Tag: 1969

Categories
Arctic

February 20, 1969 – The Arctic will melt

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1969,

“Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.”

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs; Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice Cap

By WALTER SULLIVAN February 20, 1969. New York Times.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Arctic had been perceptibly warming since the end of the 19th century. And this had been spotted onwards and onwards from 1916 onwards. It was not a particularly controversial finding, though, the mechanism was in dispute, and the speed with which the changes would hit were within dispute.

The specific context was that all things environmental were a hot topic, because in January of 1969 the Santa Barbara oil spill had happened. You’d also had the Earth Rise photo from NASA, and everyone was beginning to worry about the impacts of man’s activities.

What I think we can learn from this is that we’ve known that we were causing havoc and mayhem for a long time. We haven’t always been accurate on how that havoc and mayhem would unfold, because, well, after all, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. It’s worth noting that Walter Sullivan, their science correspondent, had been neck deep in the International Geographical Year, publicity or reporting, so he knew what he was talking about.

It was also Sullivan who, in 1981 reported on James Hansen’s findings, I think, in August, and that ended up costing Hanson some funding, which had already been granted because the Reagan administration was, well, the Reagan administration. 

What happened next: More and more attention paid to the melting of ice caps and the freeing up of polar sea lanes, etc. And now as of 2026, well, the fights are 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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
Activism United States of America

December 25, 1976 – The Nation investigates the assassination of Fred Hampton

Forty nine years ago, on this day, December 25th, 1976,1976 12 25 The Nation “Was Fred Hampton executed” – https://www.thenation.com/article/society/was-fred-hampton-executed/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. 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 use of violence – up to and including assassination – against political opponents/”the rabble” is as American as apple pie. 

The specific context was that one of the key goals of the FBI’s COINTELPRO program was to prevent coalitions forming across race and class. Nightmare scenario is when you can’t divide and conquer. So, Fred Hampton, who eschewed the gun-toting of other Panthers, and was trying to build a Rainbow coalition with poor whites and Puerto Rican activists was a nightmare.

What I think we can learn from this – the Nation did (does) some good journalism.

What happened next

“The families of Hampton and Clark filed a $47.7 million civil suit against the city, state, and federal governments. The case went to trial before Federal Judge J. Sam Perry. After more than 18 months of testimony and at the close of the plaintiff’s case, Perry dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, ordering the case to be retried. More than a decade after the case had been filed, the suit was finally settled for $1.85 million.[77] The two families each shared in the settlement”

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 25, 1988 – Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands says “the earth is slowly dying”

December 25, 1989 – business press pushback about Global Warning “panic” begins…

December 25, – the White Christmas myth…

Categories
United Kingdom

December 20, 1969 – The Economist editorialises on carbon dioxide build-up

Fifty-six years ago today, the heavy-weight magazine The Economist editorialises on environment, and CO2 build-up

“You might even say that something encouragingly like a constructive panic is on.”

But one is left with the fear that the massed ranks now setting out to do battle against the pale horsemen of this new apocalypse may end up trampling one another to death. Now that it is legitimate to be against motherhood “environment looks like becoming a battle-cry that will be both unchallengeable and universally fashionable.”

Mr Moynihan… has been leaning rather heavily on such suggestions as that, by the year 2000, the level of the oceans could rise by ten feet as a result of the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. This content has, indeed, already been increased by 10 per cent by the use of coal and oil fuels (each transatlantic airliner puts a hundred tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere); and the restoration of the balance by photosynthesis in plant life on land and in the sea may be increasingly jeopardised by human spoliation of the environment. But scientists have been unable to agree in predicting the long-term effects of a fouler atmosphere on the earth’s surface temperature, and hence on the sea level.

What is agreed is that we are destabilising the balance of nature in this and other ways, and that where remedies are available they will mostly require action on an international scale.

The mess we are making now could have catastrophic effects not upon a distant posterity – assuming that there is going to be any such thing – but within a few decades.

But even the foggiest words are a less alarming additive to the atmosphere than an excess of carbon dioxide. For one forceful exposition of what it is all about, those who did not hear Dr Fraser Darling’s lectures might well read them in the Listener or in book form; for another, they may be referred to a remarkable book which was originally published in Sweden three years ago and which is credited with having inspired the subsequent Swedish drive to bring the whole problem to the forefront of international discussion. Some day we may all have cause for gratitude to these prophets of avoidable doom. 

Anon, 1969. Of Muck and Men. The Economist, December 20, p.15

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 Guy Callendar, who had bravely done the work in the 1930s was sadly not around to see this – he had died five years earlier. But by then others had taken up the fight, and tv programmes (including a couple by the late great Roy Battersby) had introduced it to UK audiences.

The specific context was that by 1969, “everyone” was talkin’ pollution, and editors must have known that the Wilson government was about to set up a (standing) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

What I think we can learn from this – the British elites (political, economic) knew what might be coming by 1969.

What happened next – the carbon dioxide fear got kicked by Frank Ireland, the Alkali Inspector, the following August.

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 20, 1961 – UNGA resolution on outer space and weather modification 

December 20, 1969 – AGU on climate change… –

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
Australia

December 11, 1969 – Australian Prime Minister John Gorton becomes a tree-hugger

Fifty six years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1969, the Australian Prime Minister goes all tree-hugger.

In concerning ourselves as a people with what makes for a more satisfying life, we have to admit that we are mostly only vaguely interested in what is happening to our environment, and what is more important what, indeed, we are doing to it. The sins of commission, I think are perhaps as great as the sins of omission. We all of us as citizens pollute the very air we breathe, we savage our unique wildlife with little shame, we slay our fellows on the roads with monstrous carelessness and we accept the congestion of our cities as though urban sprawl was the fault of somebody else. We blame everybody but ourselves for the grey areas in our daily lives.

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002148.pdf

11th December 1969 – Gorton comments on page 15 of William Queale lecture

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 Australia had been invaded in the late 18th century. Sorry “settled” for “progress” and “Enlightenment” etc etc. The ecological impacts, along with the devastating social ones, had been profound, in terms of extinctions, topsoil loss, invasive species etc etc etc.

The specific context was there was a growing awareness, in the late 1960s, of all the damage being done. This was the era when “Conservation” was respectable and before so-called Conservative parties had swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid.

One is reminded also of comments RFK Snr made about GDP the previous year…

What I think we can learn from this- there was a time when politicians at least acknowledged tensions between growth and environment. Now it’s all hidden under eco-modernist muck.

What happened next – a couple of years later the pressure had grown so much that a Department of the Environment was created. Now THAT’S what I call success…

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 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” – All Our Yesterdays

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Canada

November 10, 1969 – “Carbon Dioxide and All That”

Fifty six years ago, on this day, November 10th, 1969, climatologist Kenneth Hare gave a talk titled “Carbon Dioxide and All That”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 a much younger Kenneth Hare had been there that day in 1938 when Guy Callendar addressed the Royal Meteorological Society in London, about carbon dioxide (Callendar had got a relatively polite but dismissive hearing).

The specific context was by 1969, carbon dioxide was the “in” gas – people were coming out and saying it would be a problem. Hare wasn’t yet so sure.

What I think we can learn from this – the awareness and concern is there from the late 1960s. Our governance systems failed us (mostly because they were about capital accumulation and protecting incumbents, not doing any horizon-scanning). Oh well.

What happened next – it would take another twenty years (1988) before politicians would be forced to start paying serious lipservice.  Funnily enough, a big conference in Toronto was part of the irresistible pressure.

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 10, 1988 – Activists demand even steeper emissions cuts than “Toronto.” Ignored, obvs. But were right…

November 10, 1994 – “profit or planet – choose one” (Victorian electricity) – All Our Yesterdays

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Categories
France United Kingdom

October 1, 1969 – Concorde breaks the sound barrier

Fifty six years ago, on this day, October 1st, 1969 – 

Concorde Breaks Sound Barrier (1969)

Concorde breaks the sound barrier for the first time.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 the Sixties was the last decade where these sorts of techno-utopian dreams could be brought to “reality” without too much pushback from economics or civil society.

The specific context was that man had just walked on the moon (”Holy Shit”, as per The Onion’s Our Dumb Century), and perhaps anything seemed possible.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you were born in the 40s or 50s, then that sense of optimism/possibility is possibly baked into you, on some level, and you might be someone  who resents the existence of limits and all those dirty hippies and snivelling scientists who turned out to be right about that.

What happened next – Supersonic transport never took off (sorry about that) in the way intended. The economics didn’t add up, and after a fatal crash, Concorde came back only briefly before its last passenger flight in October 2003.

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

Oct 1st 1969, Concorde 001 breaks through the sound barrier for the first time. — Aerospace Bristol

Concorde wasn’t the first Airliner to Break the Sound Barrier: how the DC-8 became the first commercial transport to go supersonic – The Aviation Geek Club

Also on this day: 

October 1, 1957 – US Oil company ponders carbon dioxide build-up…

October 1, 1964 – The Free Speech Movement kicks off in Berkeley – All Our Yesterdays

October 1, 1977 – Worldwatch on “Redefining National Security” – All Our Yesterdays

October 1, 1997 – Global greens gather in Melbourne, diss Australian #climate policy

Categories
United States of America

September 11, 1969 – George Brown proposes an omnibus environment bill

Fifty six years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1969, Californian Congressman George Brown introduced an “omnibus” environment bill.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it was 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 through the second half of the 1960s various Congressmen (mostly but by no means entirely Democrats) had introduced various bills about pollution (air, water etc).  Most of this had been performative.

The specific context was that by mid-1969 the “environment”/ecology was competing with the assault on Vietnam for people’s attention (anti-war activists were understandably suspicious, obvs).

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians have antennae, and will try to amplify the things they want amplified. (Not ALL of them are corporate meat-puppets, at least, not all of the time).

What happened next – the times were propitious, and President Nixon signed the NEPA into law in January 1970.  Various bodies were formed, reports written and released, speeches given.  Guess what – the emissions kept climbing. 

To be fair to George Brown, he was behind the successful push for a National Climate Act, that President Carter signed in 1978.

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: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published – All Our Yesterdays

September 11, 2006 – Australian climate concern hits tipping point (maybe) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Kingdom

August 25, 1969- “Global Circulation in the Atmosphere” Conference in London

Fifty-seven years ago, on this day, August 25th, 1969,the American Meteorological Society and Royal Society Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. 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 questions of meteorology and climate were beginning to heat up (sorry). There were concerns about weird weather, local air pollution etc etc.

The specific context was that the previous year the American Association for the Advancement of Science had run a symposium…

What I think we can learn from this – that events like this were important for the emerging “epistemic community”, in the lead up to the Stockholm conference and beyond.

What happened next

Within a few months scientific meetings about manc’s impact on the environment – and then in 1971 a meeting on possible climatic changes – were held.  By the late 1970s, the picture was pretty clear. Everything since then has been refinements, really.

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 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence” 

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Categories
United States of America

June 23, 1969 – Cuyahoga river catches fire. Again

Fifty six years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1969,the Cuyahoga river in Ohio caught fire again.

As per Wikipedia –

As Cleveland emerged as a major manufacturing center, the river became heavily affected by industrial pollution, so much so that it caught fire at least 14 times. When it did so on June 22, 1969, news coverage of the event helped to spur the American environmental movement.[8][9] For many Americans, the Cuyahoga’s burning helped connect urban decay with the environmental crisis at the time in many American cities.[10] Since then, the river has been extensively cleaned up through the efforts of Cleveland’s city government and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).[11] In 2019, the American Rivers conservation association named the Cuyahoga “River of the Year” in honor of “50 years of environmental resurgence”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324.6ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the river had actually caught fire before, at least 14 times, but this time it was captured on camera and came six months after the pivotal Santa Barbara Oil Spill.

What I think we can learn from this is that an “event” on its own is neither here nor there – it’s how it is mobilised/can fit into an existing set of concerns and understandings.

What happened next is that the first big wave of global environmental concern gathered pace, cresting and breaking in 1972. Lots of nice legislation and some local improvements (depending on where you live – if you’re in one of the sacrifice zones, not so much…).  But the big ones – plastics, carbon, growth, they were not tackled, can’t be tackled within the logics of our systems. We are all going to die, quite pitiable deaths. It didn’t have to be this way, but now, well, it’s pretty much baked in, isn’t it?

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: 

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

May 17, 1969 – Ritchie Calder gives a speech

Fifty six years ago, on this day, May 17th, 1969, Lord Ritchie Calder makes his warning again…

“Degradation of the Environment at Centre for Continuing Education, University of Chicago, 15-17th May 1969”

“With this combination fish are migrating, changing even their latitudes. On land the snow-line is retreating, the permafrost line in Siberia as well as in the Western Hemisphere is being altered and the glaciers are melting. In Scandinavia, land which was perennially under snow and ice are melting and the arrow heads of over 1,000 years ago when the black earth was last exposed have been found. I am advising all my friends in Britain not to take 99 year leases on properties at present sea-level.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ritchie Calder had known about CO2 build-up from 1954 at the latest (possibly earlier). He had warned and warned and warned (see 1963 activities). By 1968 he had become quite apocalyptic – see his Presidential Address to the Conservation Society. 

What I think we can learn from this is that smart people knew. But as per Schiller “against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain”.

What happened next Calder warned and warned (see his “Mortgaging the Old Homestead,” article and his 1975 interview on The Science Show). His son Nigel made a documentary that basically warned of a new Ice Age (The Weather Machine). Calder died in 1982, before the world “woke up”…

xxx

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 17, 1968 – “Some prophets of darkness warn of polar icecaps melting…”

May 17, 1972 – New York Times reports carbon dioxide build-up worries…

May 17, 1979 – Martin Holdgate’s A Perspective on Environmental Pollution” published – All Our Yesterdays