Tag: 1970

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.

Categories
United States of America

April 23, 1970 – book review nails coming #climate problems…

The New York Review of Books had its finger on the pulse. In its 23 April 1970 issue, Robert Heilbroner had a review of Population, Resources, Environment  by Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich under the heading “Ecological Armageddon”.

It began with the observation

Ecology has become the Thing. There are ecological politics, ecological jokes, ecological bookstores, advertisements, seminars, teach-ins, buttons. The automobile, symbol of ecological abuse, has been tried, sentenced to death, and formally executed in at least two universities (replete with burial of one victim)…

And quickly predicted what would happen – 

 the ecological issue has assumed the dimensions of a vast popular fad, for which one can predict with reasonable assurance the trajectory of all such fads—a period of intense general involvement, followed by growing boredom and gradual extinction, save for a die-hard remnant of the faithful.

(This got dubbed, in a 1972 article by someone else, the ‘Issue Attention Cycle’).

And then, when he is paraphrasing the Ehrlich argument – 

The strain consists of the limited ability of the soil, the water, and the atmosphere of these favored regions to absorb the outpourings of these fast-growing industrial processes.

The most dramatic instance of this limited absorptive power is the rise in the carbon dioxide content of the air due to the steady growth of (largely industrial) combustion. By the year 2000, it seems beyond dispute that the CO2 content of the air will have doubled, raising the heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere. This so-called “greenhouse” effect has been predicted to raise mean global temperatures sufficiently to bring catastrophic potential consequences. One possibility is a sequence of climatic changes resulting from a melting of the Arctic ice floes that would result in the advent of a new Ice Age; another is the slumping of the Antarctic ice cap into the sea with a consequent tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind and raise the sea level by 60 to 100 feet.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328,1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

“Everyone” was talking about it. This issue hit the newsstands in time for the first  “Earth Day”

What I think we can learn from this

Issues come and go, independently of the actual problem.

What happened next

The issue went away again. The problem did not…

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
Australia

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

Fifty three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1970, Australian academic Charles Birch had an article in the Australian National University publication Woroni about “Pollution.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

This was all part of the huge rise in awareness of pollution/environment issues from the late 1960s… Birch was an interesting character.

 “Louis Charles Birch FAA (1918–2009) was an Australian geneticist specialising in population ecology and was also well known as a theologian, writing widely on the topic of science and religion, winning the Templeton Prize in 1990. The prize recognised his work ascribing intrinsic value to all life.“

What I think we can learn from this

Again, we knew. The people who run the countries of the world, the elites who attend the elite universities and go on to jobs in finance, industry, politics, academia, they were told about this, and that information has continued to be ‘out there’.

What happened next

Birch kept teaching his students about this problem, and writing about it.  When I was writing for The Conversation about Australia, people would occasionally leave comments to the effect that he had switched them on to the issue 45 years previously…, 

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

January 26, 1970 – US science bureaucrat writes “what’s going on?” memo about #climate

Fifty three  years ago, on this day, January 26, 1970, a Nixon-era scientist (a professor in Applied Physics no less) called Hubert Heffner  expressed (understandable!) uncertainty about climate change. In September the previous year Daniel Moynihan had written a memo – now famous on the internet – about the possible consequences of carbon dioxide build-up.

“Moynihan received a response in a Jan. 26, 1970, memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38070412

Hubert Heffner

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was the US administration of Nixon was trying to use environmental issues to change the conversation in Europe, away from, well, you know, napalming Vietnamese children.  That’s part of the context of the Moynihan memo. The Germans were underwhelmed by this as a tactic.  Meanwhile, the United Nations bureaucracy was grinding forward with preparations for the Stockholm conference, to be held in June 1972.

What I think we can learn from this

It was still okay at this point to be just not quite sure. We must not allow hindsight to condemn folks for not knowing for sure (I think by late 1970s that argument becomes much much less viable).

What happened next

In August 1970 the first Council on Environmental Quality report came out, with a chapter written by Gordon MacDonald – see here .

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

Categories
Science United States of America

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

On this day, December 18 in 1970, an article was published in Science, about “Manmade climatic changes,” written by Helmut  Landsberg.

Landsberg (who would be dismissive of Stephen Schneider later in the decade) ran through a number of possible ways in which humans might inadvertently alter the climate – carbon dioxide was only one route, and as he noted, perhaps a little disingenuously, given that he knew CO2 levels were rising,

“our estimates of CO2 production by natural causes, such as volcanic exhalations and organic decay, are very inaccurate; hence the ratio of these natural effects to anthropogenic effects remains to be established.”

Landsberg (1970)

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 326ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The first big wave of eco-concern about global issues (beyond smog and DDT, onto extinction, overpopulation, and, yes, climate change) was in full swing. Earlier in the year the first report of the President’s council on environment quality had even mentioned the possibility of carbon dioxide build up being a Very Serious Thing.

August 3, 1970 – Nixon warned about climate change and icecaps melting

Why this matters. 

It perhaps gives you pause for thought?  We’ve been failing to act on climate for half a century.

What happened next?

Stockholm conference on the Environment in 1972. Didn’t give us much, but UNEP, and UNEP and the WMO shepherded the climate agenda forwards…  That took another sixteen long years…

Categories
United States of America

Feb 2, 1970 – For once, “Time is on our side”

On 2 February 1970, TIME magazine’s front cover had a picture of ecological thinker Barry Commoner against two possible backdrops

According to Egan (2007) Time

“incorporated a new “Environment” section. The editorial staff chose for that issue’s cover a haunting acrylic painting by Mati Klarewein of Barry Commoner, its appointed leader in “the emerging science of survival.”  Commoner was set in front of a landscape half of which appeared idyllic and the other half apocalyptic, presumably suggesting the environmental choices facing humankind. The urgency of those choices was implicit.” (Egan, 2007:1) 

Commoner had already written a bunch of important books, and would write many more (see Egan, 2007) for more on this. While we are here though, Commoner’s four laws of Ecology deserve a mention –

  • Everything is connected to everything else
  • Everything must go somewhere,
  • Nature knows best, 
  • There is no such thing as a free lunch. 

Why this matters

We need to remember, imo, that the stark choice keeps getting put, and we keep resiling from it, but by not choosing, we are, in fact, choosing…

What happened next

The “Malthusian moment” passed by 1973. Commoner ran for President in 1980, but didn’t cost Carter the election the way Nader cost Gore in 2000.

Commoner died, aged 95, in 2012. See Green Left Weekly obituary here.

References

Egan, M. 2007 Barry Commoner and the Science of Survival: The remaking of American Environmentalism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.