Categories
United States of America

August 22, 1960 – JFK says “we must climb to the hilltop”

Sixty-five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1960, Life Magazine published a story about the coming presidential election.

 When Life asked both presidential candidates in 1960 to define the national purpose, only John Kennedy mentioned environmental problems. “The good life falls short as an indicator of national purpose unless it goes hand in hand with the good society,” Kennedy wrote. “Even in material terms, prosperity is not enough when there is no equal opportunity to share in it; when economic progress means overcrowded cities, abandoned farms, technological unemployment, polluted air and water, and littered parks and countrysides; when those too young to earn are denied their chance to learn; when those no longer earning live out their lives in lonely degradation.”15 ; 

John F. Kennedy, “We Must Climb to the Hilltop,” Life, Aug. 22, 1960, pp. 70B–77, esp. 75 cited in Adam Rome 2

“We Must Climb to the Hilltop,” Life Magazine, 22 August 1960 | JFK Library

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 316ppm. As of 2025, 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 although Silent Spring was still to be published, there were incipient worries – about the spread of car culture, of litter, of the Thanksgiving berries being 

The specific context was there was a tight Presidential election going on, and candidates will say whatever will help them get the votes…

What I think we can learn from this – politicians will say whatever will help them get the votes (though to be fair to JFK, he did then try to make “the environment” an issue, but nobody was paying any attention.

What happened next – JFK won the 1960 election – persistent rumours about his dad having stolen Illinois for him remain…

Kallina, E. 1985. Was the 1960 Presidential Election Stolen? The Case of Illinois. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 113-118  https://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168

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.

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Cameroon

August 21, 1986 – Lake Nyos disaster

Thirty-nine years ago, on this day, August 21st, 1986,

On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.[1]

The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air, descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]

A degassing system has since been installed at the lake, with the aim of reducing the concentration of CO2 in the waters and therefore the risk of further eruptions. Along with the Lake Monoun disaster two years earlier, it is one of only two recorded limnic eruptions in history

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 347ppm. As of 2025, 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 carbon dioxide was not something you read a lot about, back in the day.

What I think we can learn from this – carbon dioxide is not just “plant food”, as the denialists would have it.

What happened next – lots of monitoring work to make sure it couldn’t happen again.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1996,

Frederick Seitz, in his capacity as president of the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, DC, assembled the small group of sceptics from among the institute’s leaders and acquired support from some senators in US Congress. They wrote a letter to the two co-chairmen of Working Group I and myself (dated 20 August 1996) and to Tim Wirth at the US State Department, again challenging the outcome of the Madrid meeting. On this occasion the politics of climate change was more in focus. Some of the senators who had signed the letter had attended the second conference of the parties to the Climate Convention in Geneva in July as observers.
The response from the State Department (dated 24 September) was quite detailed and succinct. A short and carefully written review of the relevant scientific conclusions in the IPCC SAR was given (presumably prepared by Bob Watson, the co-chairman of Working Group II and in the USA responsible for the White House for environmental issues.  Wirth rejected the accusations and then sketched the Administration’s view of the US policy that should be aimed for during the next few years.

(Bolin, 2007: 132)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 362ppm. As of 2025, 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 denial campaigns against carbon dioxide had kicked off properly in 1989, George Marshall Institute pivoted from shilling for Star Wars to attacking James Hansen and any other scientist who stuck their head above the parapet.  In this they were joined by the Global Climate Coalition (lobbying policymakers), the Climate Council (gumming up the international negotiations), etc

The specific context was the release of the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saw the denial and smear campaigns kick into high gear, because the summary for policy makers included the fateful phrase (suggested by Bolin) that human activity had already had a “discernible” impact on the atmosphere. So the denialists picked on someone they perceived to be vulnerable, and tried to smear him. Fortunately, it didn’t work (though they tried the same shit with Michael Mann later).

What I think we can learn from this is that the denial lobby were unprincipled scum (I know, this may come as a shock) who deserve to rot in hell.

What happened next The IPCC kept producing reports. And reports. And reports. And the emissions kept climbing because, really, who the hell listens to scientists?

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.

References

Bolin, B. 2007. A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued? – All Our Yesterdays

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
International processes United States of America

August 19, 2002 – Bush skips the Earth Summit

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2002, Dubya shows his priorities….

August 19th, 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell will lead the American delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 through September 4. President George W. Bush made the announcement late today, giving no explanation as to why he will not be attending the summit to join 106 other world leaders on the speaker’s podium.

USA: Bush Turns His Back on Earth Summit https://corpwatch.org/article/usa-bush-turns-his-back-earth-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, 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 US writes the (unwritten) rules, it doesn’t obey them. The laws are there to protect the rich and constrain the weak, not the other way round – that stuff is just for the academic theory books and the propaganda aimed at the credulous (there is a distressing amount of overlap between these two categories. Meh, it is what it is).

The specific context was that Bush was simply reminding everyone who had the nukes and the hegemonic status. Much as his dad, George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush, had done in 1991 and 1992, threatening not to attend the Rio Earth Summit if the text of the Climate Treaty included targets and timetables for emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Also, all the liberal and conservative whining about Trump not obeying international law, international norms. Please – bite me.

What happened next – the US kept on being a rogue state, because that what suits those in charge of it. And the emissions kept climbing.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

 August 18, 1997 – MENSA turns out to be dumb as a rock.

Twenty-eight years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1997,  ABC’s Four Corners exposed the “economic modelling” scam

“This model [ORANI-F] was used, with ABARE’s MENSA model, in the economic modelling undertaken for the ESD Working Groups (1991). Dixon, when interviewed by 4 Corners [ABC television 18.8.97.], stated that he only edited a paper for ABARE regarding MEGABARE and that he did not referee the model. Dixon claims that ABARE does not have the intellectual expertise needed to develop a model of the global economy to adequately test the changes in policy it purports to be able to do. Hence, Dixon is directing his criticism at ABARE, not the model.”

(Duncan, 1997:74)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, 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 economic modelling had come to be a useful way – especially for the rich and well-connected – to support their positions on economic policymaking. The key anecdote here comes from Richard Denniss, of the Australia Institute. Writing in 2015, he recalled

My first job as an independent economic consultant was 20 years ago. I’d previously worked with other economists as part of a team but this was my first solo performance. I was a bit nervous.

After a brief phone call explaining what the client wanted, I spent days preparing for our first face-to-face meeting. When I had spent a few minutes outlining what I saw as the strengths and weaknesses of the possible methodological options, the client interrupted.

“Look, mate,” he said, “all I want is something about an inch thick. I want to walk into a meeting, slam it on the fucking table, and say, ‘According to my economic modelling …’”

The specific context was that in late 1997 the issue of economic modelling and climate change was super “hot” because the Howard Government was trying to convince the rest of the world to give Australia a free pass on emissions reductions (domestic, let alone all the fossil fuels Australia was exporting!). And so Four Corners was looking into who said/did what to whom.

What I think we can learn from this – it’s all kayfabe. Economic modelling is voodoo and bollocks, for the most part.

What happened next – the economic modelling kept getting used, because it works on its intended audience – none-too-bright and obedient politicians, and friendly journalists up against a deadline with pages to fill. Doesn’t matter if it’s kayfabe/bullshit, it fills the need in the short-term.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
United States of America

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1988,

RS (1988) The `greening’ of Congress. Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 1988

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0817/ewirth.html

TWO US senators recently introduced bills to help slow global climate warming. The bills could put the United States in the forefront of international efforts to combat the so-called greenhouse effect. Norway appears to be the only country to have officially committed itself to reducing carbon dioxide emissions – a key culprit in warming the climate. Norwegians plan to cut such pollution by 20 percent by the year 2000. If enacted, the Senate measures could form the basis for a more comprehensive strategy than one focused only on carbon dioxide.

A bill introduced by Vermont Republican Sen. Robert Stafford would ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for all but medical uses by 1999. CFCs help destroy the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer and play a major role in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Senator Stafford’s bill would also require the US to cut CO2 emissions by half by the year 2000. It would also impose tight limits on nitrogen oxides and other gases that contribute to ozone smog at ground level.

A second bill, introduced by Colorado Democrat Timothy Wirth, asks for smaller reductions in CO2 emissions – 20 percent by 2000. But it also calls for a comprehensive US energy policy based on greater energy efficiency, more research into alternative energy sources, research into safer nuclear reactor designs, and broader use of natural gas to fuel power plants and vehicles. It would allot more money for basic atmospheric research. It would also steer US international aid efforts toward encouraging global population control, preserving rain forests, and supporting reforestation projects.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, 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 carbon dioxide build-up had become a relatively regular (albeit infrequent) subject in the Op-Ed pages of Serious Newspapers over the preceding decade. 

The specific context was that James Hansen’s landmark testimony before a Senate hearing in June, combined with the drought affecting the mid-west, had “the greenhouse effect” on everyone’s lips. For a great summary of this, see the “Grant Swinger” article LINK HERE.

What I think we can learn from this – “greening” of politicians tends to go almost as quickly as it comes, in the absence of robust radical social movement organisations. Which we don’t have, and won’t have. So it goes.

What happened next – there was a flurry of announcements and pronouncements in 1988 and 1989. By 1990 the reality, and the organised backlash, were biting back. And the emissions? Oh, they kept climbing, of course.

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

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister” – All Our Yesterdays

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

August 16, 2000 – No future for the Sydney Futures Exchange

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 16th, 2000,

“However, 12 months later, the Sydney Futures Exchange announced that it had dropped its proposal to establish a trading centre for carbon credits. The decision was made in the context of the Exchange demutualising and moving to a public company. A spokesman noted that the commercial viability of carbon trading was not likely to be in a time frame proportional to other business initiatives. As well, political uncertainties existed over the implementation of the Kyoto protocol limiting the emission of greenhouse gases.44”

“SFE drops plan to trade ‘fresh air’ carbon credits” in Reuters News Service, 16 August 2000.

From 2002 Stewart Smith Greenhouse Update

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, 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 one form of putting a price on carbon – a straightforward tax – had been handily defeated, twice, in the early 1990s. Since then, interest had grown in “emissions trading”. The Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had signed (but NOT yet ratified) had scope for this. There had been a real push for carbon trading in Australia (consultants and bankers were going to make money) and it would ‘efficiently’ reduce emissions (yeah, sure).

The specific context was that it had become obvious that there would not be an early ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the ducks were not all in a row and so… plug pulled.

What I think we can learn from this – emissions trading might have helped a little bit, at the margins, in a perfect universe. But if we lived in a perfect universe, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Also, in politics, sport, you name it, timing is everything.

What happened next – the Chicago Futures Exchange (whatever it was called), met a similar fate, a few years on.

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

Also on this day: 

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions 

August 16, 2012  – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate 

Categories
Sweden

August 16, 1971 – “The changing chemistry of the oceans.”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, August 16th, 1971,

The changing chemistry of the oceans : proceedings of the twentieth Nobel symposium held 16-20th August, 1971 at Aspendäsgården, Lerum and Chalmers University of Technology, Götenborg, Sweden Nobel Symposium, (20th: Sweden: 1971); Dyrssen, David, editor; Jagner, D. joint editor 1972

See also

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, 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 about 1968 (earlier in Sweden, by a couple of months), there had been an “environmental turn” – meaning people were beginning to realise that all this “Vorsprung durch Teknik” (progress through technology) came with a price tag – that air pollution, water pollution, the loss of habitats etc were not local events only, but symptoms of a wider set of problems. Heck, there was even going to be a conference in Stockholm the following year.

The specific context was that oceanographers had been very well aware of the pollution of the oceans – and that included the impact that raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might have. After all, some of the very earliest papers about carbon dioxide were by oceanographers (Revelle and Seuss etc).

What I think we can learn from this – well, as with so many of these 60s and 70s posts, smart people knew. People reading newspapers knew. But getting action, beyond the creation of a few ministries and bureaucracies

What happened next Some Nobellers kept warning (e.g. 1974). The emissions? Kept going up, didn’t they?

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.

Also on this day: 

August 16 1984 – “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda – All Our Yesterdays

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

August 16, 2010 – Polar Bears going through the motions 

August 16, 2012  – Tony Windsor calls Tony Abbott an “absolute disgrace” on carbon tax/climate 

Categories
Science United States of America

August 15, 1977 – “Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content”

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, August 15th, 1977,

Theoretical climate effects of doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

 Presented at the Third Ecology-Meteorology Workshop, University of Michigan Biological Station, 15-18 August 1977

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 333ppm. As of 2025, 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 by the mid-1970s scientists studying the issue were getting more and more concerned. In 1975 the first “global warming” paper appeared – vale Wally Broecker) and the National Academies of Science started paying attention to “Energy and Climate”. President Carter had kicked off the “Global 2000” report too. Word was getting round…

The specific context was that American science wasn’t at that time under full assault by a bunch of crooks, thugs and wilfully ignorant theocratic racists. So, the good old days.

Also, in 1975 this paper had come out – The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model in: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Volume 32 Issue 1 (1975)

What I think we can learn from this – People knew. Not everyone, but more than you’d think.

What happened next – in 1979 the First World Climate Conference happened in Geneva, Switzerland, organised by the World Meteorological Organisation. It could have been pivotal, but wasn’t. The thick end of another decade was wasted.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 15, 1952 – flash flood – caused by Weather Modification experiment? – All Our Yesterdays

August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

August 15, 2010 – Russia halts grain exports because of droughts and heatwaves

August 15, 2010 – a walk against warming fails to catch fire. #RepertoireRot

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Technophilia technosalvationism

August 14, 2000 – Carbon Capture Technology will save us. Oh yes.

Twenty five years ago, on this day, August 14th, 2000,

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Warren Entsch MP today officially launched the 5th International Conference on the Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies in Cairns, saying the Government is committed to meeting its greenhouse obligations while continuing to protect jobs and economic growth.

M2Presswire, 2000. Australia meeting Greenhouse Gas challenge. M2 Presswire 14 August.

AND

Emissions soar 17 per cent despite $1b spent on crisis

AUSTRALIAN scientists are investigating a scheme to bury carbon dioxide underground as a way of reducing our burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

A research team, which is in the middle of a four-year project, claims it can find a cost-effective way of sealing carbon dioxide in the earth, safely and permanently, by putting it back where it came from.

They are looking at sedimentary basins across Australia – deep saline areas, coal seams which cannot be mined and depleted oil and gas reservoirs – for spaces big enough to hold big volumes of carbon dioxide.

The continuing research will be presented at an international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies in Cairns today, after new figures which warned of the effects of global warming.

2000 Rose, R. 2000. Plan To Bury Greenhouse Gas. The West Australian, 15 August, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, 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 dreams of “carbon capture and storage” had been around since the mid-1970s. Promises, promises.

The specific context was the Howard government, aware that it might – just might – have to ratify Kyoto if Democrat Al Gore got the White House, was making non-committal noises about CCS.

What I think we can learn from this – is if there is the possibility of having to make a real commitment to action, politicians will keep their options (especially their techno-options) open.

What happened next. In November 2000, Gore did not get the White House – he lost the vote 5-4 in the Supreme Court. Bush got the White House. Pulled out of Kyoto, meaning Australia could do likewise.

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.

Also on this day: 

August 14, 1989 – South Australia creates “interdepartmental committee on #climate change”…

August 14, 1971 – Stanford Prison Study begins…

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification