Tag: 1968

Categories
Science Scientists

December 26, 1968 – “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution” symposium

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 26, 1968, Fred Singer, who had been present for the foundation meeting of the International Geophysical Year, and would go on to be a weapons-grade asshole denialist, organised a symposium (it was part of his day job). That symposium was about the global effects of environmental pollution for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

https://doi.org/10.1029/EO051i005p00476

Smart cookie called J. Murray Mitchell was there and laid it out.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US Federal Government was making some of the right noises about climate change. It had just found out that there would indeed be a United Nations meeting in 1972. But this meeting will have been organised months and months in advance of that final decision.

What’s amusing about it is that Fred Singer became one of the leading the nihilists denialists.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew way back when. We knew.

What happened next

Caroll Wilson organised the 1970 Workshop in Williamstown about Man’s Impact on the environment. The following year there was Man’s Impact on Climate, organised by William Kellogg, in Stockholm.

This 5 years was the period where are the new institutions and collaborations got hashed out – GARP, then SCOPE and so on…

J. Murray Mitchell was exceptionally blunt (and accurate) in his warning in 1976 – “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century then we’ve had it.”

We were and we have.

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
International processes Sweden United Nations

December 3, 1968 – UN General Assembly says yes to a conference about environment. C02 mentioned.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 3, 1968, the United Nations General Assembly voted yes to hosting a big, all-singing all-dancing Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. 

The unanimous adoption of Resolution 2398 Problems of the human environment at the twenty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 3rd, 1968 marked the culmination of the first phase of the “Swedish initiative” 

Paglia Swedish Initiative. 

Thanks to work by a Swedish diplomat whose “own reading of media reports on climate change during autumn 1968 concluded that scientific opinion was shifting towards warming as the more likely outcome of human interference in atmospheric processes” things were different.

In contrast to Palmstierna’s memorandum and Åström’s statements at ECOSOC earlier that year—which presented the particle-induced cooling scenario first—the UNGA speech instead foregrounded and explained in far greater detail the potential for a rise in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, which is presented in the speech as a pollutant.1 No other forms of air pollution are mentioned in Åström’s December 1968 speech, including acid rain, which Palmstierna had in his memorandum gone into some detail in describing in terms of the scientific basis, and its environmental and economic effects.16 Paglia 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous year, Sweden had seen the release of two bombshell books about environmental degradation. Sweden had put the proposal by their diplomats that the UN have a look. And surprisingly quickly, given how the UN usually works this was accepted.

In July of 1968 a Swedish diplomat had even referenced temperature imbalance but with more emphasis on the problem of dust. This was three years after Lyndon Johnson had him and had mentioned carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What I think we can learn from this

Uggh. We knew.

What happened next

The Stockholm conference happened in June 1972. Not much changed (though the UNEP was formed, smaller than its proponents wanted, 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..

Categories
United States of America

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

Fifty five years ago, on this day, August 19, 1968, a major US news magazine asks the right question…

August 19 1968. “Is Man Spoiling the Weather? What the Experts Say,” U.S. News and World Report, August 19, 1968, p. 61.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that further work by US scientists was beginning to look more closely at carbon dioxide. There have been reports by the National Academy of Science and the beginnings of more confident minority statements. But this time and even much later the article was still, understandably, couched in a “will we die in fire or will we die in ice?” kind of thing. 

What I think we can learn from this nothing much except that the media was talking about this for a long time.

What happened next

 1970 is the year that you really start to say carbon dioxide is emerging as a prominent member of the various threats that people are putting forward as long-term problems.

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
International processes Sweden United Nations

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 30, 1968, the top committee of the United Nations says yes to a environment conference, something the Swedes had been pushing for.

1968 July 30 Resolution 1346 (XLV) recommends that the General Assembly consider a conference on environmental problems.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was as per previous blog posts here (May 1968)and here (December 1967). Earlier in the year one of the diplomats had given a speech, which was the first mention of climate change, though it wasn’t, because he didn’t call it that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Regardless of the names/terminology, we have known about this for a long time.

What happened next

In December 1968 , the UN General Assembly nodded it through. And then in 1972 the Stockholm conference happened. 

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 United Nations

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 19, 1968, a Swedish diplomat pointed to the problems ahead.

Demonstrating the cutting-edge nature of the science that underpinned Sweden’s diplomatic intervention, environmental issues that emerged more prominently in the 1970s were foreshadowed by Palmstierna and Åström, including acid rain, eutrophication and climate change. Regarding the latter, for example, Åström stated before ECOSOC on July 19, 1968, “that man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable”. 

Paglia “Swedish Initiative”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that global awareness of major environmental problems, including our favourite – population – and water and air pollution get as far as the United Nations because it’s Swedish initiatives. And this was apparently the first time that ECOSOC talks about what we would now call “anthropogenic global warming.

What I think we can learn from this

The UN has been talking about, well, people have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years. Let me say that again. People have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years.

What happened next

ECOSOC, to which Astrom was talking, agreed to put forward a resolution, the United Nations General Assembly about holding a big environment conference. That UN General Assembly rubber stamp took place in December 1968 (the UK had tried to stop this, but realised it would be futile, so decided to roll with the punches).. And the big conference (with very little high level participation from the Second and Third World)  finally took place in June of 1972. It didn’t really give us very much about climate, but maybe I think you could argue that the science wasn’t yet mature. It gave a bit of a fillip to the World Meteorological Organisation and there was now a venue, the United Nations Environment Programme for further work, so all was not lost. And as I said, it’s really only the late 1970s that you could start to blame anyone for anything. 

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
United Kingdom

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate change

There had been all kinds of warnings and speculations about possible climate change, in tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, reports and books. The first example I am currently aware of a government minister (as distinct from an MP) saying ‘hmm, this is something we might want to look at’ came on this day in 1968 (55 years ago).  It was from Lord Kennet, a junior minister in the Department of Housing and Local Government.  See here, Paul David Sims 2016 PhD thesis – 

“In July 1968, Kennet wrote to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, Anthony Greenwood, to suggest ‘the possibility of having some sort of enquiry into the adequacy of our arrangements for controlling the pollution of the human environment, right across the board’. It is difficult to measure public opinion on pollution during this period, but it is clear that there was a perception within government that the public demanded action. Citing the impact of Torrey Canyon, as well as concern over pesticides, agricultural fertilisers, industrial cyanide in rivers, and ‘possible changes in macroclimate caused by the heating of the atmosphere due to industry’, Kennet noted that ‘the public disquiet which is building up on this front can be seen week after week’, and argued that the government should appoint a wide-ranging public inquiry, perhaps in the form of a Royal Commission.52” (Sims, 2016: 198) –

52 TNA: HLG 127/1193 Pollution in the Human Environment: Proposals to Set Up a Committee or Other Body to Undertake a Study (1968-69), Minute from Lord Kennet to Minister of Housing and Local Government, 15 July 1968 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

What we can learn

This has been going on for a very very long time. Longer than we realise.

What happened next

The first Environment White Paper, published in May 1970, mentioned carbon dioxide build-up as one thing to keep an eye on. A Department of Environment was established in October 1970.

Categories
United States of America

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

Fifty five years ago, on this day, April 13, 1968, the New Yorker ran an article about air pollution

“One example of the state of the debate is an article on air pollution in the New Yorker in 1968. It devoted one paragraph to global climate change, which concluded: “The average person, however, is not worrying about melting ice caps when he looks up at the murky sky but is simply wondering what the air is doing to him.” Iglauer, Edith, “The Ambient Air,” New Yorker, April 13, 1968, pp. 51-70, quote from p. 51.”.  

(Hart, 1992, p30, footnote 66)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

People were just beginning to move from local pollution (air, water etc) issues to global/systemic ones, from individual incidents (Torrey Canyon etc) to one of ‘everything is at risk’. This pivot was really 1968/1969…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew?  Or rather, from the late 1960s, you had to expend more effort in not knowing…

What happened next

From 1969 to 1972, “the environment” was all around us (see what I did there?).  Then it went away as an issue but not as a problem.  This is what happens. Mankind can only bear a little truth…

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

Hart, D. (1992) Strategies of Research Policy Advocacy: Anthropogenic Climatic Change Research, 1957-1974.  Belfer Centre, https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/disc_paper_92_08.pdf

Categories
Activism United States of America

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, February 12 1968, New York City was the scene of an inventive piece of activism.

“On February 12, 1968, a group of radicals led by Ben Morea collected garbage on the lower east side, trucked it, then dumped it in front of the Lincoln Center on a gala night. The event coincided with a NYC garbage strike and was meant to express both the group’s contempt for the bourgeois establishment and its support of the strikers.”

 (Gottlieb, 1993: 350)

and

COMPARE NATHAN HALE “BLACK ECOLOGY”

“No solution to the ecology crisis can come without a fundamental change in the economics of America particularly with reference to blacks. Although some of the ecological differentials between blacks and whites spring directly from racism and hence defy economic correlations,44 many aspects of the black environmental condition are associated with basic economics. Blacks are employed in the most undesirable or polluted occupations,45 lagging far behind their educational attainment. About two-thirds work in unskilled and semi-skilled industries. Aggravating, and associated with, the occupational effects on the black environment is the consistently low family income of blacks which must generally support larger families. Since the turn of the century, the family income of blacks has remained about half that of whites” (Hale, 1970: 7)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Vietnam War, black civil rights, the beginnings of second wave feminism were beginning to kick off, and poor people were getting shat on (for once). At this exact point, Martin Luther King was planning for his march on Washington in the summer of 1968 (he wouldn’t be there). And the Motherfuckers and black Mask were in that milieu. The idea of bringing the unwanted waste back to the people who produced it, for them to deal with, was an inspired one. It has become a famous action. 

What I think we can learn from this

Why am I talking about it on a climate change website? Because of exactly this. The super rich – and the rich – enjoying their/our imperial way of living, don’t want to know about or think about the consequences. The costs are out of sight and out of mind. Activism can be about making those costs more obvious.

What happened next

Oh, to the Motherfuckers I suppose the usual schisms and splits and anarchist pathologies. Possibly/probably helped on by COINTELPRO. But the FBI could have saved its money except of course for them it was all about the lulz and the need to dominate and control, but I’m going off on a tangent here 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Gottlieb, R. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Washington DC: Island Press.

Hale, N. 1970. Black Ecology. The Black Scholar Vol. 1, No. 6, BLACK CITIES: COLONIES OR CITY STATES?, pp. 2-8

We Propose a Culture Exchange – garbage for garbage [1968]
Categories
United States of America

December 24, 1968 – “Earthrise” photo

On this day, December 24 in, 1968 the Earthrise photo

showed our pale blue dot for what it is.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 323ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The Americans were shooting for the moon, with good old American know-how, (as supplied by good-old Americans like Dr Werner von Braun) (the Soviets had given up boots on the moon as simply too expensive).

Why this matters. 

Every so often someone says “we need a global consciousness”.  Yeah, been there, done that, got the t-shirt, it wasn’t enough

What happened next?

The first big big wave of eco-concerrn, from the beginning of 1969 to the middle of 1972 or so…

Categories
Activism Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. climate…

On this day, November 23, 1968  Lord Ritchie Calder gave a presidential address to the Conservation Society (a British NGO from the mid 60s to the late 1980s). Its cheerful title? Hell Upon Earth.

And among the litany of dangers ahead, this on climate change….

“It has been estimated that, at the present rate of increase (6,000 million tonnes a year) mean annual temperature all over the world might increase by 3.6 degrees centigrade in the next forty to fifty years, The experts may argue about the time factor and even about the effects but certain things are apparent, not only in the industrialised northern hemisphere but in the southern hemisphere. The north-polar ice-cap is thinning and shrinking. The seas with their blanket of carbon dioxide are changing their temperature with the result that marine plant life is increasing and is transpiring more carbon dioxide. With this combination fish are migrating, changing even their latitudes. On land the snow line is retreating and glaciers are melting.”

Calder’s speech wsa reported in the New York Times on the 24th

“Hell on Earth”  NYT article – LONDON, Nov. 23 — Lord Ritchie-Calder, president of the Conservation Society, painted a gloomy picture today of the future of the world because too many “ignorant men are pretending to be knowledgeable.”

And in the Observer by John Davy

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 323ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

I used to think that unless you were particularly switched on, then climate change wasn’t really on your radar until 1988.  Then I pushed that back to the late 1970s… then…

What happened next?

Calder kept at it – see his widely-syndicated “Selling off the Old Homestead”, originally in Foreign Affairs, in January 1970