Tag: 1970

Categories
Australia

August 17, 1970 – letter about pollution (inc carbon dioxide) and power in Sydney Morning Herald

Fifty six years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1970, scientist Charles Munro-Watson had a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald: “one does not know the long-term ecological effects of the addition of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 environmental issues and questions over energy production, especially, had become quite live in the late 60s, even before the first oil shock of 1973. Questions around carbon dioxide build up were also being asked. And here we see a letter from a prominent Australian scientist of the time to the Australian newspaper back when it was still right wing and conservative, but before it totally jumped the shark.

Actually, jumping the shark is the wrong usage, because it applied to Happy Days, which had moments of grace and usefulness, which I don’t really think the Australian ever had. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Munro was a mensch. Munro also was bezzies with Stuart Bailey, a physicist at University of Sydney, who knew all about carbon dioxide build up, and as the author of the Frontiers in Science cartoons, had been banging on about it in 1965, 1968-69 and so forth. 

What happened next Munro remained very active on questions around what sources of energy Australia should be investigating and exploiting, and he was very much in favour of renewables, especially solar. He died in 1991. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister”

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
United Kingdom

August 10, 1970 – A letter about the “International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics”

Fifty six years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1970,

Refers to the appeal made at the Lindau meeting of Nobel Laureates for help with restoration and maintenance of a healthy environment. Invites Bragg to join the international forum as a co-founder; comments on this. Would welcome evidence of Bragg’s interest even if Bragg cannot give his active co-operation.

Date: 10 Aug. 1970

Held by: Royal Institution of Great Britain, not available at The National Archives

International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics (H.A.Schwiegart) to [Lawrence Bragg]

Reference: W.L. BRAGG/32F/1

Title: International Scientific Academy for the Protection of Life, for Environment & Biopolitics (H.A.Schwiegart) to [Lawrence Bragg]

Description: Luxembourg

2/3 page, duplicated

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been a brief, a brief flurry of concern in the late 40s about the ecological consequences of population growth and modern and industrialization, but this had been tamped down, more broadly as part of the whole McCarthyist wave. The groups that would have critiqued industrialism were too busy fighting off attempts to destroy them and deport them, and so forth.

The specific context was that it was only when the New Left had been going for a few years that you really got ecological critiques from people like Murray Bookchin (the liberal version of this, was Rachel Carson). Then, from 1968-69 onwards, a more broad critique of the consequences of industrialization and population growth became tolerably well-known and tolerated within mainstream circles, some of it quite worrying in its implications. Anyway, two years before the Limits to Growth here we see a whole bunch of scientists saying, “look, this is really serious.”

What I think we can learn from this is that history “remembers” specific documents and “disregards the rest,” to quote Paul Simon.

The job of a historian is to try to give context to people, events, and so forth, you can overdo that as well.

Also, this letter would be a useful thing to point out to the critics of limits of growth, and so forth, when they try to talk about that book, that report, in isolation from all the other concerns, as if it was only that book making the case.

What happened next. These sorts of warnings and reports, which had already happened in 1969 just kept coming, kept being ignored, kept coming, kept being ignored. The emissions climbed, the atmospheric concentrations climbed, the list of extinct species climbed, and of course many species were never discovered in time to be on the list before they were wiped out by the consequences of human activity.

As Kurt Vonnegut said, “so it goes.”

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2000 – States’ greenhouse gas failure 

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles… 

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram… 

Categories
United States of America

July 16, 1970 – Nixon aide spots climate problem

Fifty six years ago, on this day, July  16th, 1970,

On July 16, 1970, Nixon aide John C. Whitaker received a set of documents from  the newly created Council on Environmental Quality. One item specifically caught his  attention. “Man’s Inadvertent Modification of Weather and Climate” presented what  Whitaker called a “particularly hairy” problem: the capacity for humans to alter the long- term trajectory of the earth’s climate.2  https://www.worthingtoncaron.com/documents/Climate-Change-and-the-Clean-Air-Act-of-1970.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. As of 2026, 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 Gilbert Plass, building on the work of Arrhenius and Callendar, had started raising the alarm in 1953. By 1965, Presidents (LBJ) were mouthing the pieties.

In the second half of the 1960s the possible dangers of carbon dioxide build-up became wide-spread.

The specific context was that soon after his inauguration Nixon was made to look weak/uncaring at the Santa Barbara oil spill. He then used environmental issues as a way of trying to get NATO to stop wanging on about the slaughter in Vietnam.  By late 1969 you had people like Daniel Moynihan writing memos etc.

What I think we can learn from this – we have known plenty plenty plenty. PS the CEQ documents Whitaker was looking at were almost certainly written by/supplied by Gordon MacDonald.

What happened next

It took another 20 years (well, 18) before American politicians would be forced to pretend to care.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 16, 1989 – Paris agreement on climate… 

July 16, 1989 – Paris Agreement….

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform 

July 16, 1992 – American scientist claims “no firm evidence” of #climate change Australian National Press Club #denial 

Categories
Air Pollution Australia

June 23, 1970 – Melbourne Age asks Pollution – what can be done?

Fifty five years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1970

“Air pollution could tend to raise the Earth’s temperature and may make carbon dioxide, the most invisible product of combustion and respiration, the most important pollutant of them all.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the awareness that environmental problems were global rather than local had been growing for a decade or so (Rachel Carson etc) and had powered up in 1968 and 1969.  

The specific context was that the Australian Senate had held hearings (and produced a report, released in September 1969) about Air Pollution. One was on the way on water pollution too.  Books were being published, documentaries shown…

What I think we can learn is this: in this period, carbon dioxide was being mentioned as a potential problem…

What happened next: It would be 1988 before politicians were forced to pretend to be aware of/care about the issue. And forty years after that, there are still plenty who can’t be bothered to even pretend…

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts 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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 23, 1969 – Cuyahoga river catches fire. Again –

June 23, 1980 – G7 in Venice aims to sink Venice…

June 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

June 23, 1989 – Richo gonna save the world… 

June 23, 1991 – Japanese propose pledge and review 

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

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world 

June 23, 1997 – RIP Hermann Flohn

Categories
United States of America

April 20, 1970 – Recycling begins

Fifty six years ago, on this day, April 20th, 1970,

“The GCMI began with a pilot recycling program in Los Angeles, launched on April 20, 1970, just two days before the first Earth Day. It set up eight collection centers at glass-container manufacturing plants in the Los Angeles area and cultivated interest in the southern California media by inviting journalists and camera crews to opening day events and supplying prepackaged ideas for feature stories. Offering a penny per pound for used glass containers that were brought in, the GCMI spread word of the program to “churches, colleges, schools, youth groups, civic and service organizations, Garden Clubs, PTA’s, ecology clubs” and other organizations, inviting them to bring in bottles and jars for recycling.”

(Conley, 2006,: 96)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Americans had a conserver culture sort of, kind of, sort of until the 50s. And then you see jeremiads by people like Vance Packard, (the Waste Makers etc). And there’s real concern about the ongoing despoilation of America, its natural beauty, blah, blah, blah. And also there’s the Malthusian fear that resources are running out, so rather than reduce resource use and share equitably, which, of course, would be Dictatorial Communism, we will instead have recycling to make everyone feel better about themselves. And so it came to pass.   

The specific context was that Earth Day was just about to happen.  Earth Day was, in fact, huge. 

What I think we can learn from this is that as per TS Eliot, we can only handle a little truth. 

What happened next:  Recycling became virtue signalling, a bit like ratifying the Kyoto Protocol or whatever, and acted as a kind of mitigation deterrence, or Meaningful Action. Deterrence, aka MAD. Oh, I like that Mutually Assured distraction – have to use that! 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

April 20, 1998 – National Academy of Sciences vs “Oregon petition” fraud

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

April 20, 2009 – World has Six Years to Act, says Penny Sackett – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

March 12, 1970 – After the Goldrush

On this day, March 12, 1970,

Slides that ✨ shine ✨

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 60s had happened. Everyone was questioning, well, everyone, a few of the young, were questioning the myths that they’d been brought up on. One of those myths was of painless economic progress that would not damage the planet. By the late 60s, air pollution was getting so bad that this was mocked, and also oil pollution, for example, well, the Torrey Canyon, but also the more consequential Santa Barbara oil spill of January, 1969. LINK

The specific context was that people like Neil Young were just tapping into that sense of menace and danger.

Songs on the album were inspired by a screenplay written by Dean Stockwell and Herb Bermann also titled After the Gold Rush. The screenplay’s plot involves an apocalyptic ecological disaster that washes away the Topanga Canyon hippie community. Stockwell, a lifelong friend of Young, was also part of the Topanga Canyon artist culture of the time. Mutual friend Dennis Hopper encouraged Stockwell to write his own screenplay in wake of Hopper’s success with Easy Rider. Stockwell recalls writing the script:

Dennis very strongly urged me to write a screenplay, and he would get it produced. I came back home to Topanga Canyon and wrote After The Gold Rush. Neil was living in Topanga then too, and a copy of it somehow got to him. He had had writer’s block for months, and his record company was after him. And after he read this screenplay, he wrote the After the Gold Rush album in three weeks.[10]

Young recalls coming in contact with the script in his 2012 memoir Waging Heavy Peace:

When I returned to Topanga, Dean Stockwell came by the house with a screenplay called After the Gold Rush. He had co-written it with Herb Bermann and wanted to know if I could do the music for it. I read the screenplay and kept it around for a while. I was writing a lot of songs at the time, and some of them seemed like they would fit right in with this story. The song “After the Gold Rush” was written to go along with the story’s main character as he carried the tree of life through Topanga Canyon to the ocean. One day Dean brought an executive from Universal Studios to my house to meet me. It looked like the project was going to happen, and I thought it would really be a good movie. It was a little off-the-wall and not a normal type of Hollywood story. I was really into it. Apparently the studio wasn’t, because nothing more ever happened.[11]

After the Gold Rush – Wikipedia

In his 2012 biography Young reportedly gave a different explanation of the song’s origin and meaning, describing the inspiration provided by a screenplay of the same name (never produced), which apocalyptically described the last days of California in a catastrophic flood. The screenplay and song’s title referred to what happened in California, a place that took shape due to the Gold Rush. Young eventually concluded that:

After The Gold Rush is an environmental song… I recognize in it now this thread that goes through a lotta my songs that’s this time-travel thing… When I look out the window, the first thing that comes to my mind is the way this place looked a hundred years ago.[4]

After the Gold Rush (song) – Wikipedia

What I think we can learn from this is that this song is an absolute banger. I listen to it all the time

What happened next  Neil Young is still around!

Neil Young – Wikipedia

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: 

March 12, 1974 – Clean Coal advert in the Wall Street Journal

 March 12, 1984 – A Conservative MP worries about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 12, 2023 – the opera ain’t over, but the fat lady is warming up

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 22, 1970- 747

Forty six years ago, on this day, January 22nd,1970

The Boeing 747, the world’s first “jumbo jet”, enters commercial service for launch customer Pan American Airways with its maiden voyage from John F. Kennedy International Airport to London Heathrow Airport.

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 by this time, humans have been flying since 1903 and in the post war era, commercial jet liners had become to be “a thing” thanks, in part, to Boeing using money they were given by the Department of Defence to create a cargo plane to prototype – aka the 707. There were also just a lot of surplus aeroplanes and pilots with the necessary skills. So commercial aviation in the 1950s is a good example of the Great Acceleration.

The specific context was that in the 1960s it was assumed that supersonic passenger travel would become a thing. Both JFK and Lyndon Johnson signed off on proposed jetliner funding for them, etc. But it turned out physics and economics had other opinions. There were also environmental issues around, for example, sonic boom and ozone depletion. 

In the midst of this, the 747 was designed as a kind of stop gap. It would be big, not slow, but not fast, and would be rendered obsolete by the coming of not just, you know, Concorde, but the Boeing etc, equivalents.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is sometimes the standby technology that is supposed to be there for a little while. Sticks around because it is good enough. (Kind of a flying QWERTY keyboard – kind of.)

What happened next 

And as we now know, for various reasons, that never happened. And the 747 stayed with us. It continued to be built with minor modifications, like those upturned wings. I think it’s still in use as cargo, but I’m not sure that anyone is still flying them for passengers because they’re heavy and out of date. Nope – there are still, as of Jan 2025, four airlines still using them! Which Airlines Still Fly The Boeing 747 On Its 55th Flight Anniversary?

I travelled on it a lot (never upstairs!) and it did the job. And in some ways, it was elegant. There’s all the airport films in the 70s. There’s this explosion, the bringing down of the Lockerbie plane, and of course, KAL-007

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

January 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse action will send Australia to the poorhouse”

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

January 22, 2002 – Exxon and on and on

Categories
On This Day

On this Day: January 7th – Intersectionality, geoengineering, warnings and activism.

Fifty six years ago the activists at “Ecology Action East” were drawing the links and parallels. These days it would be smothered in the language of “climate justice” etc. But back then, they had simpler terms.

  January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Twenty two years ago today, scientists think we might be able to use our technology to avoid the worst. What could go wrong?

January 7, 2004 – geoengineering our way outa trouble?

Twenty years ago today, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, with a basic website, warn of trouble ahead.

January 7, 2006 – Bureau of Meteorology with another climate warning

Thirteen years ago today, an activist takes a chance.  (See interview here.)

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results  

Are there other climate-related events that happened on this day that you think deserve a shout out? If so, let me know.

As ever, invite me on your podcast, etc etc.

Categories
United States of America

November 1, 1970 – Ayn Rand fulminates incorrectly, for the first time ever

Fifty five years ago, on this day, November 1st, 1970, noted fruitcake Ayn Rand gives a speech in Boston about Anti-Industrial Revolution. Name checks C02 build-up, to dismiss it as a possible threat. Typically Objective of her….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 325ppm. 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 Ayn Rand was a swivel-eyed loon, who wrote interminable repetitive “novels”. And was, oh, whatever.

The specific context was Ayn Rand was a swivel-eyed loon with no grasp of history or ecology. It was 1970 and people were beginning to worry about pollution’s long-term impacts.

What I think we can learn from this – Rand’s views, such as they are, collided with reality. In her mind, she won.

What happened next

Rand lived on.  And took the Social Security she despised.

Rand’s swivel-eyed loon views have made her popular with the Silicon Valley tech-bros. Obvs. She matters, sadly.

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

Mason, B. 1972  Ayn Rand vs Ecology. Reason Magazine, August

https://reason.com/1972/08/01/ayn-rand-vs-the-ecology-moveme

Also on this day: 

November 1, 1959 – M1 motorway section opened

November 1, 1974 – UK civil servants writing to each other on “Climatology”

November 1, 1975 – Stephen Schneider tries to clear up the “Carbon Dioxide Climate Confusion.”

November 1988 – Australian Mining Journal says C02 is a Good Thing

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

November 1, 1989 – “Greenhouse Action Australia” launches…

November 1, 2004 – Brilliant “Balance as Bias” article published 

Categories
Energy United States of America

October 20, 1970 – Memo about energy research required because power sector too fragmented

Fifty five years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1970, 

Dr Edward David memo to Nixon about federal government funding for energy research being necessary because power industry too fragmented. 

See Speth Ch 1 of They Knew

This isn’t the memo (I think), but gives the same flavour.

“On the other hand, in some cases projects are so large and the industry involved so fragmented that they are really unable to come to grips with big, expensive efforts where the risks are high and the payoff far in the future. Furthermore, many industries don’t have the R&D tradition. The tradition of R&D and the peculiar culture that surrounds it are necessary for its existence and its effectiveness. Some industries have not cultivated and have never had this tradition. It’s difficult and, indeed, almost impossible for them to begin R&D on a large scale successfully and without great waste of resources. In the next few years the nation is going to be faced with many problems concerning government action in certain R&D fields. The President decides whether a development is potentially so important that if industry doesn’t pick it up, then the Government must. He has made a number of those judgments, particularly in the environmental area. And we are doing a great deal of environmental research, for example, the unconventional automobile propulsion work at the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The question arises: Why should the Government be developing unconventional automobile engines why not the industry itself? Well, there is a delicate judgment there as to whether the Government ought to be doing such work. In this instance, we had judgments from many people both in and out of the industry that if the Government augmented the work, it would go forward a great deal more rapidly. I don’t see us taking over automotive R&D, however.”

Source – ED053968.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. 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 there were (as always) fierce debates going on about the “energy mix” (coal, nuclear, oil etc etc) for the US. Each had its proponents and opponents, with their varying tactics. But doing any sort of co-ordination/planning or even research is problematic in fragmented/privately owned situations.

The specific context was Nixon’s government was aware of climate change (Moynihan memo and response) and had been warned about it in the August 1970 CEQ report. But it was not high on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this – that fragmented is not good, but centralised isn’t perfect either. Look at the UK, which at this time had the Central Electricity Generating Board, an “opaque behemoth.” 

Whatever system you have, you need an active/engaged/irrepressible civil society, of which social movements are a subset. Absent that, some brand of Bolshevik/Hayekian is going to pick your pocket and loot your future.

What happened next – the Bolsheviks and Hayekians continued to pick pockets and loot futures. And the emissions kept climbing, regardless of various “eco-awakenings.”

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: 

October 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery – All Our Yesterdays