Tag: 1972

Categories
United Kingdom

February 21, 1972 – Horizon and the backlash against “selling doomsday”

Fifty two years ago, on this day, February 21st, 1972, BBC’s Horizon programme focussed on the “overselling” of ecological concerns.

Horizon – “How They Sold Doomsday”  21-2–1972 – In this episode, Horizon looks the the ecological movement, and the resistance against the movement in Britain, and the USA.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a backlash against ecological concerns had been underway for a couple of years, and was here picking up momentum.

What we learn

Ecological thinking makes rich, technologically-obsessed, powerful people feel extremely uncomfortable. The idea that there might be limits, to use the apposite word, to their prowess and that the thing that they have thought good, that they have devoted their life to is actually quite bad, is threatening to their sense of self.

Rather than sit and contemplate that idea for any length of time, they obviously find something else to do which is shoot the messenger and attack. And of course, there are always some of the messengers who can plausibly be attacked because they have over-egged the pudding or gone to overconfident predictions. But the core of the message is accurate. And so a straw man gets set up rather than a steel man. And the steel man would have made us all smarter and maybe safer. It wasn’t to be…

What happened next. The attacks on the message and the messengers continued. For example, John Maddox, editor of Nature, has a book called “The Doomsday Syndrome”. And then these were recycled in the 1980s and 90s and in fact down unto this day.

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 21, 1978 – “Carbon dioxide, climate and society” workshop

Feb 21, 1995 – an invitation to engage in the IPCC is declined, again…

Categories
United Kingdom

February 16, 1972 – Dept of Env boss “we can’t be complacent”

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, February 17th, 1972, the first UK Environment Minister says “we can’t be complacent.”

In February 1972, Peter Walker, the Environment Secretary, wrote to Edward Heath ‘about the problems said to be in store on a world scale as a result of conflicts between present trends in population and economic growth requiring greater and greater amounts of energy and natural resources’.31 ‘While much of the argument … is extreme, apocalyptic and naıve’, argued Walker, citing both the Limits to Growth and A Blueprint for Survival, the influential green manifesto written by Edward Goldsmith and which had been published in The Ecologist the month before, ‘I do not think we can be complacent about the issues it raises’. After summarizing a ‘creditable list’ of environmental policies, Walker nevertheless stressed that the dangers, if they occur, are sufficiently great that in my view a case has been established to justify the UK Government in taking part … in further work to broaden the existing analysis both in width and depth.

The immediate need would seem to be to decide on the most appropriate way, within Government, of handling the further work that is required … What seems necessary is a central capability, built round a Research Group, within Government … [to] work on the techniques on lines complementary to those being pursued by MIT and elsewhere. TNA CAB 164/1182. Walker to Heath, 16 February 1972. This important letter was copied to Alec Douglas-Home, Tony Barber, Willie Whitelaw, George Jellicoe, John Davies, Jim Prior, William Armstrong, Burke Trend and Lord Rothschild

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the environment conference in Stockholm, proposed by Sweden and then accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1968, was imminent.. Meanwhile, the Limits to Growth report was about to come out, and the Blueprint for Survival already had. There was the general aura of apocalypse.  

What we learn is smart people, powerful people were paying serious attention to these issues. It’s easy to blame them for not having done more or not having succeeded. Can we curse people from 50 years ago? Of course, we will be cursed in 50 years or in, in fact, in five years. 

What happened next 

The Stockholm Conference happened. And that kind of gave everyone an invitation to stop thinking about environmental issues, which they gleefully took. It’s no fun staring into the abyss.

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
Cultural responses United States of America

November 2, 1972 – “Eco-pornography … Advertising owns Ecology”…

Fifty one years ago, on this day, November 2, 1972, the American writer and thinker Jerry Mander published an attack on image-making – 

 “Eco-Pornography: One Year and Nearly a Billion Dollars Later, Advertising Owns Ecology,” Communication Arts, November 2, 1972

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this point, the “Malthusian Moment” of eco-fear had been well underway for three years – really from 1968/1969. And the predicted response from corporates had come to pass – lots and lots of green-tinged advertising to soothe people’s consciences as they continued to buy stuff both that they needed and stuff that they didn’t need.

This comes back to a deeper idea of “nature as Redeemer” “nature as cure,” which had long been around in Romantic thinking. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the big business moves were entirely predictable. And were predicted. But it’s still used because they still work.

What happened next

The term greenwashing was invented in the 90s. Chevron had some smiling, laughing dolphins and some seals clapping at the idea of double-hulled oil tankers. 

See also “Nulture” as a term. 

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

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

Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 17, 1972, the “Grey Lady” reported some basic facts.

“The continued use of fossil fuels at projected levels will mean a 20 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere by the year 2000, a leading meteorologist predicted today.”

Andelman, David, “20% Rise Feared in Carbon Dioxide,” New York Times, May 17, p. 6.  

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Stockholm climate conference, four years in the making, was about to begin. And there were a significant number – a very small but significant number – of climate scientists and atmospheric scientists looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying “ this could be the problem.” As this site has demonstrated, by 1969/70 lots of people were being exposed to this, both politicians, but also readers of magazines and newspapers. 

What I think we can learn from this

Even before the 1972 conference, there was significant awareness and concern. 

What happened next

The Stockholm conference did give us the United Nations Environment Program, smaller than hoped for with less power and money. But nonetheless, UNEP was crucial in helping scientists do the research that was needed through the 70s and 80s, or rather, to get them talking to each other, across geographical more than disciplinary boundaries…

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
Science United States of America

December 3, 1972 – #climate scientists write “gizza grant” letter to President Nixon

On this day, December 3 in 1972, some climate scientists wrote a “give us money to study climate” letter to President Nixon.

“After the conference the conference organizers, (the late G. J. Kukla and R. K. Mathews) wrote to President  Nixon (December 3, 1972) calling for federal action on possible climate change. At that time, with no consensus on climate change, their letter was an important impetus to expanding research. The letter noted that the “main  conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.” On the question of “artificial heating” of the atmosphere, as opposed to orbital changes for ice ages, the letter concluded  that “knowledge necessary for understanding the mechanism of climate change is lamentably inadequate and the ultimate causes remain unknown” (Kukla and Mitchell, 1972) [4]  

Hecht, A. 2014, Past, Present and Future: Urgency of Dealing with Climate Change. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Vol.04 No.05

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 327ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone knew there’d be new money for this sort of science, and wanted a piece of the action. Not to be cynical or anything.

Why this matters. 

Kulka and Mitchell were wrong.  We need to remember that there isn’t this “straight narrow line” from ignorance to knowledge. The real world is messy af.

What happened next?

Iirc, they got some dosh, but within a couple of years it became obvious they were wrong