Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1967,
“The early theory of acid rain came from a Swedish scientist, Svante Oden, who published it first not in a scientific journal, but in a newspaper, the October 24, 1967, issue of Dagens Nyheter”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere would screw with buildings and lungs was a long established fact, dating back centuries – by the time of the Industrial Revolution it got so bad in some English cities that – gasp- the British State created an Alkali Inspectorate.
The specific context was Sweden was noticing changes to the acidity of their lakes, and biological impacts on trees, fish etc. And they wondered if the problem might be coming from perfidious Albion…
What I think we can learn from this is that there were plenty of cognate issues to do with atmospheric pollution alongside climate – ozone, nuclear war etc.
What happened next the British politicians ignored, denied etc. etc. that it was their fault. Of course they did. Read more about it here.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, October 7th, 1967,
Ruby Doris Smith-Robinson (April 25, 1942 – October 7, 1967)[1] worked with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from its earliest days in 1960 until her death in October 1967.[2] She served the organization as an activist in the field and as an administrator in the Atlanta central office. She eventually succeeded James Forman as SNCC’s executive secretary and was the only woman ever to serve in this capacity. She was well respected by her SNCC colleagues and others within the movement for her work ethic and dedication to those around her. SNCC Freedom SingerMatthew Jones recalled, “You could feel her power in SNCC on a daily basis”.[3]Jack Minnis, director of SNCC’s opposition research unit, insisted that people could not fool her. Over the course of her life, she served 100 days in prison for the movement.[1]
October 7 1967 Ruby Doris Smith Robinson dies – https://snccdigital.org/people/ruby-doris-smith-robinson/
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 322ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 the Black Civil Rights movement was in full swing. It gave wider society so much (was an initiator for second wave feminism, anti-war, ecology, gay rights etc etc). But has of course been pacified and diminished in the history books.
The specific context was that life was never particularly easy for women of colour in these movements.
What I think we can learn from this – we should remember, celebrate and learn from these people
What happened next – exhaustion, co-optation and repression did what they always do – by the early 1970s, things were very different… (See Debbie Louis’ And We Are Not Saved).
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.
Fifty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1967,
“Temperature dip tied to particles,” New York Times, June 9.
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 in the northern hemisphere, at least, temperatures had been dropping. We now know that that was because of all the extra aerosols sulphates in the air, bouncing a certain amount of the sun’s heat away. Keeping the winters nice and chill. And this seemed like a problem for the theory of carbon dioxide induced warming. It wasn’t but it’s still being held up as one.
What we learn is that it wasn’t crystal clear. People like Keeling and Plass would not deny. There was still uncertainty.
What happened next? There was for the next five years or so, the whole Ice/Heat debate. Things started edging towards the heat trap side. C02 buildup was reported in The Times as a cause of concern in 1972. And then, by the late 70s, it was clear what was going to happen.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1967, some scientists met in Geneva. I know, fascinating eh…
REPORT OF MEETING – METEOROLOGICAL ASPECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION AND ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY
(Received 23 January 1968)
IN THE week of 5 June 1967 the Working Group on Atmospheric Pollution and Atmospheric Chemistry, established by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences (formerly Commission for Aerology) of the World Meteorological Organization met for the first time in Geneva.
The following persons act as members of the W.G.:
F. H. Schmidt (Chairman), Netherlands
E. Eriksson, Sweden
A. G. Forsdyke, England
R. E. Munn, Canada
Mrs. E. S. Selezneva, U.S.S.R.
Atmospheric Environment, Pergamon Press 1968. Vol. 2, pp. 423-426.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The broader context was that from the early 1950s questions around atmospheric pollution – first sulphur dioxide, but then latterly carbon dioxide and others – worked their way through the science-policy system.
The specific context was that the President’s Scientific Advisory Council had released a report in late 1965 that did more than name-check carbon dioxide. Shell and others were beginning to pay attention…
What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of the WMO and WHO and so on grind slow, but grind they do. (Given time, I’d like to trace this process more.)
What happened next – by the late 1960s, word was getting through, thanks not so much to these sorts of meetings (that was not their purpose!) but thanks to various popularisers, e.g. Peter Ritchie-Calder.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, January 27th, 1967,
After the usual litany of localised issues, it ends with this remarkable set of paragraphs.
Other scientists are concerned about the tremendous quantities of carbon dioxide released into the air by the burning of “fossil fuels” like coal and oil. Because it is being produced faster than it can be absorbed by the ocean or converted back into carbon and oxygen by plants, some scientists think that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 10% since the turn of the century. The gas produces a “greenhouse” effect in the atmosphere; it allows sunlight to penetrate it, but effectively blocks the heat generated on earth by the sun’s rays from escaping back into space.
No Apocalypse.
There has already been a noticeable effect on earth—a gradual warming trend. As the carbon-dioxide buildup continues and even accelerates, scientists fear that average temperatures may, in the course of decades, rise enough to melt the polar ice caps. Since this would raise ocean levels more than 100 feet, it would effectively drown the smog problems of the world’s coastal cities.
The waters, however, need never rise. Within his grasp, man has the means to prevent any such apocalyptic end. Over the short run, fuels can be used that produce far less pollutant as they burn. Chimneys can be filtered so that particulate smoke is reduced. Automobile engines and anti-exhaust devices can be made far more efficient. What is needed is recognition of the danger by the individual citizen and his government, the establishment of sound standards, and the drafting of impartial rules to govern the producers of pollution. Over the long run, the development of such relatively nonpolluting power sources as nuclear energy and electric fuel cells can help guarantee mankind the right to breathe.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Time had first covered the possible problem of C02 build-up in 1953, in response to Gilbert Plass’s statements at the AGU meeting. The more immediate context was that questions of pollution, air, water, noise had been exercising American journalists and writers for several years. There’s the wonderful song Pollution by Tom Lehrer two years earlier.
What I think we can learn from this is that if you were reading either Science or Time magazine or both back then, the idea of carbon dioxide build up as a problem was there at the beginning of 1967 which is 58 years ago. This was not arcane. This was not bizarre. This was 1967. Alongside this, you also had, of course the book Science and Survival, by Barry Commoner, that had come out the previous year.
What happened next
Time and Newsweek kept doing the sort of hand wringing, “What have we done?” reports As did US News and World Report. And then, really, by late 1969 the environment “took off” as an issue.
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.
Fifty eight years ago, on this day, January 13th, 1967, the editor of the most prestigious American scientific journal, Science, writes about the carbon dioxide threat,
“Man is changing the earth’s atmosphere. Most obvious is the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that almost exactly two years before Lyndon Johnson, President of the United States, had made an address to Congress that included mention of CO2 build up. And in the intervening period, there had been a report in November 1965 by the President’s Scientific Advisory Panel Council and other reports. Abelson, who had trained as a nuclear physicist, clearly had his finger on the pulse (part of the job spec for editor of the premier scientific journal in the United States!)
What we learn is that at the beginning of 1967, readers of the journal Science would have been aware of this as a potential issue.Now, it turns out that the estimates of temperature increase were vastly overblown, overstated. The word could is doing a lot of work. Nonetheless, it shows us that this was an issue that scientific political elites were aware of.
What happened next Ableson did keep talking about CO2. So for example, there’s him at a symposium later that year.
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.
Abelson was outspoken and well known for his opinions on science. In a 1964 editorial published in Science magazine, Abelson identified overspecialization in science as a form of bigotry. He outlined his view that the pressure towards specialization beginning in undergraduate study and intensifying in PhD programs leads students to believe that their area of specialization is the most important, even to the extreme view that other intellectual pursuits are worthless. He reasoned that such overspecialization led to obsolescence of one’s work, often through a focus on trivial aspects of a field, and that avoidance of such bigotry was essential to guiding the direction of one’s work.[7]
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
