Tag: 1969

Categories
Nuclear Power United States of America

 June 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article

Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 10, 1969, the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission gave carbon dioxide build-up as an anti-coal/pro-nuke argument.

“Speaking today before the opening session of the 37th annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute, Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the AEC said that

“While tremendous efforts were under way to cut the sulphur content of coal, oil and gas – fossil fuels – there were “no methods known of eliminating carbon dioxide that results from combustion.” ”

The Times goes on to report “Nuclear power adds no pollutants to the atmosphere.”

(Smith 1969)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the nuclear lobby was starting to realise that it could use the alleged low carbon nature of its power stations versus coal. You’d seen Teller to do this in 1957-59. You’d seen an article in the 1964 “Population Resources” book that did the same thing. And I think the editor of the journal Science Philip Abelson had also mentioned climate change as an argument for nuclear in the late 1960s… 

Seaborg had already warned about this in 1966 at a commencement address at UC San Diego.

“At the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tons a year), within the next few decades the heat balance of the atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate–changes which we might have no means of controlling even if by that time we have made great advances in our programs of weather modification.” [wikipedia]

And Maddow 2019

It was 10th June 1966-

https://digitallibrary.sdsu.edu/islandora/object/sdsu%3Acommencement1?display=list&page=10

What I think we can learn from this

The “nukes will save us from climate” thing goes back longer than a lot of people would think. 

What happened next

Nukes didn’t save us from climate. 

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

Smith, G. 1969. UTILITIES URGED TO BACK A-POWER. The New York Times; Jun 10, pg. 63

It’s in here, a 1968 collection

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacP4mRdWzYKtMnSKuKrXdmJJUSvdoe-bb44qsCuRtfPtLixMOjsGyw1YHZQBemXnmEvKUEJdD7TK0N3XvOkDMVMQ9w0UN_eRtZXfVGvbdgtcJANstG-W_ub0B9QWN9mkvA1dBoAgw0zK9Uu0zE6gUabQEDSghhU8QuPYQJyQR5wrL4mnUJAwpNhIdNbjnHHB-mIvHUpBXFtWuz5Xng_cpNP4YNnTFEKPDJLtysbt0OCCmweHb6Ej0IeQ2Zw8aILHx2SOlJBj1y46FPxevDaLi_NFYtjrg

Seaborg, G. 1996. A Scientist Speaks Out A Personal Perspective on Science, Society and Change

Categories
Academia Science Scientists United States of America

April 25, 1969 –  Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 25, 1969, Dave Keeling gave a speech at the “Symposium on Atmospheric Pollution: Its long-term implications” just over 10 years after he started measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa.

He was asked to change the title to “Is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel changing man’s environment? from  If carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is changing man’s environment, what will we do about it?”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by now Charles Keeling had been collecting atmospheric co2 data at Mauna Loa for 10 years and there was a distinct upward trend. So his first title was proposed as this and then for whatever reason, he had to tone it down. Which is interesting. 

What I think we can learn from this

There are pressures within communities be they scientific activist, academic, political, designed to minimise disruption. One to hammer down any tall nails. And you can argue that human society is not possible, really without those mechanisms. You  could also argue that by hammering down nails by cutting down the “tall timber” in the words of the Skyhooks, you’re less likely to get important shit done in the time that you need to. 

See also that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, “Half a Life,”  with David Ogden Stiers Willis, where he’s a 60 year old guy who’s going to have to be Logan’s Run, even though he possibly has the way out for his endangered society.

What happened next

Keeling kept taking his measures. He gave an even more interesting speech in May 1969. Keeling was proved right. And we are toast 

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

March 11, 1969 – NASA explains need to monitor C02 build-up to politicians

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 11, 1969, some NASA scientists mention the (non-controversial) build-up of C02

 John E. Naugle, Donald Hearth at hearing on NASA budget

“If we are to understand our own atmosphere and to evaluate the long-term consequences of man-made changes (such as the increase in carbon dioxide content), we need to conduct comparative studies of the atmospheres of the other planets.”

“As we look at our planet, as we look at the population that is increasing, we know that man is not only polluting, but possibly beginning to change the very fundamental nature of our atmosphere on the earth.”—John E. Naugle 

source = climatebrad

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

NASA’s stock was very high, they were about to put a man on the Moon using 20 billion pounds of your money and good old American knowhow as provided by Good old Americans like Dr. Wehrner von Braun. And they were also looking at Venus and Mars and so forth. 

So it’s really no surprise to the NASA folks would be aware of carbon dioxide buildup because well it’s fairly basic science

What I think we can learn from this

This is just one more example of how, by the late 1960s, scientists were informing politicians about the basic facts of what was being done to the planet. It was not a theory, it was just a fact.

What happened next

 NASA put men on the moon. Apollo 13 showed for anyone who was paying attention the dangers of carbon dioxide buildup. Man didn’t get beyond low Earth orbit. The Space Shuttle was done on the cheap, and it showed twice. Now it looks like 50 years later, we are going to put Whitey on the moon. In the words of Gil Scott Heron. 

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..