Tag: 1972

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