Tag: 1977

Categories
Australia

April 21, 1977 – Australian Parliament debate on Uranium – C02 build up mentioned

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, April 21st, 1977, Australian parliamentarians are told about carbon dioxide build-up, John Francis Cotter (Liberal) MP for Kalgoorlie had this to say 

They are forced to this situation by the desperate shortage of fossil fuels throughout the world and the immense dangers which are inherent in burning fossil fuels, particularly coal. Almost daily people are dying from the pollution effects of coal fired power stations. Yet no one is getting emotional over mining and burning of coal. It’s a bit like the terrible carnage on our roads. Because it happens every day no one seems to care any more. Nonetheless the hazards of coal fired power stations have not diminished. In fact there is every reason to believe that the CO2 catastrophe is possibly the most portentious aspect of our entire long range energy policy. It is my belief that once the CO2 problem becomes widely understood, even given all the uncertainties, it will become the single strongest argument for turning to the nuclear alternative. Most scientists viewing the accelerated burning of fossil fuels now agree that CO2 will warm the earth’s surface temperature significantly.

[source]

 Peter Baume (also a Liberal MP), later in the same debate, said this – 

I then proceed to outline some of the major problems with which I believe conservationists have not adequately coped. I stress the points made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie about carbon dioxide. He certainly stated the position very clearly; there is a real risk to our existence on this planet from carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. I would like to hear the same kind of analysis of the risks applied to our existing fuel usage as has been applied with extraordinary enthusiasm to the projected fuel usage of a material which is available in Australia and whose development would be to our national advantage. When I hear a comparable analysis from the conservationists group, I will believe that they have a far sounder basis on which to approach the people of Australia with a rational argument.

As has been pointed out by Dr Weinberg in the paper to which the honourable member for Kalgoorlie referred, the CO2 catastrophe-the carbon dioxide catastrophe- is possibly the most portentious aspect in our entire long range energy policy. If the carbon dioxide concentrations increase, more radiation from the sun is directed back towards earth and the earth’s temperature increases. It is, of course, the green house effect. Since the mid-nineteenth century there has been an estimated 10 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. About 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels goes into the atmosphere and stays there. If the world continues to increase its usage of fossil fuels at a rate of 4 per cent, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will double by the middle of the twenty-first century, according to Dr Weinberg.

http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770421_reps_30_hor104/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australia was wanting to export uranium to nuclear powers around the world. And not everyone was on board with that, for reasons of proliferation and just being against nuclear energy. And so therefore there was a debate in Parliament. What’s interesting is that carbon dioxide buildup was already being spoken of. In such fora. This is perhaps unsurprising given that CSIRO had made some movies and that the Australian Academy of Science had released a report – it came out in 76. So it’s not altogether surprising. 

What we learn is that carbon dioxide build-up was a topic of conversation by the mid-1970s.

What happened next? We exported uranium. Nuclear power did not make a dent in the upward trajectory of our emissions, and of atmospheric concentrations.

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: 

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Categories
United Nations

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Forty six years ago, on this day, October 14, 1977, the head of the United Nations Environment Program mentions climate at an UNESCO conference on environmental education.

Tolba at Tblisi UNESCO conference on environmental education 14 Oct 1977 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000032763

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Program, although small and weak compared to other UN bodies, still had some weight. One of its sticks was environmental education. Mostafa Tolba here was well aware of the climate problem and was helping Bert Bolin stitch together the kind of international cooperation and collaboration that you need for an international problem.

What I think we can learn from this is that in the 1970s people were banging on about climate change in the context of Environmental education. 

[insert screen grab of 1983 thesis abstract that you sent Jenna Ashton]

What happened next

Here we are 40 years later and environmental education is still not on the agenda. I think part of this is if you did teach children about the fragility of the planet and and how to do systems thinking then it would be harder to keep them in line as obedient production and consumption units 

see also Noam Chomsky quote on the Kyoto Protocol and what they teach you at university highly educated people is to conform and consume. 

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 Nuclear Power

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

Forty six years ago, on this day, Wednesday July 27, 1977, a professor visited the country town of Adelaide to talk about his book…

Canberra Times, Thursday 28 July, page 7 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

11 years before yesterday’s blog post, a pro-nuclear Professor was in Adelaide giving a speech – basically part of his book tour for “Uranium On Trial.” And yes, climate change was high on his list of reasons why we should have nuclear. 

The broader context is that the Ranger inquiry was ongoing in Australia around uranium mining. And as the Professor noted, the National Academy of Sciences in the US was putting the finishing touches on its two year study of climate change. 

What I think we can learn from this is that even people in sleepy country towns like Adelaide had had news of climate by 1977. 

What happened next 

“if nothing was done”… We’re all going to die. And if you are under 40 or even under 50, you’re going to see that unfold properly in your lifetime. If you are 20 or under, my advice is to start carpe the diems right now.

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
Coal Fossil fuels Science Uncategorized United States of America

 July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan.  Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.

From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. It was, literally, front page news.

What happened next

In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.

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
Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

February 23, 1977 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about carbon dioxide build-up. 

Forty six years ago, on this day, February 23, 1977, as per the wonderful article by Jon Agar, the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor wrote a prescient memo about carbon dioxide build up…

However, ‘one complicating factor, which will have to be taken seriously’ was carbon dioxide: …” as a result of the increasing use of fossil fuels the atmospheric carbondioxide [sic] content has increased by 10 per cent over the last century. Increased atmospheric carbondioxide leads, via the ‘greenhouse’ effect to an increase in temperature. However, carbondioxide production is usually associated with the production of dust (especially from coal) and particulate material in the atmosphere scatters light and thus leads to a decrease in temperature. It is possible that these two effects cancel, to a first approximation, but it is something that gives rise to a lot of debate; especially among those who wish to build nuclear power stations. Carbondioxide is, of course, soluble but it will take about 1,000 years for equilibrium to be reached between the atmosphere and the ocean; if the dust settles out faster than the carbondioxide dissolves there might be some interesting short-term effects”.

Rounding off a review of climate change, Ashworth gave a prediction:

‘Future forecast—changeable and probably getting worse’. The note is significant because it is the first, recorded instance of the UK’s senior government adviser passing up the chain of command a firm view about climate change, in this case that natural climatic change was an understood fact and anthropogenic climate change a distinct possibility’ TNA CAB 184/567. ‘The weather’, Ashworth to Berrill, 23 February 1977 

(Agar, 2015) See here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Germans, Swedes and most of all Americans were looking at carbon dioxide build-up and saying “we may have a serious problem”. So was the World Meteorological Organisation.  The idea of an ice age had been put to one side after a Norwich meeting in 1975.  Ashworth was trying to get Berrill and Mason to take it seriously.

What I think we can learn from this

Getting dinosaurs to tap dance, to spot problems on the horizon, is hard going.

What happened next

Ashworth’s efforts were ‘rewarded’, at last, with an interdepartmental committee in late 1978, which produced a “nothing to see here” report. Members of Thatcher’s government tried to keep it from seeing the light of day, but it finally limped out in February 1980. When Ashworth briefed Thatcher, her response was incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”

Meanwhile, the opportunity to start doing something was, of course, lost.

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

References

Agar, J. (2015). “Future forecast – changeable and probably getting worse”: the UK Government’s Early Response to Anthropogenic Climate Change” Twentieth Century British History, Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 602–628, https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwv008 See here.

Categories
United States of America

 January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

Forty-five years ago, on this day, January 4, 1977,

 “Representative George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) introduced legislation to serve two functions: (1) improve the scientific reliability of climate prediction, and (2) fund applied climatological research to improve the resilience of American society in the face of climate-induced stresses. Frustrated that his previous attempt to pass climate legislation had failed to translate into any national climate policy during the Ford Administration, Brown believed that the time had come to firmly integrate climate into national planning.10 ‘‘I believe we have reached a maturity and urgency of scientific and popular interest which makes possible a successful drive toward scientific, executive branch, and legislative consensus on the design of a national and coordinated climate program,’’ he reasoned on the House floor.11  “

(Henderson 2016)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was 

By the mid-1970s, scientists from various countries (including the US, the UK, Sweden,  Germany) were starting to look at carbon dioxide build-up and say “you know, shit could get real” (I paraphrase).  Some politicians, including Brown, were listening.  So was Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister. Other politicians were not, and are still not.

What I think we can learn from this

Some politicians have been trying to get money for research for a long time, with varying success. Since 1988, some politicians have been trying to help the species be less stupid on climate change. With much less success.  We needed radical social movements, but instead we got captured and tamed eco-modernisation shills. Oh well…. (see this letter in the Financial Times).

What happened next

President Jimmy Carter did, later in 1977, sign some legislation. Things were moving, a bit. Then came Reagan…

References

Henderson, G. (2016) Governing the Hazards of Climate: The Development of the National Climate Program Act, 1977—1981 Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 46, Number 2, pps. 207–242 

Categories
United Kingdom

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

On this day, December 12 in 1977,  the UK government launched an(other) energy efficiency scheme because … they were embarrassed

“It was the visit of US President Jimmy Carter in May 1977 that brought matters to a head. Carter had just launched a major energy saving programme, and the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, did not want to be outdone. ACEC were asked to design a new programme, and with Prime Ministerial support Benn was able to “bang heads together” in Whitehall. On December 12th 1977, he announced a £470m, 4-year programme (worth £2.7bn today), with the aim of saving £700m pa (£4bn) and cutting energy demand by 10 %.” 

(Mallaburn and Eyre, 2014)”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The UK government had already launched an energy efficiency scheme in 1974 which had achieved … not very much. All through the 70s there were concerns about energy – how much it would cost whether it was running out, whether you’ll be able to get hold of it and in the background for some people a small number at this point concerns about climate change

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that energy efficiency is desperately unsexy and difficult it is much harder to pose with a hard hat and a hi-vis jacket in front of loft insulation than it is in front of new production facilities whether those are nuclear gas offshore wind whatever.

What happened next?

The Labour government was kicked out in 1979 and the new administration of Margaret Thatcher did nothing about energy efficiency and nothing about climate change even though that she herself was briefed on the issue in 1980.

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities”

On this day, November 24 in 1978, the Canberra Times ran a story “All coal plan to flood cities”, based on a UPI wire story about an American Physical Society meeting the day before in Florida where Dr Peter Fong called an all-coal energy policy “tantamount to suicide”

, 

1977 All coal plan to flood cities Canberra Times…p. 4.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110879451?searchTerm=All%20coal%20plan%20to%20flood%20cities#

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

By the late 1970s, carbon dioxide from coal and other fossil fuels was beginning to be publicly talked about as a SERIOUS long-term threat, around the world.

What happened next?

There was a late 1970s attempt to get international action. It failed. We went instead for a second Cold War, bleeding the Soviet Union to death and then rolling drunk on triumphalism into the 1990s…  By which time the chance to take a different path was… well, you know the rest…

Categories
Science United Kingdom

November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

On this day, November 14 in 1977,  John Mason the boss of the UK Meteorological Office, was forced to concede ground in his fight against climate science.

“Mason’s calling into existence of an ad hoc group of departmental chief scientists began as an attempt to keep a measure of control, from a sceptical Met Office point of view, on a topic that other bodies, national and international, were expanding active programmes of research. It was not an attempt to solve an issue rated by the Met Office as a priority or significant problem. It was nonetheless to turn into the channel for raising the issue of anthropogenic climate change at the highest levels of government. The first gathering of chief scientists and other government experts took place on 14 November 1977 at Bracknell.”

AGAR 2015

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 333ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Through the 1970s, scientists became more aware of – and alarmed about the possible long-term consequences of – carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  But there was institutional resistance from those who dismissed it as just another lefty/hippy scare.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that any new knowledge is seen through eyes used to old ways of seeing. And often those older eyes are right – not every “New Thing” matters.  But we have this inertia at the personal, organisational and societal level.  It will be the death of us.

What happened next?

In 1980 the Prime Minister was briefed, and dismissed it with the phrase “You want me to worry about the weather.”  That PM? Margaret Thatcher…

Categories
United Kingdom

October 10, 1977 – famous scientist Solly Zuckerman writes to top UK Civil Servant, warning about climate change

On this day, October 10 in 1977, the former Chief Scientific Adviser for the United Kingdom, Solly Zuckerman wrote to the Cabinet Secretary (Sir John Hunt) about global warming, having been sensitised to the issue by an IIASA presentation.

Zuckerman  ‘This was the first time that I had heard anyone take so serious a view of this particular issue’. TNA CAB 184/567. Zuckerman to Hunt, 10 October 1977.

Solly Zuckerman

Source – Jon Agar’s 2015 article. “Future forecast – changeable and probably getting worse”: the UK Government’s Early Response to Anthropogenic Climate Change

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331.28ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By the mid-late 1970s, the carbon dioxide issue was becoming more prominent. Organisations like IIASA were holding workshops, publishing articles. On IIASA, check out “Scientific Cooperation as a Bridge Across the Cold War Divide The Case of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis” by ALAN McDONALD

Why this matters. 

“We” “knew”

What happened next?

They tried to warn the new Prime Minister, one Margaret Thatcher. She dismissed them with “you want me to worry about the weather.”