of good stuff. And we had to wait until 1988 to wake up. A decade lost (but then, we would have pissed it against the wall, I guess).
References:
Nierenberg, N. Tshinkel, W. and Tshinkel, V. (2010) Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 40, Number 3, pps. 318–349. [online here]
Olson, S. (2014) The National Academy of Sciences at 150. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 24; 111(Suppl 2): 9327–9364.
On this day, July 18, 2012, a video of the poem “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner was uploaded, as part of the London 2012 Poetry Parnassus
Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner is a poet from the Marshall Islands. She is known for her poetry about climate change and its effects on her home islands in the Pacific, and has spoken at high level events such as the UN Climate Summit in 2014.
Jetnil-Kijiner doesn’t talk about climate change as a new phenomenon, but as another part of a history of violence in the Pacific. She weaves justice arguments that connect 20th century nuclear testing; militarism; rising sea levels, and forced migration.
In her poem ‘Tell Them’, recorded for Studio Revolt, she talks with love about the Marshall Islands, addressing a friend who lives elsewhere, asking them to pass on her message about the country people might not have heard of:
Show them where it is on a map Tell them we are a proud people toasted dark brown as the carved ribs of a tree stump
Tell them we are descendants of the finest navigators in the world
This message is not only one of pride and love for home, but also a warning and a call to action. Because the Marshall Islands are known outside of the Pacific. But they are known as an example, along with Tuvalu and Kiribati, of the ‘sinking islands’.
What Jetnil-Kijiner’s poetry does that is so important, is speak on behalf of islands that are so often written off as ‘doomed’, or a ‘sacrifice zone’ for a capitalist global economy, and islanders that so easily get framed as climate refugees, as if the uninhabitability of their islands is now inevitable; unpreventable.
What I argue in my own research, is that this doomed ‘extinction narrative’ tells the story as if it is already over. Like Jetnil-Kijiner, I trace a history of violence and ‘accumulation of injustices’ where the lives of islanders are considered disposable in the pursuit of colonial expansion and capitalist extraction. At the same time, this loss of life is naturalised as inevitable, due to the ‘vulnerability’ of islands and islanders, as weak and fragile peoples and unnatural places to live.
The reason that islander poets such as Jetnil-Kijiner, Yuki Kihara, and Terisa Tinei Siagatonu, and Craig Santos Perez are such important voices in climate change politics, is because they are refusing the foregone conclusion of the sinking islands extinction narrative. They offer a different way to talk about climate change politics, where the fight for mitigation is continuing, and must continue:
But most importantly you tell them we don’t want to leave we’ve never wanted to leave and that we
“in a keynote speech to business leaders [to CEDA], the Prime Minister, John Howard called for ‘realism’ on renewables. He said, ‘Renewables will play an increasing role in Australia’s energy mix, but pragmatism, rationality and flexibility also call for realistic expectations about this role for the foreseeable future. The cost of delivering low-emission electricity from renewables remains very high, with difficulties surrounding baseload power demands.’”
(Prest, 2007: 254)
Ah yes, starve renewables of funding (MRET watered down, 2004 Energy White Paper) while throwing money at fossil fuels, make the business environment so toxic for wind power that Vestas pulls out) and then hold up your hands and then say “well, renewables can’t compete with fossil fuels” (which you’ve been busy subsidising and encouraging.
Genius. )
Why this matters.
This word “realism,” eh? It’s like the word “practical”.
According to an incredibly brave anti-Nazi German, who parachuted behind the German lines in 1944 to gather intelligence and then get captured by advancing Allied troops, this is what praktisch actually means
“… the word praktisch had been a two-syllable club he’d been beaten with by fellow students and teachers and businessmen and clergy all through the nightmare years. “Stop being such a god-damned idealist! Be practical!”“Practical means I know right from wrong but I’m too fucking scared to do what’s right so I commit crimes or permit crimes and I say I’m only being practical. Practical means coward. Practical frequently means stupid. Someone is too goddamn dumb to realize the consequences of what he’s doing and he hides under practical. It also means corrupt: I know what I ought to do but I’m being paid to do something different so I call it practical. Practical is an umbrella for everything lousy people do.”
(Quote from Brendan Phibbs amazing book The Other Side of Time: a Combat Surgeon in World War II Little Brown & Co, New York (1987)
On this day, July 16, 1992, an American scientist was invited to pour scorn on the carbon dioxide theory of climate change….
CANBERRA, July 16, Reuter – An American scientist said on Thursday that there was no firm evidence of global warming or that the phenomenon was caused by humans.
Fear of global warming was being manipulated by politicians, Professor Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Australia’s National Press Club.
Reuters, 1992. US expert attacks global warming theories. Reuters News, 16 July.
Lindzen had been brought out by Brian Tucker, then the head of the CSIRO Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker had written a decent monograph for popular consumption about the “Carbon Dioxide Problem” in 1981, but was by this time jumping the shark, and after he retired would pen unhinged denialist tracts for the IPA (a particularly obnoxious Australian “think” tank).
Lindzen was not the only figure brought out in this period, by the way – the IPA and Tasman Institute were also importing “credible” Americans, in their battle against a carbon tax, and any environmental regulation.
Why this matters.
It’s that Toni Morrison line about racism as distraction, isn’t it?
What happened next?
Tucker jumped the shark. Australia didn’t get a carbon price until 2012, and then only very briefly (Thanks Tony, I bet you’re proud). Lindzen is still around, so libel laws constrain me… Here are some “third party characterisations” via Wikipedia –
On this day, 15 July, in 2005 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown announced that he had asked Sir Nicholas Stern to lead a major review of the economics of climate change, to understand more comprehensively the nature of the economic challenges and how they can be met, in the UK and globally.
Stern produced the report- released in late 2006, and this was for a while used as a “don’t worry, there’s now a report that shows business it should act, so, you know, business will defo act” kind of thing. And some nice diagrams.
Stern paid a flying visit to Australia, and the embattled Prime Minister John Howard dismissed him for being (checks notes) English. Yeah, it all got that crazy.
Why this matters.
These reports come and go. We should remember that when the next one comes along, as it soon will.
But the pictures were nice. This one got “traction.”
What happened next?
Yeah. You know what happened next. The UK Climate Change Act (2008). The stunning success that was the 2009 Copenhagen COP. The rapid decarbonisation of essential industry. The transformation of economies and societies to adapt to inevitable change, and mitigation to minimise the damage, reparations for those affected. The land of milk and honey, the sunny uplands. Er, yeah, nah.
A sequel (the body count is always higher, the deaths more elaborate) to a 2009 scientific conference, it came as the fractious public debate about an emissions trading scheme (dubbed, brilliantly, “the great big tax on everything” by the wrecking ball disguised as an Opposition Leader that was Tony Abbott) was coming to a head.
The conference was briefly marred by some Lndon La Rouche nutjobs who brandished a noose and called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber a “Nazi.” Yeah, you keep being you, guys.
“ world-leading researchers gathered in Stockholm, Sweden, concluded their presentations about human influence on climate, and opened the meeting to questions from the press. But rather than asking about the most important climate meeting yet, the assembled reporters first looked to the meeting’s 26-year old secretary. “Where is Dr. Schneider? When is the ice age coming?” they asked.” [source]
Stephen Schneider (RIP)’s baptism of fire, because he had co-authored a paper with dodgy assumptions, that suggested that lots more pollution could trigger.. an Ice Age.
Steve Schneider (left), Jim Hansen (centre), and S. Ichtiaque Rasool (right) at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, circa 1971.
Why this matters.
It gets hauled out by denialists as “evidence” that climate science is a grift. Maybe they still do this? I stopped paying attention to them quite a while back. Life is short.
What happened next?
Schneider did what scientists should do – listened to criticism, checked his numbers and assumptions and realised that the big long-term problem was carbon dioxide. And until his death in 2010, he performed his task with intelligence, wit and vigour.
“On July 12 ABC TV in Australia aired “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This followed saturation promotion in days leading up to the broadcast, including items in various current affairs and news programs. They followed the broadcast with an interview with the film maker, and then a panel discussion of “experts”. It was one of their highest-rating programs for the year, but altogether it was an uninspiring two hours of television.” [source]
(There’s a nice account of David Karoly versus Ray Evans in Mark Davis’ Land of Plenty page 190)
In 1990 there had been a similar imported schlockumentary, called “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.” – we will come back to that later. The ABC had not shown it, despite the IPA’s best efforts. Instead it ended up on SBS.
Why this matters.
Pseudo controversy like this helps slow debate. That’s the point of it. There’s even a recent (April 2022) academic article that shows this effect –
The Swindle served its purpose – creating demoralisation, confusion and, well “fear uncertainty and doubt.” Bravo! Pity about the planet and all its creatures, but hey, what can you do?
On this day, 11 July 1996, at the second “Conference of the Parties”, the fossil fuel lobby started to get up front about being perfectly happy for future generations to fry.
GENEVA, July 11 (Reuter) – Heavy industry groups from around the world Thursday pressed a major campaign to stop moves to cut the amount of carbon dioxide, widely blamed for global warming, pumped into the atmosphere by rich countries.
The focus of the drive, which is getting its major impetus from U.S. energy producers but was strongly backed by an Australian grouping, are warnings that economic disaster would hit developed and developing countries alike if cuts were mandated. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network — which includes coal, aluminum and gas industry associations — is also lobbying hard among delegates, who at the end of next week will be joined by ministers at the key stage of the conference.
The AIGN is distributing a study arguing that cuts in “greenhouse gas” emissions would bring a trade slump to all the countries of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Its stand is backed by the Australian government, whose delegation is opposing agreement on any uniform carbon reduction targets for the developed world alone — the main purpose of the gathering.
Evans, R. 1996. Energy industry fights to block cuts in coal, oil use. Reuters, 11 July.
Why this matters.
The Hague won’t be above water forever, and trials for crimes against humanity and the biosphere really ought to get going sooner rather than later….
What happened next?
Everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.
The fossil fuels kept getting burnt, in increasing quantities. The burning of them left a residue in the atmosphere. This was not an accident.
