Tag: 1978

Categories
United Kingdom

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over”

Forty six years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1978, John Maddox (pictured – editor of Nature and very very much an opponent of the idea that carbon dioxide build up was something to worry about) presented a programme called One Degree Over on BBC Radio, with guests including famed Swedish scientists Bert Bolin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the interdepartmental Panel on Climate Change was meeting and was going to really produce a report sometime soon. The World Meteorological Organisation was banging on the drum. The First World Climate Conference was due to take place in another two months, in February of 1979. And so, a radio programme about global warming was a good fit. The producer Michael Bright had already done stuff in the early 70s on “A Finite Earth?”, so was well-informed. 

What we learn is that the Meteorological Office’s John Mason was there being a dick, but Bert Bolin was also being interviewed. And ultimately, people were informed about what was at stake. 

What happened next. The new Thatcher government was uninterested in climate change. There was a discussion among Cabinet members about whether to even release the interdepartmental report. Thatcher used the climate issue to propose nuclear power at the G7 in June of ‘79. The interdepartmental report was finally released in February of 1980, to precisely no one’s interest or concern, except people like Crispin Tickell.

And the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Australia

November 21, 1978 – Sydney Channel Ten news on Carbon Dioxide build-up and trouble ahead

Forty-six years ago, on this day, November 21st, 1978, people in Sydney got a news broadcast about Trouble Ahead…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the CSIRO had started to make serious noises about CO2. There’d been a documentary called A Change of Climate in 1976. There’d been, more importantly for these purposes, a conference being held on Phillip Island in Victoria. That was CSIRO Australian Academy of Science and someone else. And so it was a nice little hook for the journo, alongside some modelling work released. 

What we learned is that by 1978, the carbon dioxide issue was being explained to people in Sydney. Whether they were paying much attention or not, is another question. 

What happened next? CO2 kept appearing in the newspapers with perhaps a little bit more frequency. In 1980 the Canberra Times covered the conference hosted by the Australian Academy of Science. In 1983, the Australian covered the EPA’s report. But it wasn’t really till 1986/87/88 (especially ‘88) that the issue started getting serious traction. Meanwhile, the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

November 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

November 21, 2013 – “Cut the Green Crap” said UK Prime Minister

Categories
Renewable energy Wind Energy

November 17, 1978 – British Wind Energy Association launches

Forty-five years ago, on this day, November 17th, 1978,

Formed from the ITDG Wind Panel along with other interested parties and representatives from industry, to promote wind power in the United Kingdom. The inaugural meeting of the BWEA took place on 17 November 1978 at the Rutherford Laboratory with Peter Musgrove of Reading University as chairman.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that wind power was seen as a possibility, albeit at a small cranky one that might only be of use in places which were far distant from the grid. And it had started, as these things often do, in university research engineering departments. But eventually these universities can no longer do all the things needed – there’s competing commercial interests. And then a sensible thing to do, not just lobbying purposes, but also to keep the politics and commercial battles kind of at arm’s length, is to set up a kind of trade association. They’re not pure play trade associations, of course, they’re just an interest group for all the different people interested in the topic. Trade Associations tend to come later. 

What we learn is that wind has a long, long history in the UK. 

What happened next, it would take a long time for offshore wind to kick in, that wouldn’t happen until  2010. So that was mostly as a result of the extreme hostility to onshore wind by some local authorities and also by the Tory party in central government. 

What happened next? The British took over, invaded Egypt in 1883. After squabbles over the money I’m not going to talk to you about Suez ‘56.

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 and See Also

Feb 2024 article about the challenges facing wind power

https://www.ft.com/content/7f742d23-673b-47d3-9ce9-64fa5d322abe

Also on this day: 

November 17, 1968 – UK national newspaper flags carbon dioxide danger…

November 17, 1980 – International meeting about carbon dioxide build up.

November 17, 2018 – XR occupy five bridges in London

Categories
United States of America

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit

Forty six years ago, on this day, August 10th, 1978 a car blows up, and corporate malfeasance was revealed…

On their way to a church volleyball practice, the three girls—sisters Lyn (16) and Judy Ulrich (18), and their cousin Donna Ulrich (18)—chugged along U.S. 33 in a dusty 1973 Ford Pinto….

CONTINUES

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ford was one of the big three motor companies and had produced lemons in its time. People were dying because of a change that had been made to the Ford Pinto. This change meant that if it was hit from behind, while indicating left, then there was a reasonable chance that a spark would set off the gas tank explosion, and kaboom. Ford had been aware of the problem, but it calculated that recalling vehicles, fixing them and changing the production line would cost more than simply paying out to the families of those killed, injured. And therefore they did what any rational corporation would do. 

What we learn is that there is rationality and logic and there is also utter fucking madness. I would say immorality, but why would you expect a corporation to behave morally? Have you not been paying attention? 

What happened next, Ford got caught. There was a class action lawsuit even and for a little while, people understood that this sort of shit goes on all the time. But the corporate domination of the media means that this message no longer gets through so easily. In a sane world – one that we don’t live in – this would be taught in primary school, and again in secondary school. 

See also – the cargo doors on the plane…

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: 

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Germany

June 14, 1978 – Man’s Impact on Climate is batted about in Berlin

Forty six years ago, on this day, June 14th, 1978, scientists met. Looked at the data. Concluded there was trouble ahead.

Man’s impact on climate : proceedings of an international conference held in Berlin, June 14-16, 1978 / edited by Wilfrid Bach, Jürgen Pankrath, William Kellogg.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that through the 1970s, there had been a series of these sorts of meetings, especially from 1974-75 where climatologist sociologists, economists, etc. who were mostly men, mostly white, mostly American, or Western European would get together and scratch their heads about buildup of CO2 and what it might mean. Some of these meetings were being held under the auspices of the World Meteorological organisation in unit and ICSU, others IIASA. And the First World Climate Conference was due to happen soon.

What we learn is that by the late 1970s there really was enough to be going on with for politicians to get on top of an issue. But the signal I guess was still too weak. There wasn’t as yet a physical signal. Things took a hit when Reagan took office and the gravity, momentum whatever you want to call it shifted to the Europeans and it would be 1988 before things hit the headlines properly. But it’d be interesting to look at when organisations started to hold these meetings and what the nature of these meetings was primarily scientific or also social. 

What happened next, these sorts of meetings kept happening. The OECD and the IEA joined the fray too. The First World Climate Conference had been relatively inconclusive, thanks to resistance from people like John Mason, but that issue was going away. Meanwhile, in the UK, the first government report on climate change got buried. Or there were discussions about burying it: in the end it was released, to no acclaim or impact.

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: 

June 14, 1973 – Education for the Future? Meh.

June 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics

Categories
Aviation United States of America

December 28, 1978 – fly the plane. Don’t keep tapping the fuel light.

Forty five years ago, on this day, December 28, 1978, things go wrong.

With the crew investigating a problem with the landing gear, United Airlines Flight 173 runs out of fuel and crashes in Portland, Oregon, killing 10. As a result, United Airlines instituted the industry’s first crew resource management program. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been other recent airline disasters which were ultimately down to to crews failing to do the smart thing. My favourite is the Tenerife KLM PanAm disaster caused by an arrogant Dutch guy – but broader systemic breakdown and bad habits was behind it of course, it always is.

What I think we can learn from this

 it was these disasters that got the aircraft manufacturers and the State and the insurers together and insist that the way that pilots and crews interacted was the subject of better training. So you get crew resource management and notechs- the non-technical aspects. This would be a huge boon for social movement organizations but they just can’t get their heads around this stuff…

What happened next

Crew Resource Management became a thing. Aviation by the 90s had become absurdly safe, once the hijacking and blowing up aspect got taken care of.

Even with the 737 disasters and the icy pilots, if you look at the number of flights and number of passengers vs actual loss of life from commercial aviation it is absolutely safe now. Pity about the planet, but you can’t have everything…

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

Gawande, A. The checklist manifesto

Categories
Antarctica Arctic

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 8, 1978, the Times ran an article, on page 15, about the ice caps melting, based on a Nature article.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that US scientists had produced lots of data and reports that really pointed to a warming world because of carbon dioxide. The World Meteorological Organisation and UNEP were doing the same. The First World Climate Conference was coming up in a few months …

What I think we can learn from this – the Times used to be a real newspaper.

What happened next

We did not act on climate change. And the Antarctic did indeed start to properly melt, as had been hypothesized in 1973. And the West Antarctic ice sheet is exquisitely vulnerable because it is sitting on mountain peaks rather than bedrock.

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 Kingdom

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

Forty-five years ago, on this day, October 4, 1978, senior UK civil servants and scientific advisors began a short bunch of meetings…

“The Interdepartmental Group on Climatology (IGC) first met on 4 October 1978. Its task was to specify a research programme that might answer long-term questions about climate change, while keeping national programmes co-ordinated with the rapidly expanding international projects, such as those of the European Economic Community (EEC) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) as well as research in the USA.”

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the British state had been aware of potential climate change for a very long time. By 1967 the issue was cropping up on television. A junior minister, Lord Kennet, had written a crucial memo in July 1968, and the first Environment White Paper mentioned carbon dioxide as a potential problem. But Met Office Supremo John Mason had managed to slow things down despite the best efforts of various civil servants and scientists. Eventually though, an interdepartmental committee was formed.

What I think we can learn from this is that the British state response was this weak at this time. Though to be entirely fair, there was a lot going on in terms of industrial unrest, Northern Ireland the IMF crisis you name it. The 1976 drought could be dismissed as a one-off, of course

Interdepartmental committees are going to follow the usual lowest common denominator trajectory, with big departments able to act as a veto on anything they don’t like and small departments knowing that and seeing no point in rocking the boat…

What happened next

The interdepartmental committee report, which was pretty weak, was not released until after the change in government. Members of the Conservative cabinet of Margaret Thatcher almost just filed it away without it even being seen.

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

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

Forty five years ago, on this day, July 12, 1978, US scientists gathered to review 

1978 Woods Hole workshop to review “Report of the Workshop to Review the U.S. Climate Program Plans”, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 12-19, 1978, to the Climate Research Board 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the National Academy of Science had released its big fat report in the middle of 1977. And there was now a US Climate programme as well, thanks to George Brown’s efforts to get a climate act through. This workshop is about “well how are we doing? What do we do next?” 

What I think we can learn from this is that you can get a research agenda with policy implications embedded within the state but then you need to husband it, make sure it’s on track. And that’s unglamorous but it’s needed, obviously, and will take up a lot of time and energy. But there isn’t really an alternative because if you don’t nurture it, you’re screwed (spoiler, you are anyway!)

What happened next

The climate issue continued to build and build and by 1980 81, it had some serious legs on it. And then came Reagan and the Heritage Foundation, grinding into gear and making sure that things like the Global 2000 report don’t have as much afterlife as they otherwise might. See. May 13 1983 blog post 

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
Fossil fuels United States of America

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.

6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.

What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.

What happened next

Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.

The predictions their scientists made in the 1970s? Pretty good… https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

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.