Categories
Cultural responses

May 21, 1971 – Marvin Gaye asks “What’s Going On?”

On this day, May 21, 1971 Marvin Gaye’s album What’s Going On was released

As per wikipedia

What’s Going On is a concept album with most of its songs segueing into the next and has been categorized as a song cycle. The narrative established by the songs is told from the point of view of a Vietnam veteran returning to his home country to witness hatred, suffering, and injustice. Gaye’s introspective lyrics explore themes of drug abuse, poverty, and the Vietnam War. He has also been credited with promoting awareness of ecological issues before the public outcry over them had become prominent (Mercy Mercy Me).

“Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology),” was released as a single on 10 June.

Woah, ah, mercy, mercy me
Ah, things ain’t what they used to be (ain’t what they used to be)
Where did all the blue skies go?
Poison is the wind that blows
From the north and south and east

Why this matters

Before the 1986-1992 wave of concern (deforestation, ozone, greenhouse) there was another big wave of concern – 1969-1972. Same dynamics of media, legislative interest and organisations going up like a rocket and tumbling down like a stick. We should know this, while appreciating the genius of people like Gaye.

What happened next

Gaye was murdered by his father iin 1984.

Categories
Australia

May 20, 1977 – Australian Prime Minister says “coal, not solar” is the future

On this day, May 20, 45 years ago, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser said coal (which Australia had fucktonne of) was the future, not solar (because, you know, Australia is not sunny, and has no scientists who could figure out how to harness that. Obvs).

An article in the Canberra Times begins thus

“Energy research funds would go largely to studies of coal use rather than solar energy the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said in Hobart yesterday.”

Davidson, G. 1977. Top priority to coal. Canberra Times, 21 May, p.9.

Climate Citizen: 1977 Canberra Alternative Energy Festival while Prime Minister Fraser spruiks coal over solar for energy research

But on the same day, at the same time, environmental activists were holding an alternative energy fair.

Another article on the same page contains the following-

“Demonstrators rode bicycles and walked, peacefully, carrying placards, to Civic from the lawns of Parliament House, where, organisers said, more than 500 demonstrators had set up tents as part of an ‘alternative energy festival’. They went to the Department of Natural Resources, in Hobart Place, where they put up placards and chanted. About 70 of them invaded the department’s office in the AMP building, putting up stickers. They were ushered out by policemen. They then went to the department’s office in Tasman House to talk to the Secretary, Mr James Scully. Policemen stopped them in the foyer. Then they went to the Civic shopping area. An organiser, Mr John Holmes, said the protest was aimed simply at getting media exposure on the uranium-use issue.”

Veteran activist “Takvera” has a simply wonderful blog post I urge you to read, here.

Categories
Geoeingeering

May 20, 1990 – “Ironing out the Greenhouse Effect”

On this day 32 years ago, in the middle of the first big public and legislative wave around the issue, the Washington Post carried a report about what we now call “geo-engineering.”

IRONING OUT ‘GREENHOUSE EFFECT’ By William Booth Washington Post May 20, 1990 Scientists trying to battle the “greenhouse effect” have seriously proposed dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of iron into the ocean to create giant blooms of marine algae that could soak up much of the excess carbon dioxide believed to be responsible for global warming. If the massive scheme is carried out, researchers say, it would be among the greatest manipulations of nature ever attempted.

This image below, from a Guardian newspaper article from 2013, sums up the mechanism by which is is supposed to work..

Iron filings and carbon burial

Why this matters

Geo-engineering is still on the table – space mirrors, sulfur cannons, you name it. And we will do it because rich people will figure “hell, why not, nothing left to lose.”

What happened next

Big geo-engineering “solutions” kinda disappeared into their own niche, to get occasional media coverage (see here). They are slowly climbing into policymaker awareness. Expect some big publicity campaigns and action in the coming decade, when it is clear that everything else – ETS, BECCS etc, have failed…

Categories
Uncategorized

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

On May 19, 1997, 25 years ago, and months before the Kyoto meeting at which the world’s richest countries are supposed to agree binding emissions cuts, the Chief Executive Office of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, John Browne of BP, makes a speech at Stanford University.

This marks the end of the united anti-climate front of the oil majors, exemplified by the “Global Climate Coalition.”

Browne said, in part

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.” He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

You can read the whole thing on the Climate Files website.

And here’s the video.

What happened next

BP changed its logo.

Why this matters

Fracture points and critical junctures that turn out to… well, not matter as much as they seemed to. What can ya do?

See also

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”. (Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)

Categories
Science Scientists

May 19, 1937 – Guy Callendar’s carbon dioxide warning lands on someone’s desk

On this day, 85 years ago, a paper with the catchy title “THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE” landed on the desk of the editor of the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Journal. It was by one Guy Callendar, who was not even a “proper” scientist, “merely” a careful and diligent collector of data…

Historian James Fleming has written about Callendar – see here.

What happened next?

The paper was accepted. Callendar presented his findings, to general indifference (people who, 40 years later were serious players in the emerging climate consensus were present in the room, e.g. Kenneth Hare).

Callendar’s work caught the attention of scientists such as Hermann Flohn and Gilbert Plass, and was well known to the Roger Revelles and Hans Seuss’s of the world.

Why this matters

At this point, I should make clear what I am NOT saying.

I do not think anyone in 1938, hearing Callendar, should have dropped everything and raised immediate alarm. In 1938 the species – or at least the British Establishment – had other things on its mind.

I don’t even particularly “blame” people much later. I think it is really only in the late 1970s that the precautionary principle properly kicks in, and that the evidence and scientific consensus is strong enough to warrant serious action. This action did not come. Thanks Ronald. Thanks Margaret. Thanks Malcolm.

[The question of whether that consensus could have been accelerated if proper action was taken at the end of the 60s? I am agnostic. It is also not the most useful question to ask, I guess.]

So, we should know the history, but not use it to blame people for things that they could not by any reasonable measure have done that much about.

Categories
Science Scientists Uncategorized United States of America

May 18, 1976 – US congress begins hearings on #climate

“On May 18, 1976, the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere (of the Committee on Science and Technology) met under the chairmanship of Congressman George Brown (D., Calif.) for the first of 6 days of hearings on the subject of climate and related research”(Hecht, 1981).

The early-mid 70s had seen a series of droughts, crop failures, cold winters and generally weird weather. Public and policymaker interest/concern were all high. This quote below, from an excellent 2014 paper called “The Dilemma of Reticence” (Henderson, 2014) gives useful info.

“Given Schneider’s rise as one of the most visible climatologists in the United States, Rep. George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) asked him to testify soon after the publication of The Genesis Strategy in front of the House Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere.

Given an increased reliance of Americans on a stable climate, Schneider argued that increased climatic variability was taxing existing technological and agricultural systems to a breaking point. Aware of the deficiencies of current climate models to account for the complicated feedback mechanisms of the global climatic system, he testified that it was crucial to change the “political consciousness” of the United States and overcome the short-term perspective and whimsical interests of policy makers.

“The worst mismatch in the future I see is the political system, whether it socialist or capitalist or totalitarian or democratic … is to short-term issues,” he cautioned.

While he could not specifically address whether the climate would change for the worse in the near future, he did believe that climate change issues provided a “sort of last-ditch symbol” for governments to realize the importance of thinking on generational time-scales.”

The Genesis strategy (1976 edition) | Open Library

Why this matters

We really knew enough by the late 1970s to be seriously worried, and to act. That “we” didn’t become aware until the late 80s, and have NEVER acted, is only partly down to human willingness to ignore problems/procrastinate. There have been wildly successful campaigns to confuse, to delay. Oh well.

What happened next

Schneider and Brown kept on trucking. Schneider, a mensch, died in 2010, just when we needed him the most.

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

May 17, 1968 – “Some prophets of darkness warn of polar icecaps melting…”

On May 17, 54 years ago, a US government bureaucrat alluded to the danger of carbon dioxide build-up, in comments to a conservation group. We know this because they were read into the Congressional Record (akin to Hansard) a month later by a New York congressman called Richard Ottinger.

We forget that in the mid-60s people were beginning to join the dots (and of course some of the wrong dots) about what was coming. There had been some film and print publications in the late 50s (mostly tied to the International Geophysical Year) around the possibility of carbon dioxide build-up causing the icecaps to melt and sea-levels to rise. Those fears were still “in the air”

REMARKS BY MAX N. EDWARDS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, BEFORE THE FONTANA CONSERVATION ROUNDUP, FONTANA DAM, NORTH CAROLINA, MAY 17, 1968

“A great number of articles are being written these days and a lot is being said about the gradual erosion of the kind of environment man must have to sustain life on this planet. Many Geologists paint a very gloomy picture of life in the next century. Some tell us that continued destruction of our forests, plant life and estuaries, coupled with the earth’s increased emission of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide, will reduce the oxygen in the atmosphere to catastrophic, low levels. Some prophets of darkness warn us of another ice age slowly eroding the Great Plains or polar ice caps melting and submerging every coastal city in the world lying less than 300 feet above sea level.”

Categories
United Kingdom

May 16, 2006 – UK Prime Minister Tony Blair goes nuclear…

On 16 May 2006 UK Prime Minister Tony Blair speech gave a speech at a Confederation of British Industry event, basically saying that regardless of the outcome of the then-current “consultation” about nuclear energy, his government would forge ahead anyway.

The 2003 Energy White Paper had been very lukewarm on nuclear indeed, and this speech by Blair was the culmination of a determined lobbying fightback…

Why this matters

We need to remember that most “consultations” are window-dressing. They’ll be heavily publicised if they go the “right” way, and used as a stick to beat those opposed as “anti-democratic”. If the results aren’t what those in power wanted, they’ll be buried (released at 5pm on a Friday afternoon etc) and dismissed as “having been hi-jacked by well-organised special interests.”

What happened next

Greenpeace took the government to court over the shonkiness of the consultation, and in February 2007 they won, for what it is worth.

Despite all the plans and announcements, the nuclear power stations were not built – one in the last 12 years, massively over-budget.

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and onshore wind are ignored as ever., and the overarching question of energy demand reduction is deep in the hole.

Categories
Australia

May 16, 2005 – Anthony Albanese says critical action on #climate being delayed by 20 years… #auspol

On May 16th, 2005, the Australian Senate inquiry into the 2004 Energy White Paper came out.

The 2004 Energy White Paper had – even by the spectacularly low standards of the Howard Government – been a blank cheque for the fossil fuel industry (they’d basically been invited to write it) and a kick in the teeth for the then-nascent renewables lobby.

So, the Senate inquiry

has concluded the Energy White Paper will delay critical action on climate change for another twenty years.

The Senate Inquiry report shines a light on John Howard’s failure to act on climate change. The report says the Energy White Paper:

• Is a blueprint for delay in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and will be directly responsible for the high cost to future generations of Australians – environmentally and economically.

• Fails to accept climate change has already begun and therefore action to reduce emissions must be taken immediately.

• Lacks an effective plan to cut greenhouse pollution, a long term target to boost renewable energy or a long term plan to control the spiralling pollution from the energy or transport sectors.

Where does all this come from? From the website of an obscure Australian politician called Anthony Albanese, who, by the time some of you read this will either

a) be Prime Minister of Australia

or

b) have lost the unlosable election and be hiding in a caravan park in rural New South Wales.


Why this matters?

States still sometimes have the capacity to tell the truth about what the government is (not) doing. If you keep your eyes open, you can get a pretty adequate picture of what is going on. In the UK, for example, the National Audit Office still tells you more or less how things are failing.

What happened next

Howard’s end came in late 2007. Labour under Kevin Rudd comprehensively bollocksed its climate response. Gillard tidied up the mess as best she could. Then the wrecking ball known as Tony Abbott swept that thin legislation away. Prime Minister Turnbull did feck all, Scott Morrison has continued the rot…

Categories
Australia

May 15, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister John Howard spouting “nuclear to fix climate” nonsense

On 13 May 2006, with the climate issue becoming harder to ignore, Prime Minister John Howard – after meeting President George Bush and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and wittering on about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership – started flying kites about the need for Australia to go nuclear. This escalated over the following days – see here about comments he made in Canada.

The context was this – Howard had spent the previous ten years, as Prime Minister, blocking renewables, favouring coal and fossil fuel exports, and trying (with great success) to slow international action on climate change. But the endless Millennium Drought, and international developments (Kyoto ratification, the EUETS) were beginning to make him nervous. So, along comes nuclear to wedge the opposition and make him look like he was doing enough…

Why this matters

We need to remember that when in a tight spot, elite politicians will always reach for a gleaming technofix.

What happened next

There was a report. It said nuclear would be too expensive. Kevin Rudd became opposition leader, started banging on about climate change as “the great moral challenge”, to be solved with… checks notes… an Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Capture and Storage…

. cartoon by Nicholson in Australian (as per National insecurity Australia book, available on scribd)