Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

April 5, 2008 – Charlton Heston dies, star of first movie to mention the greenhouse effect

On this dayApril 5  2008 Charlton Heston died. What the hell has this got to do with climate change? 

Well, two things. One, superficially, Heston was the star of the first Hollywood movie to mention the greenhouse effect.  Soylent Green, released in April of 1973, has the following exchange

More deeply Charlton Heston is a good example of one of the problems that environmentalists face from a demographic and gender perspective. Namely, this Heston was a small-l liberal as a younger man and made the right noises about desegregation and racial justice. But as he aged, he became steadily more right wing, especially on the issue of gun control. And he became a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (which is not a social movement organisation but is a lobby group disguised as a social movement organisation). “You’ll pry my gun from my cold dead fingers.” 

And this move is one that men often make. Especially men as they age, and it means that it’s really hard to sustain the concern for the environment, which becomes framed as a woman’s issue.

Why this matters. 

People take their cues from those they admire. We are very very social animals. And when a “macho” man’s man like Charlton Heston goes all anti-reflexive, it matters…

What happened next?

Well, last time I checked, Heston was still dead and the C02 was still accumulating.

Categories
Science Uncategorized United Kingdom

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-up

Okay, fourth of April 1978, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government Sir John Ashworth writes a letter in which he says – well, here is Janet Martin-Nielsen (2018) Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political  Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245.

“The Meteorological Office’s ‘‘important and very helpful’’ work on Concorde, Ashworth wrote in a secret letter to Berrill, proved the value of climate modeling to U.K. interests—and since ‘‘the real worry is now the CO2 level in the atmosphere’’ he continued, the Meteorological Office needed to focus its energy in that direction   . J. M. Ashworth to K. Berrill, re: ‘‘Meteorological Research,’’ 4 Apr 1978, secret KEW, CAB 184/567W01211, 

The context for this is that the UK Government had started looking via its World Trends Study Group at the climate issue, also paying attention to what was happening in the United States. Also you have to factor in the the aftermath of the very hot summer of 1976, and the very cold winter in the US and Canada of 1977. 

And it’s clear that they were trying to get their head around the problem. But not everyone in the UK scientific establishment was at all sold on this. And it would require other entrepreneurs as well, like Solly Zuckerman and Herman Bondi to push further. Unfortunately, all of this culminated in 1980 with Ashworth trying to brief the new Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and her response was an incredulous “you want me to worry about the weather?”

And it would be another eight years before that she would do one of her turns because it turns out the lady was frequently for turning 

Why this matters. 

We need to puncture the myth that Thatcher deserves any credit whatsoever. She was warned a decade earlier,did nowt.

What happened next?

The problem stream entrepreneurs tried to get the issue paid attention to, but everything was against them.  And it had to wait until 1988 for attention to be paid….

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

April 3, 1980 – US news anchorman Walter Cronkite on the greenhouse effect

On this day, third of April 1980, CBS News, anchored by Walter Cronkite had a two and a half minute story on climate change (by reporter Nelson Benton), hooked on some Senate hearings on the subject. 

Cronkite was a vastly respected news anchor. And famously, President Lyndon Johnson had said to Robert McNamara, “if we’ve lost Cronkite, we’ve lost the war.” 

Long before 1980, Cronkite already done stuff about the natural world – he threw CBS’s considerable weight behind “Earth Day” in 1970 – see this fascinating piece  

The Senate hearings were the work of people like X, Y, and they included a young Al Gore. 

“The CBS Evening News for April 3, 1980 carried a two minute 40 second story by Nelson Benton on the greenhouse effect based on a Senate Energy & Natural Resources committee hearing.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that people, elites and everyone knew about this issue as early as 1980 in public and it was getting news coverage. For the love of Gaia, the problem is not information, the problem is sustaining attention, political and cultural pressure. That doesn’t come from ever more clever messaging, it comes from effective social movements and real democracy. But that is beyond our grasp now… But I digress…

What happened next?

Cronkite kept doing stuff he’d already done stuff about the natural world. And Gore famously kept hold of the issue and after the Villach meeting in 1985. Senators Republican, Democrat and Republican, stepped up the pressure. And that period between 93 That’s right. 85 and 88 is fascinating. 

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels Industry Associations United Kingdom

April 3, 1991- Does coal have a future?

On this day, third of April 1991, the World Coal Institute was holding a conference in London

Rubin, E. 1991. Environmental constraints: Threat to Coal’s Future? Keynote Session Presentation to the World Coal Institute Conference on Coal In the Environment London, England April 3, 1991

The question of coal’s longevity was because of environmental constraints was a hot topic, because negotiations were underway (or rather, Uncle Sam was busy slowing down attempted negotiations) for a global climate treaty.

The World Coal Institute had formed in the late 70s as a global body for the coal production industry. It has emerged out of a smaller group as these things are wont to do. And of course, by 1991, everyone  and their dog was still kind of talking about climate change if they weren’t talking about the war in Iraq. 

And what we learned is that there have been various technological options (not solutions – and eye-wateringly expensive) sitting alongside a certain amount of, so-called scepticism, leaning over into outright denial. 

Why this matters. 

We need to know that the industry lobbies are always active, always watching who is trying to figure out how to turn an issue  back into a problem and a problem into a non problem. And often they succeed at least in the short-term. That’s predatory delay for you.

What happened next?

The World Coal Institute would become the World Coal Association. And it would fight the “good” fight on resistance to regulations, and spouting hopey-changey nonsense about new technologies (CCS, HELE – the acronyms change, but the siren song of delay and putative technosalvation remains the same).. That is what these types of outfits do, and they generally do it quite well, if you’re a politician looking for cover to not do the right thing by future generations…

Categories
Science Scientists

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

On this day, April 2 1979. Yes, the same year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science started a four day workshop in Anaheim, Maryland. 

The following from the rather good recent Verso book “The Great Adaptation” helps set the scene

“The US Department of Energy was no longer willing to overlook the climate question. In collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAA) the leading US scientific body and publisher of the journal Science, it financed a research programme on the social and economic impacts of climate change. Roger Revelle and Stephen Schneider were each involved in organising the programme, which in 1979 resulted in the first international conference dedicated to the social sciences of global warming. This seminar, held in Annapolis, Maryland, sought to bring together speialisgts in economic history, anthropology, economics and political science to think through the consequences of global warming and the responses it demanded: Schneider, Revelle, Kellogg, Orr Roberts, Kenneth Hare and Crispin Tickell all took part…”

(Felli, 2015/2021: p44)

Why this matters. 

Again? I keep banging on about the late 1970s. There’s a method to my madness, which you’ll hopefully read about in a gasp yes, book at some point. 

What happened next?

More studies, but then basically, with the coming of the Reagan administration in 1981, the funding dried up, and Reagan appointees tried, for a few years, at least, to silence the climate scientists. See, for example, what happened to James Hansen in 1981 after his front page story in the New York Times. By the mid-80s, this became much harder, and eventually they had to move to plan B…

Categories
Science United States of America

April 1, 1979 – JASONs have their two cents on the greenhouse effect

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60434299

On this day first of April 1979, the Jasons released their study into climate. Who were the Jasons? They were the elite, high security clearance, nuclear Cold War warriors,of very confident scientists

Wikipedia has it thus-

“JASON is an independent group of elite scientists which advises the United States government on matters of science and technology, mostly of a sensitive nature. The group was created in the aftermath of the Sputnik launch as a way to reinvigorate the idea of having the nation’s preeminent scientists help the government with defense problems, similar to the way that scientists helped in WWII but with a new and younger generation. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members.”

 who had decided to take a look at the burgeoning climate question. 

In the late 70s everyone was doing this including the World Meteorological Organisation, which had in February that year hosted the First World Climate Conference.  

Reading the foreword to the Jasons report, which you can see here, all of the usual names, Revelle, Keeling, Smagorrinsky, etc, turn up. So too William Nirenberg who would three years later, produce a report for the National Academy of Sciences in a heightened period of climate concern (more of that report later in the year).

. 

So what does Jason’s report say? In essence (i.e. a loose paraphrase),  there may be a problem at some point, but we can’t really be expected to do much about it. And our best bet is technology. 

The JASON Report, The long term impact of carbon dioxide on climate (1979)

Why this matters. 

We have been failing to do anything substantive about climate change, other than make it worse for 50 years. And it’s worth therefore having some scepticism about the politics of experts…

What happened next?

Well, Nierenberg went on to produce the NAS report in 1983 – you can read more about that here. Later that year. Jule Charney, who had been quite rude about Stephen Schneider convened a study or chaired a study that was convened at Woods Hole. And it said that there was no reason to doubt that if the atmospheric concentration of co2 doubled then the planet would warm by three or so degrees. This is the so called Charney Report. And so it continued…

Categories
United Kingdom

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

On this day in 1998 a report “Climate change : a strategic issue for business” was presented to British Prime Minister Tony Blair

An “Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment” had been asked to come up with the usual soothing words and blandishments and so it had delivered.

Blair had come to power with a promise to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. This at the time looked not too tricky because emissions were on a downward trend. But, oops, that was because of a) switching from coal to gas for some electricity generation and b) offshoring manufacturing.  And things got trickier and trickier. Turns out promises are easy, delivery not so much…

Why this matters

We should at least remember some of the past promises and glossy reports when looking at the new promises and glossy reports

What happened next

The emissions reduction target got pushed up to 60% by 2050 in 2003 or so (and then 80% b 2050 as part of the Climate Change Act 2008).

And the atmospheric concentrations continue to climb. Ha ha ha.

Categories
Cultural responses

March 30, 1992 – Thelma and Louise could teach humans a thing or three….

On this day in 1992 Thelma and Louise wins the Oscar for best original screenplay.

What on earth has this got to do with climate change?

Well, a throwaway line by Harvey Keitel’s cop character, Hal Slocumb,  sums up the human condition.

Another cop wonders aloud why these “girls” still haven’t been caught – are they really smart or just lucky? Hal Slocumb says “Don’t matter. Brains’ll only get  you so far, and luck always runs out…”

.

Our species, collectively, is very very “smart” – that is, technologically adept.  Opposable thumbs and a couple of millimiters of neocortex has been, well, wow. Sadly, we are also dumb as a rock, collectively, and it seems getting dumber.

We’ve been lucky so far, not to nuke ourselves on multiple occasions (probably more of them than the public knows about- “Imagine any mix up and the lot could go”). But if you load the dice against yourself for long enough, eventually your luck is gonna run out.  Here comes the 21st century.

FWIW, someone should do a re”-reading” of this film in the context of Carla Daggett’s “Petro-masculinities”

Categories
Australia

March 30, 2007 – Climate as “the great moral challenge of our generation” #auspol

On this day 15 years ago then-Opposition Leader Kevin “I’m from Queensland, I’m here to help” Rudd made a speech about “great moral challenge of our generation”  at the ALP climate summit at Parliament House, Canberra.

You can read more about this here, in a post by an incredibly intelligent, good-looking and kind individual who has given permission for linking. The conversation below the line is really really good…

Rudd was using the climate issue to make John Howard, Prime Minister and climate criminal since 1996, look outa touch. It was working, and kept working, all the way to the election. Australia cared about climate change.


Rudd then did fuck all as Prime Minister, using the climate issue to wedge the Liberals and Nationals, and then running scared after the failure of the Copenhagen conference and Tony Abbott’s arrival.

Labor folks still blame the Greens (for sake of clarity, I am not and never have been a member of ANY political party – Trot, Green Labour, Labor whatever). To admit that they chose and supported a wrong ‘un who has totally fucked Australian climate politics is just too much for them.

Categories
International processes Science Scientists UNFCCC

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

On the 29th of March 1995, in Berlin at the first “Conference of the Parties” of the UNFCCC, Kuwait, put forward a scientist, who said that if global warming was happening, it wasn’t the fault of coal and oil. Of course, they would say that;  “Mandy Rice Davies applies.” You need to think about Kuwait, as a spoiler in all of this, along with Saudi in the US and Australia. And if you’re looking for the gory details, Jeremy Leggett’s book, The Carbon War is really good on this. 

What happened next?

COP1 ended with the Berlin Mandate – rich countries agree to cut emissions first.  Two years later, in Kyoto, the first agreement to reduce emissions was agreed for what that was worth (not much). Kyoto was not replaced, and eventually a laughable “pledge and review” system got implemented (Paris). And the emissions climb and climb.