Tag: 1970

Categories
Australia

April 1, 1970 – “And on the Eighth Day” shown in Melbourne – including climate warning

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 1st, 1970, a super documentary made in the UK is shown in the colonies…

Australian TV (Melbourne at least) showing And On the Eighth Day 1st April 1970 – see preview by TV critic at The Age From The Melbourne Age, 1st April 1970…

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=59QnAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vJADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5181%2C8183

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia, like the rest of the world, in the late 1960s, and especially in 1969, had really become aware of the environment problems. So a British (therefore prestigious) documentary about the issues was an obvious thing to buy, and to show.

What we learn is that there are these international networks of information. Of course there are. And people, good documentary filmmakers like Richard Broad. Their work got a big audience. 

What happened next? Australia kept being informed by local scientists and filmmakers as well as international ones. And the climate issue was in the mix. In 1970-1972 – it was already there being spoken of as a serious potential problem. But we just couldn’t hold onto it as an issue. It’s too big, it’s too daunting, too all-encompassing for our species. And here we are, having failed to solve it for 50 years, by which time it becomes functionally insoluble. 

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
Academia Australia

March 4, 1970 – American scientist vs ice age fears in Melbourne

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a scientist talks about a human-induced Ice Age. Not likely, he finds.

I find that the present particulate loading would have to be increased by a factor of 5 to produce a 3°C drop in mean planetary surface temperature. This work was done in November and December of 1969 and was presented before the International Solar Energy Society in Melbourne, Australia, on 4 March 1970. 

Earl W Barrett,, 1971 letter in Science

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists, especially in America, were beginning to look seriously at carbon dioxide buildup at national conferences, starting to get findings. And scientists fancied an international jolly – sorry, “opportunity to network and further the advance of the human species’ knowledge.” 

Australia was still in the dark ages on carbon dioxide buildup, it would be 1971-72 before scientists (Pearman, Pittock) started being paid to look at this stuff. Meanwhile, Melbourne was in the grip of its pollution fever. So Barrett’s comments will have free received interest in the media.

Also, in September 1969, the C02 issue had already been discussed by Australian scientists – in public fora.

What I think we can learn from this

“International networks of concerned scientists” etc. Science is international blah blah. But from the late 1960s, carbon dioxide was being looked at.

What happened next

In 1972 a clean air conference in Melbourne that had a specific set of papers about CO2 buildup. We ignored the scientists until 1988. Then we heard them but have basically ignored them since then. 

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 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

Categories
United States of America

February 16, 1970 – Sports Illustrated readers appreciate eco-warning

Fifty-four years ago, on this day, February 16th, 1970, readers of Sports Illustrated write in to say “thanks” for the reprint of Ritchie Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” article.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1970/02/16/19th-hole-the-readers-take-over

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Ritchie Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” had been syndicated in various places, including the Australian Bulletin. He was a well-respected and well-connected thinker, and it was an elegant summation of the predicament.

What we learn here is that Ritchie-Calder’s “Mortgaging the Old Homestead,” originally published in Foreign Affairs was popping up in all sorts of places; the Bulletin Sports Illustrated, and people were paying attention. People knew that we were in deep shit.  

What happened next? Everyone stayed concerned for a couple of years. But you can’t sustain that in the absence of effective social movements. And so it petered out and went away. 

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: 

Feb 16, 2005- The Kyoto Protocol shambles into futile existence, despite Uncle Sam’s best efforts

February 16, 2007 – Liberals say climate is a “mass panic”

Categories
United Kingdom United States of America

January 26, 1970 – British PM offers US a “new special relationship” on pollution. (Conservative then tries to outflank him.)

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 26th 1970 Harold Wilson held out a green olive branch…. As per the Tory MP Christopher Chataway, speaking in the House of Commons on 3 Feb 1970.

In New York on Monday [26 January 1970] of last week, the Prime Minister said:

“The British people today offer you, the American people, a new special relationship.”

As the Prime Minister went on, a no doubt grateful American people learned that the new special relationship was to help them with, among other things, the problems of pollution; in his words, “the problems of pollution of the air we breathe”. I have no evidence whether or not the great majority of Americans were over-impressed by this offer of the Prime Minister, but they would surely have been less impressed had he mentioned that the highly successful clean air policy which his Government had inherited was even then being brought to a grinding halt.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1970-02-03/debates/fd90bff8-118d-4988-b0a2-074afcdfdf88/SmokelessZonesAndPollution?highlight=%22alkali%20inspectorate%22#contribution-0e5f6776-1edd-4f82-b06f-c094e863e036

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that both major political parties, Conservative and Labour had discovered the environment issue. In 1969, Wilson had used the word environment in his speech to Labour Party Congress, in Blackpool in September of ‘69, and had set up a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and a white paper. 

Chataway was a then rising star, he’d been an athlete and a television presenter, and he was landing blows against Wilson. 

What we learn is that by 1970, there was a competitive consensus. The parties were competing to gain kudos for their green credentials. 

What happened next, Wilson lost the June 1970 election. A Department of Environment was still set up as a super Department under Peter Walker. And onward the caravan went to the Stockholm Environment conference. 

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: 

January 27, 1989 – UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27, 1986 – Engineers try to stop NASA launching the (doomed) Challenger Space Shuttle

Categories
Australia

January 17, 1970 – The Bulletin reprints crucial environment/climate article

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 17, 1970, the Australian magazine the Bulletin ran a front page story,

 Global Pollution; What on earth are the scientists doing

It was a reprint of a recent article by the Scottish thinker Peter Ritchie-Calder, called “Mortgaging the Old Homestead” which appeared in “Foreign Affairs,” the journal of the then hugely influential Council on Foreign Relations.

That article, which was also reprinted in Sports Illustrated and elsewhere, contains the following paragraphs (which were in the Bulletin too).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian magazine The Bulletin liked to sell copies of course, and it had gotten hooked into the eco-trend that had started in late 1969. And therefore, there was a cover you can see here and large excerpts from an article by Ritchie Calder called Mortgaging the Old Homestead. And yes, there was explicit mention of carbon dioxide build up. So, anyone reading a popular magazine in Australia would have been aware of the potential issue. 

What we can learn is that by late 1969, the eco fears were serious and large. We can learn that Ritchie Calder was a prominent public intellectual. And we can learn that Australians knew about carbon dioxide build up. There had after all, been in September of 69, various symposia, conferences, radio programmes, you name it. We knew we flipping knew. 

What happened next. There were all sorts of events, protests, laws, ministers appointed, but by 1973, the eco fad had run its course; everyone was bored, frustrated. The battles that then happened were, understandably, about local issues such as Concorde and whether it should fly to Australia and logging and Lake Pedder. 

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 17th – A religious perspective on climate action

January 17, 2001 – Enron engineers energy “blackouts” to gouge consumers

Categories
United States of America

January 11, 1970 – A new Ice Age on its way?

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 11th, 1970, The Washington Post ran a story extrapolating from the previous decades and… well,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that nobody was quite sure what the implications of industrialization might be. Yes, carbon dioxide would build up. But also dust and sulphur. And they had been reducing temperatures globally, or at least in the northern hemisphere for good 20 years. What if that process were to continue? Would it be possible to tip the incredibly complex, but possibly fragile and labile atmospheric system into a new ice age? We can look back now with hollow/grim laughter, but in 1969 1970, it wasn’t quite so clear cut. 

What we can learn from this is that people were having these debates and the Washington Post and others were covering them. 

What happened next? Well, although the Ice Age schtick continued for a few years, by the late 70s, it was pretty clear to everyone with the possible exception of Robert Jastrow that we were heading for warmer times (see here, 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.

References

Peterson et al. 2008. The myth of the global cooling consensus. BAMS Vol 89, 9.

Also on this day: 

Jan 11, 1964 -: The Merchants of Doubt have work to do

January 11, 2010 – Bad news study about trees and the warming Arctic…

Categories
Activism United States of America

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

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 7, 1970 a pre-Earth Day radical student group called “Ecology Action East” was ahead of the game, in terms of how it’s a BIG puzzle. They said that they believed:

– that the ecological crisis is fundamentally a social problem, deeply rooted in the structure of society and in the cultural values that this society generates and reinforces.

–that all social institutions of domination and exploitation, from the patriarchal family to the modem nation-state, must be dissolved.

— that… the ecology movement is also inseparable from the liberation movement of colonial peoples, black and brown people, American Indians, working people, gay people, women, youth, and children.

(Rat, January 7, 1970, p. 10) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, from 1968 onwards, people had started to think seriously about the consequences of modernity, (good title – someone should write a book. Oh, wait they have) and the ecological impacts that might be coming down the pipe, and because of the pipe. In September ‘69, there’d been the announcement that an Earth Day would happen. But this was sponsored by a US senator, albeit a liberal one. And in the context of the Vietnam War a lot of activists were taking a serious look into the mouth of the gift horse. And groups like Ecology Action East, marrying the radical as in root cause, to critique of US imperialism as it applied to Vietnam with an ecological sensibility, and seeing that it was also connected to all these other issues. This is really intersectionality long before the word was invented. 

What we can learn is that most of us have, a lot of us have known for a long, long time that the issues were linked, even hyperlinked, and that you weren’t going to “solve” any one without solving a lot else, though, you might have some short term gains. 

What happened next. Groups like Ecology Action East were unable to sustain their momentum. And it all went tits up for them within a couple of years. And it was only another 20 years almost later, that ecology was really kicked off. 

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

Ecology Action East. 1970. The Power to Destroy – The Power to Create. Root & Branch No. 1, pp. 8-14

https://libcom.org/library/manifesto-ecology-action-east

Also on this day: 

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

Jan 7, 2013 – Paper (briefly) wraps rock. But coal wins in the end… #auspol

Categories
Science United States of America

January 1970 – Yale biologist muses on science, politics, pollution, warming.

In this month, 54 years ago, eminent Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson reflected on the effectiveness of Senate hearings for investigating environmental dilemmas, including carbon dioxide build-up.

“Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, this is far from being adequately established (5). The cycle is not really fully understood, as was made clear in the discussion; carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or in small amounts the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources. It is rather worrying to find one of our best senators and three eminent scientists trying to talk about the reversibility of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere from industrial sources without a single mention of a green plant”

(Hutchinson, 1970, p18-19).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some Senate hearings with Democrat Senator Edmund Muskie (who had been Vice President candidate in 1968) and so forth, SR 78, had happened. This was in the context of Richard Nixon being in the White House and trying to pick up the environment issue, but also raising concerns, with Earth Day impending. Yale biologist G. Evelyn Hutchinson had been talking about CO2 build up as a factor in changing biology since 1947-48, he was mates with Margaret Mead, and Gregory Bateson. And Hutchinson had promoted the idea of the Conservation Foundation holding a meeting specifically about CO2, in March 1963. And then he’d been too sick to attend. 

Anyway what’s interesting in this “Marginalia” thing is there’s a bunch of useful insights about how language works and so forth. But Hutchinson himself is understandably uncertain about what impact raised CO2 levels might have. Just because he’s been familiar with the issue, perhaps because he’d been familiar with the issue for a lot longer than anyone else. 

The other context is, of course, you know, the American Meteorological Society in October 1969 had held a symposium on the future of our atmosphere. Kenneth Hare had spoken at that. Everyone was at it; the AAAS had held a symposium on Global Environmental Pollution in Dallas at the end of 1968.

What we learn is that smart people had known about CO2 for a long time when we’re discussing it in ‘69. 

What happened next? The only real fruit of all this was UNEP and the modelling work done by Bolin et al as part of GARP. And it would take another 20 years, almost before the issue finally broke through…

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

Hutchinson, G.E. 1970. Marginalia “Wisdom is justified of all her children.” American Scientist, Vol. 58, No. 1 pp. 17-20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27828926

Categories
United States of America

August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

On this day, 53 years ago, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story “Scientists fear climate change by SST pollution.”

In August of 1970, before the official publication of SCEP, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times – both outspoken critics of the SST- ran articles on the report, playing up the recommendation that the project be delayed. The story made the front page of both papers, with the LA Times declaring “Scientists Fear Climate Change by SST Pollution” and citing concerns about C02 and other gases trapped in the stratosphere. The LA Times quoted Kellogg specifically: “When you change something on a global basis,” Kellogg told the press, “you had better watch out.”

(Howe, 2014:53)

LA Times 2 August 1970

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The Context

That plans for a large fleet of supersonic passenger jets had gotten lots of environmental scientists wondering about the impact on the stratosphere, and ozone. Meanwhile, the Nixon administration had been pushing “the environment” as a topic for international discussion (something the Swedes had started), to change the topic from the attack on the people of Vietnam. The LA Times folks will also have known that the Council on Environmental Quality was about to release its first report, and that there was a chapter on … climate change in there, written by Gordon MacDonald.

What we can learn

We knew. But then, if you’ve been following this site, you knew we knew.


What happened next

Nixon wangled a moratorium on SSTs, hoping to regroup, but Congress got in and turned it into a ban. Fun fact – this failure was one of the key moments in the development of the planet-killing think tank “The Heritage Foundation”, set up to make sure Congress got lobbied effectively by business interests. (Blah blah Edward Feulner).

Kellogg organised a three week symposium on “Man’s Impact on Climate” the following year.

Categories
United States of America

June 22, 1970 – US Congressman talks about ‘the Imperilled Environment,’ including C02 build-up

Fifty three years ago, on this day, June 22, 1970, Rep John Culver of Iowa shares his eco-concerns, reads “the Imperiled Environment” into the Congressional Record.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Earth Day had happened in April and there were many articles about the desperate state of the planet. And many of these articles – including this one – included a couple of paragraphs about the long-term problem of carbon dioxide build up.

What I think we can learn from this is that many US politicians knew what was at stake they could read the tactic of reading something into the record is helpful for historians 50 years later it’s not clear it was particularly helpful for anyone at the time.

What happened next

The carbon dioxide build up continued to get intermittent press but it was only in 1988 that the issue exploded.

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.