Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 2002, soon-to-be-obvious-war criminal Tony Blair was blathering on about “sustainability”.
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 Blair was in full messianic mode (a frightening thing to behold) and behind the scenes involved heavily in the plan to attack Iraq.
The specific context was that it was ten years since the Rio Earth Summit, and Johannesburg was the place to be (unless you were George Bush, obvs).
What I think we can learn from this is that messianic sorts like Blair are very happy to bullshit on about technology. It’s part of their “I am a god” complex.
What happened next – Technology saved us about as much as Bush and Blair “liberated” Iraq.
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.
Last week, a post about Carl Borgman’s 1965 commencement address, which informed students at the University of Tennessee about the threat of carbon dioxide build-up leading to climate change, went viral (by AOY standards).
A couple of days later I had a lovely email from someone who had read it and then set up a very comprehensive Wikipedia page for Carl Borgmann. This person suggested I contact his daughter to see if she would be happy to do an interview. I did, and she was! Here it is.
A little bit about who you are.
I did my bachelor’s degree at McGill University (1964-68). My Master’s degree was an applied degree in Speech-Language Pathologist. After I completed it in 1970, I worked on a variety of special projects and was a lecturer in Communication Sciences and Disorders at McGill University. Later with three children under the age of six, I did a PHD degree in that same department. It concerned language socialization practices with young Inuit children in the homes and schools of Northern Quebec. This was followed by how children learn Inuktitut as well as other language-based studies in other Indigenous communities of Quebec. By the late 1990s I became the Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at McGill, followed by becoming a Vice President International at the French language Universite de Montreal and then Vice President Research at Dalhousie University and subsequently the same position at McGill University. I am presently on a reduced load pre-retirement Professor at McGill University working on Indigenous community engagement of a large biomedical grant and teaching a course I taught for 20 years and last taught 20 years ago. I have served on numerous scientific project and government Boards in Canada. I have three children and six grand children that give me much pleasure.
2. Any further light you can shed on the commencement address your dad gave – its motivation, its reception, whether it was the first commencement address he gave.
The wonderful thing about your email was that I had never heard of that commencement address nor any of the other speeches he gave at that time that concerned the environment. I also never knew he had honorary degrees. I was by then not living at home since I was an undergraduate student in Montreal at McGill by 1964. I had only known about the commencement addresses he gave at the University of Vermont when I was a young girl in elementary school. I recently found the script for his inaugural address at UVM in some old papers and read it with interest. It did not have a strong environmental flavor to it.
3. Was carbon dioxide buildup something that was mentioned in your house when you were growing up? If not, when and how did you hear about it, as best you remember.
I never remember overhearing any discussion of carbon dioxide and its effect on the atmosphere in my family’s house. There was discussion of many things but not that or else I was not sufficiently interested to pick up on it at the time. In general, my father expressed concern about the environment and on wasteful ways of living. But he was a quiet person at home and rarely spoke of his accomplishments or his work. Most of what I know about his work life, I read in pieces written about him by his workplaces.
4. Did your father ever point back to his commencement address when “the greenhouse effect” was in the news in the 1980s? What was his “take” on the issue in later years?
Again, I do not remember this being a subject of conversation. I remember speaking to him about university administration and its evolution over time when I was a Dean and he was quite elderly. We also discussed some of what he did at the Ford Foundation. When he moved back to Colorado and lived in the foothills outside of Boulder, he spent time trying to protect trees from a spruce beetle infestation in a kind of solo effort to deal with environmental devastation of a stand of trees near his home.
5. Any thoughts or feelings you had on reading the All Our Yesterdays article and/or the Wikipedia page that has been created.
I loved reading about his prescience about environmental issues. This showed me a whole different side of his interests. Once not long ago, I looked to see if he was on Wikipedia and did not find him. Now I can and so can his grandchildren and great grand children who can now read about him. That is a delight for us all and hopefully an inspiration to others.
One last thing about him – he came from a very poor and uneducated family who moved from place to place. At one point he had a high school schoolteacher who realized he had a very spotty knowledge of math. He willingly accepted to stay after school hours so she could give him extra teaching. She discovered he was a very bright boy and taught him, according to the story that he told us, “Everything she knew and more” since she borrowed a book from a library on more advanced math just to be able to teach it to him. She also told him that he should attend a university. He had never heard of such a place. When he told me this story he always said, “I owe my career to that woman.”
6. Anything else you’d like to say
I would just like to thank you a great deal for contacting me and providing me with this wonderful information about a man I emulated and loved.
Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard.
The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday.
Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/20/climate-activists-smashed-glass-door-of-jp-morgan-in-london-court-hears
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. 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 XR had exploded onto the scene in late 2018, promising revolution, rebellion, joy etc. Already by late 2019, pre-pandemic, reality was setting in.
The specific context was that it’s hard to do mass actions when a) the streets are empty and b) nobody really believes in the hype anymore, and it has become the loooong grind that it always is. So, some very brave people gritted their teeth and got on with symbolic non-violent direct action.
What I think we can learn from this is that sustaining organisations, especially ones with millennarian rhetoric, is really hard.
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.
Nineteen years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2006,
Opposition leader David Cameron signs up to FoE’s “The Big Ask”
– part of the “de-toxify the tory brand” thing.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 there had been bipartisan concern about “the environment” in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Then, however, came the collapse of Keynesianism and the return to naked “fuck the poor”-ness with Thatcher, dressed up – as it always is – in words like ‘liberty’.
The specific context was that new leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron was trying to “detoxify” the Conservative brand, and “the environment” was the chosen means to do this.
What I think we can learn from this is that there are brief bouts of “competitive consensus” – there’s usually a bunch of different factors at play. Then you MIGHT get some policy “progress”, but good luck getting implementation.
What happened next – Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010, heading a coalition government because the Liberal Democrats wanted limousines and ministerial boxes.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. 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.
What I think we can learn from this is that we had plenty of advanced warning.
What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. They were always going to climb a bit, but they are now 60% higher than they were in 1990, when we all agreed that Something Must Be Done.
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
Hughes TJ. The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology. 1981;27(97):518-525. doi:10.3189/S002214300001159X
Sixty eight years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1957, Popular Mechanics September 1957,
Whats happening to the weather https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DeEDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA106&dq=What%E2%80%99s+Happening+to+the+Weather&pg=PA106&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 313ppm. 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 it was the 1950s and everyone was freaked out about the possible impact of atomic and hydrogen bombs. The International Geophysical Year had begun, with all sorts of measurements of the atmosphere, the cryosphere etc. There was an excitement about the possibilities of weather modification – both to increase agricultural production but also as a weapon of war.
The specific context was that Popular Mechanics had – in August 1953 – run a short piece about Gilbert Plass’s May announcement of what carbon dioxide build-up might do.
What I think we can learn from this – the carbon dioxide issue came through all of this sort of sideways, or at least elliptically, for most people.
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.
Ninety-two years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1933, an article appeared in the U Monthly Weather Review.
“The present wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather, and especially the recent long series of mild winters, has attracted considerable public interest; so much so that frequently the question is asked “Is our climate changing? ”
Written by JD Kincer it did not mention carbon dioxide or Arrhenius (which is fair enough – the carbon dioxide theory was in the doldrums!)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 308ppm. 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 – as our denialist bezzies like to point out – “the climate is always changing”.
The specific context was that there seemed to be some warming in the Arctic, and this was known and not controversial (see this 1916 article).
What I think we can learn from this is that systems like the climate are painfully complex, and doing good science requires decent global measurements, computers and humility.
What happened next – a few years later, a British steam engineer called Guy Callendar presented his paper at the Royal Geographical Society. This was basically ignored, but in 1953, thanks to Gilbert Plass, carbon dioxide entered the building…
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
Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2006 the first “Camp for Climate Action” has a day of “non-violent direct action” at Draw Power Station.
Day of action
On 31 August 2006, up to 600 people attended a protest called Reclaim Power converging on Drax and attempted to shut it down. There was a ‘kids march’ to Drax Power Station, with a giant ostrich puppet, made by The Mischief Makers. Two protesters climbed a lighting pylon at the edge of the Drax site and four others broke through the fence.[22] Thirty-eight protesters were arrested. The police reported that work at the power plant was not disrupted.[23]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. 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 there had been previous efforts to do direct action on climate change (Rising Tide) but the issue wasn’t yet “salient” enough among environmentalists to get things moving. At the G8 protests in Gleneagles in July 2005, dissatisfied environmentalists had proposed “A Camp for Climate Action.” Its first public meeting had been in Manchester in January 2006.
The specific context was that there were enough people who could tell that there was trouble ahead. But they/we lacked basic anthropological/sociological/whateverical insights into what movement building actually WAS. Oh well, all too late now, and was probably too late then.
What I think we can learn from this – is that good intentions are really really not enough. But nothing was ever going to be enough, frankly. The inevitability was written in decades earlier – this is all just wriggling on the hook.
What happened next – “Camp for Climate Action” which had begun because people were fed up with summit-hopping had, inevitably, within three years, degenerated into (checks notes) summit-hopping. And bewildered, they gave up the ghost in 2011. There was then “Reclaim Power” before XR came along and… oh, one loses the will to live, you know?
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. 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 conferences about “greenhouse gas control technologies” had been happening since the early 1990s.
The specific context was that this was the first one after the Kyoto Protocol was “agreed” the previous December. It now looked like rich countries were going to have to something to reduce their emissions. Therefore, a bit more attention was being paid to various
What I think we can learn from this is that the promises of capture/reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been spilling from engineers’ mouths for decades. Proven at scale technologies that capture meaningful amounts of carbon dioxide? Not so much…
What happened next – the conferences kept happening. CCS has gone through periodic periods of rise and fall since then. The only really steady trend is in the Keeling Curve, which measures the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And guess what, that’s starting to point up more. Happy days.
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.
For years there have been doomsday predictions that burning of fossil fuels might bring about a climatic catastrophe. According to the most alarming theories, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse, blocking the escape of heat into space and thus warming the Earth’s surface. The ice caps could melt, sea levels could rise, agriculture could be disrupted and vast coastal areas might be inundated.
The chief weakness in such theories has been lack of evidence that the greenhouse effect is actually occurring. Though carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been falling over the last 30 years. But now seven scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration claim to have found evidence that, on a global basis, carbon dioxide has already been warming the Earth for a century. They predict it will produce ”unprecedented” warming in the next century.
Their study finds that the warming predicted by various computer models of the greenhouse effect is consistent with worldwide temperature readings since 1880 – and with observations from Venus and Mars. That gave them confidence that the effect is real and that the models can predict it. Other scientists will challenge their assumptions, methods and conclusions. Some actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be beneficial to world agriculture. Conclusive observations may not be available for decades. But it is significant that a respected team of scientists has now joined the group warning of possible catastrophe.
What, if anything, should be done? The nation seems to be turning to the worst possible fuels in terms of carbon dioxide. It is depending less on solar and nuclear power, which emit no carbon dioxide at all. And among the fossil fuels, it is shifting from natural gas and oil, which emit little carbon dioxide, to coal and synthetic fuels, which emit much more.
The greenhouse effect is still too uncertain to warrant total alteration of energy policy. But this latest study offers fair warning; that such a change may yet be required is no longer unimaginable.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. 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 New York Times, and other papers, had been reporting on carbon dioxide build-up, quite intermittently, since the 1950s.
The specific context was that the Reagan administration was busy attacking science. The New York Times’ science correspondent, Walter Sullivan, had talked to James Hansen, which ended up costing some funding. See this 2007 interview with Hansenhttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html.
Why do you think that your testimony in particular was sensitive in the [Reagan] administration, so much so that OMB would want to shade what you were saying?
Well, I think the reason it was sensitive was the fact that it got attention. In 1981 the paper that we wrote in Science — that predicted that the world would be getting warmer over the 1980s and that by the year 2000 you begin to see loss of sea ice and eventually you have opening of the fabled Northwest Passage — that article was reported on the front page of The New York Times by Walter Sullivan. As a result, we lost our funding from the Department of Energy, because, in that administration, they simply did not want that sort of attention to this problem, because it has big implications for fossil fuel industry.
What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough and we didn’t act. We can stick that on our tombstone.
What happened next – it would be 1988 before politicians would have to start to pretend to give a damn.
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.
