Tag: 1967

Categories
United Kingdom

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1967,

Speaking of a programme that was broadcast on 7th December 1967, Roy Battersby wrote in his memoir. 

 I went back to do some more documentaries for him in a series called Towards Tomorrow. The first, the subtly-titled Assault on Life, about biological research into cloning, fertilization in vitro, sperm banks, genetic engineering etc. created a lot of discussion. It began with commentary over a shot of a foetus in utero:

“If he asks why polluted air for his first breath, why the rivers are dying, the animals disappearing, the ice caps in danger of melting, if he asks about war and the countless millions killed this century, what shall we tell him: That we have the secret of life?”

The support of Professor Waddington and Sir Alex Haddow and Barry Commoner was of great importance in the specially televised public debate that followed, and in keeping the BBC’s nerve.

(Battersby, 2014: 19)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322 ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Roy Battersby had already made one film mentioning carbon dioxide buildup – that was Challenge, which had been released at the beginning of 1967. This was the first in a new series called Towards Tomorrow, which ran for two seasons and caused a bit of a stir.

What we learn is that the questioning of technoscience will get you labelled as a troublemaker/hysterical luddite/whatever, because the arguments for unbridled technological development are actually quite thin and rather than address those they’ll go ad hominem on you. 

What happened next Battersby we made another film for Towards Tomorrow. But his third film Hit Suddenly Hit was well there’s no other word for it suppressed. Meanwhile all the things he warned about in his films has potential problems pretty much come to pass and here we go 

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: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Categories
United States of America

November 27 1967 – Newsweek wrings its hands about future ecological problems, including carbon dioxide

Fifty-seven years ago, on this day, November 27th,1967, Newsweek flagged carbon dioxide build-up as one thing to worry about..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the weekly news magazines like Time and Newsweek were beginning to wring their hands about smog, water pollution, air pollution, etc. It sold newspapers and probably resonated with a proportion of voters. Lyndon Johnson had already in 1965, given his seal of approval to the issue by doing a special message to Congress. And I suppose in 1967, it was possible – if you wanted to criticise the state of the world, but you didn’t want to criticise your government and say anything about Vietnam – you could find another issue i.e. the environment, which was “less controversial.” Though, of course, you’d soon start offending the advertisers. And the local Chamber of Commerce, if you named too many names.

What we learn is that 1968-69 and especially ‘69 really is when the whole thing takes off.

What happened next? Time and Newsweek ran stories about, you know “our polluted planet” and all the rest of it. And then it really kicked into much higher gear after the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in January 1969. And politicians like Edmund Muskie, and Scoop Jackson for getting hold of the issue as well. As was new President Tricky Dick Nixon with his idea for a government subcommittee that he would chair. 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: 

November 27, 1956 – New York Times science writer who covered C02 build-up dies.

November 27, 1969 – Canberra Times runs pollution article, mentions melting ice-caps

November 27, 1978 – “Impacts of climate on Australian Society and Economy” begins…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 18, 1967 – NA Leslie at Institute of Petroleum, citing Barry Commoner on C02 build up

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, May 18th, 1967, NA Leslie, giving the Presidential Address at Institute of Petroleum, quotes from Barry Commoner’s Science and Survival, and mentions CO2 build- up as a possible problem

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner’s book had come out the previous September. The BBC had shown Challenge in January of 1967 and the oil and gas industries’ own environmental body Concawe had been going since ‘63. And Torrey Canyon had just happened too…

[It would be fascinating to know if Concawe had written anything I don’t know where their records might be but I need to talk about them as a body as well.]

What we learn is that the oil and gas industries were aware of the issue at the time, not at the stage of necessarily wanting to do anything about it. 

What happened next is that over the next couple of years the possible problem of carbon dioxide build up became much more broadly known in the UK and US (and to a lesser extent in Australia).

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: 

May 18, 1953 – Newsweek covers climate change. Yes, 1953.

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

May 18, 2006- Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1997, there was a book review in the Canberra Times which gave those who wanted to know enough to worry about. The book in question was Barry Commoner’s “Science and Survival”.

“Our factories, our cars, pour smoke and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and the consequences? Smog, of course; city-dwellers have come to take that for granted, though the time is coming when we must ask ourselves how much smog we are prepared to tolerate. But, worse than this, the “glasshouse effect” of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be increasing the temperature of the earth; and a report by the US President’s Science Advisory Committee has seriously considered the possibility of the Antarctic ice cap melting within the next few centuries, and raising sea level by some 400 feet — and engulfing many of the world’s major cities in the process.”

Aitchson, G. 1967 -A menace ot mankind?” Canberra Times, April 29, p.10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner’s Science and Survival had come out the previous September and had been favourably reviewed by the Guardian and The Telegraph. And now, the Canberra Times.

What we learn is that this book was a crucial node in increased awareness of the climate issue. Not just because it was reviewed well, but because it inspired documentary makers such as Richard Broad and Roy Battersby. 

What happened next, The Canberra Times kept reporting on pollution issues. A Senate Select Committee inquiry started the next year. Were they inspired by reading Science and Survival? who knows…

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: 

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
United States of America

March 20, 1967 – Solar Energy advocate warns of carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, March 20th, 1967, a solar energy advocate pointed to carbon dioxide build-up as a problem…

March 20 1967 Introductory address to Solar Energy Society conference in Tempe Arizona by Peter E Glazer – “In addition, concerns were emerging out of the nascent environmental movement about the potential for “certain new technologies” to “imperil the future welfare and safety of mankind.” 

The possibility of global warming caused by the accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and problems stemming from the disposal of radioactive waste, constituted additional “limitations on the tremendously increased requirements expected for electrical power over the next century.”

Charles E Johnson 2015 (PhD thesis)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this stage, articles were appearing in mainstream newspapers, but also in specialist publications. The nuclear lobby was talking about climate change – see the Glenn Seaborg commencement address in San Diego in 1966. And so it’s not entirely surprising that an advocate of solar energy should pick up on the carbon dioxide problem and communicate it.

What we learn from this is that proponents of different energy systems besides digging up rocks, and oil and gas, were already talking about CO2 build-up. By the late 1960s it was appearing more prominently in scientific journals ( Philip Abelson, the editor of Science mentions it, for example). 

What happened next, solar energy didn’t get the kinds of investment that it needed. And it took another 50 years really before it became a serious player.  Because the species has a death wish, actually, that’s not accurate; I don’t think the species necessarily has a death wish. I think there are people within the species who are very comfortable getting rich and being rich, flogging fossil fuels, and they’re hardly inspired by the idea that the fossil fuels they’re flogging need to be rapidly phased down or phased out. This is hardly a controversial view. It’s just they’ve been doing it for a lot longer than we think perhaps.

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

Johnson, C. 2015. “Turn on the Sunshine”: A History of the Solar Future. PhD thesis, University of Washington

Also on this day: 

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

March 20, 2014 – industry groups monster reef defenders

Categories
United Kingdom

February 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

February 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1967, at a public lecture in London, John Mason, the new head of the Meteorological Office, John Mason, basically dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide build-up was a problem.

“A speaker In a discussion on television some time ago mention was made of the possible long term effect of the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. It has been suggested that this may have the effect of raising the temperature and possibly, by melting the polar ice-caps, the sea level.”

Feb 14 – JAMES FORREST LECTURE 1967 Recent developments in weather forecasting and their application to industry

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the month before, the BBC’s annual science round-up Challenge had been broadcast. People were beginning to talk about climate change and the problem of carbon dioxide by the mid 60s. And you see it here with this question from the audience to John Mason, who is of course dismissive.

What we learn is that this was no secret, this was no surprise. We knew about this. 

What happened next Mason continued to be a major blocker on climate. See, for example, comments in July 1970. And then his behaviour at the First World Climate Conference in 1979. 

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: 

Feb 14, 2002 – George Bush promises “Clean Skies” to distract from Kyoto-trashing…

 February 14, 2015  – No love for coal from UK politicians

Categories
United Kingdom

January 27, 1967 – James Lovelock told to keep schtum about climate change by Shell science boss

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, January 27th 1967,

Rothschild’s response was to insist that Lovelock refrain from discussing the topic—“the weather getting colder, and the cause possibly being fossil fuel combustion products in the atmosphere”—with “non-Shell people.”14 He encouraged Lovelock to continue his visits to NCAR in order to “monitor the work [being] done” on the issue.

14. Rothschild, letter to Lovelock, 27 Jan. 1967, box 76, part 3, Archive Collection of Professor James Lovelock. 

This is quoted in Leah Aronowsky’s excellent paper (see references below).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Lovelock had written this paper with the Shell people, and had been been told to shut up. Partly presumably for fear of alarming the savages, and getting in the way of I didn’t know further coal and oil exploration?

What happened next? Lovelock as far as I know, did keep schtum.  But then, Victor Rothschild, boss of science for Shell, was his friend…

Lovelock, J. 2000. Homage to Gaia.

That was good question. When did Lovelock start going public? And this is the kind of thing you can use to generate questions for further study. 

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

Aronowsky, L. (2021). Gas guzzling Gaia, or: a prehistory of climate change denialism. Critical Inquiry, 47(2), 306-327

Also on this day: 

January 27, 1989 – UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27, 1986 – Engineers try to stop NASA launching the (doomed) Challenger Space Shuttle

Categories
Uncategorized

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, January 24th, 1967,

Such a forecast was certainly disquieting. Upon reviewing the document, Graham Sutton, inaugural chairman of Britain’s recently established Natural Environment Research Council, stressed that “by no means” should the report be “dismissed as ‘science fiction,’” though he conceded that “one cannot yet tell if the decline in temperature is part of an old old story of natural fluctuations or is something triggered off or enhanced by pollution.”13

13. Graham Sutton, letter to Victor Rothschild, 24 Jan. 1967, box 76, part 3, Archive Collection of Professor James Lovelock.

Leah Aronowsky, 2021

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Graham Sutton, former Met Office boss, was head of the newly established Natural Environment Research Council and probably wanted to have a relative lid on such seemingly outlandish claims. And you see the sorts of claims of responsible men to damp and things down but fairplay to Sutton he didn’t do that. 

By now, the BBC had already broadcast Challenge, in January of 1967…

But then what did Sutton do? What did NERC do? It’s a good question. 

What we can learn. There were conversations going on among scientific elites about this. 

What happened next the following year, July 1968. Lord Kennett made what’s so far the earliest mention of the greenhouse effect by an elected politician (or at least a minister in an elected government!). Then in 1970, in August, it blew up publicly. And here we are. 

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

Aronowsky, L. (2021). Gas guzzling Gaia, or: a prehistory of climate change denialism. Critical Inquiry, 47(2), 306-327

Also on this day: 

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
Sweden

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Fifty six years ago, on this day, December 7, 1967, a Swedish television programme puts the seal on that year’s “environmental turn”

The book first entered the public sphere on 7 December through the weekly television programme Monitor. Most of the episode’s 25 minutes were devoted to the new book, and five of the contributors made an appearance in the broadcast. This extensive display on national television was an integral part of the marketing of the book, which was deliberately scheduled to hit the Swedish bookstores on the following day. The broadcast began with three words scrolling over the screen: world conflagration, world famine and world poisoning. This was followed by an array of photographs showing starving, suffering and dead children in Third World countries. The discomforting photographs were ironically accompanied by a sung version of Gud som haver barnen kär [God, who holds the children dear] – the best-known prayer for children in Sweden at the time. 

This explicit opening sequence was followed by a talk by Georg Borgström on the topic of global injustices, malnutrition and overpopulation. Borgström was filmed sitting in a chair in his office with numerous books behind him. He was presented as a world authority and declared that we were on the verge of a monumental crisis. Borgström lamented that we were at the same time being surrounded by storytellers who forecasted an ever-brighter future of technological progress and material affluence. We cannot, Borgström emphasised, trust these storytellers. We must remove our blindfolds and face the facts, that we in the rich world not only have far more resources than the rest of the world, but also plunder their economies through world trade. 

HEIDENBLAD

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that another book, by Hans Palmstierna had already come out in September 1967 (see link here).

What I think we can learn from this

Co-ordinated media blitzes can create/amplify social concern. We’ve seen it a bunch of times (Silent Spring etc).

What happened next

The most consequential consequence – Swedish diplomats started the work of getting the United Nations interested enough in the problems to say “yes” to an environment conference. This conference would ultimately take place – in Stockholm – in 1972.

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..

Categories
Sweden

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

Fifty six years ago, on this day, October 27, 1967, Swedish civil society started to properly switch on to the broad environmental threats…

In the middle of October 1967 the first edition of Hans Palmstierna’s book was released by Rabén & Sjögren, a medium-sized publishing house owned by the Swedish Co-operative Union. It was a short paperback of 129 pages and priced rather steeply at SEK 22.50. Since Rabén & Sjögren was not one of the leading companies on the Swedish book market, the publication did not receive any immediate attention from the media. It was not until 27 October that the book was first noted by the tabloid Expressen who dubbed it ‘one of the most pessimistic books to date’.22 On the very same day Hans Palmstierna also appeared in a seven-minute feature on the televised evening news. 

The book contains some mention of climate change 

“the book mentions it in passing (page 85). It is said to be called the “greenhouse effect” and it is estimated that once all the oil reserves are burned up that the average temperature of the planet will increase by 2-4 degrees (which will result in hardships in arid places, such as East Africa).”

 (via email from Heidenblad)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Swedish people had been beneficiaries of a nice post-war boom but booms always come with a price. This one, an ecological price that would, according to Palmstierna, start to be paid soon enough.

What I think we can learn from this

There’s always trouble in paradise. You can build the walls, which is what paradise means – a walled garden – but there will always be trouble.

What happened next

Palmstierna’s book caused a sensation. It was serialised, there were TV shows. At the end of 1967 the Swedes proposed to the United Nations that they talk about talking about having a big conference in the future, in the middle of ‘68. The Swedes were successful in getting that on to the provisional agenda. In December ‘68 he UN General Assembly said “yes”, and the Stockholm conference happened in 1972

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.