Tag: 1979

Categories
United States of America

October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 16th, 1979, an Exxon Memo on Potential Impact of Fossil Fuel Combustion is sent.

see also https://thenib.com/climate-crisis-comix/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that. Exxon had been looking at CO2 build up. They’d had discussions with oceanographer Wally Broecker. There were bits of equipment on oil tankers and so forth. And they’d done the calculations. And they basically knew what was coming, and made fairly accurate predictions of what was coming. See for example this June 6, 1978 presentation.

What we learn is that in the words of the website, “Exxon knew.”

What happened next. In early 1980 Exxon and Texaco were talking about setting up a climate taskforce. As late as October 25, 1982 – Exxon held “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium. But then in the mid-80s, Exxon pulled the plug, and started funding denial, started making as much money as they could, which is a lot of money. And in 2006, the Royal Society had taken the unusual step of telling them to knock it off with the denial – September 4, 2006 – Royal Society to Exxon: “Knock it off with the funding to #climate deniers”– with limited effects. Dark money is still going towards these groups. Whether it’s Exxon or Exxon’s mates, who can say. 

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: 

October 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

Categories
United Kingdom

August 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1979, a Cabinet Office wonk hopes that a vague research effort

“would provide an answer to the environmental and ecological lobby by showing that the Government was taking seriously the possibility of irreversible long-term changes in the climate, particularly those which might conceivably be brought about by man’s intervention,’’ as an internal letter explained;”

letter from N.B.W. Thompson to Mr. Mountfield, 7 Aug 1979, KEW, Ref. I.02375, CAB 184/56

Agar, 2015

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was now an Ecology party. And there were groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Conservation Society. Other outfits campaigning about clean air and not building more airports and so forth. Green Alliance had started. There was an identifiable environment lobby, and the senior civil servants were thinking about how it could be placated perhaps with the release of this interdepartmental report on climatic change, which had been completed in early 1979. 

What we learn is that civil servants think about the politics of it all and how to please their so-called masters. And that by the late 70s, environment was an issue. 

What happened next, the “Climatic Change” report, was released in February 1980. received a small amount of desultory press because it was a desultory document by and large, partly because it just wasn’t taking on board what the Americans were saying. (I think you can pin it on the Met Office’s John Mason if you like.)

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 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
Energy United States of America

July 30, 1979 – synfuels would be sinful…

Forty five years ago, on this day, July 30th, 1979, politicians learn that making synfuels would be a Very Bad Idea.

Panel Warned of Synthetic Fuel Danger By Katherine Ellison, July 31, 1979

A group of scientists, warning of potential ecological imbalances and climatic changes, yesterday urged the government to slow its pursuit of a large-scale synthetic fuels program.

The scientists said the ecological changes could result from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — one assured by product of a switch to synfuel production.

They described the so-called “greenhouse effect” whereby heat is trapped close to the earth by increased levels of carbon dioxide, and predicted some long-term effects might be erratic world food production, severe droughts in some regions and costal flooding in others.

link

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that various US administrations had been quite interested in replacing Middle Eastern oil and making money at the same time. But of course, that came with fairly heavy environmental consequences, which climate scientists were at pains to point out.

What we learn is that national security and energy security can compete with other demands. Real energy trilemma at play. And that’s been going on a long time. 

What happened next – the synfuels thing went away, in part because oil prices plummeted. The emissions kept going up though…

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: 

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

July 30, 1979 – scientists warn US Senators about synfuels and carbon dioxide build-up

July 30, 1989 – UK Conservative politician warns “we have at most 25 years to take action.”

Categories
United Kingdom

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

June 4, 1979 Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1979, the Daily Mail managed a half-way decent article on climate change,

It continues –

Lamb’s newly published book, World Without Trees, is compulsive doomwatch reading.

Man’s obsessive squandering of trees, says lamb, is potentially disastrous.

“Trees are one of the main sponges for the carbon dioxide in the air. They mop it up. If we continue to destroy trees at the present rate, it will cause a surplus of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had just happened. Carbon dioxide buildup was out and about. But this article was pegged off a new book called A World Without Trees by a guy called Robert Lamb, I have a copy (of course) and yes, he does mention CO2 buildup.

 What we learn is that the Daily Mail was for a short while anyway able to treat the issue of climate change without being completely idiotic about it. 

What happened next is that the Daily Mail became completely idiotic about it. 

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: 

June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 17, 1979 – Martin Holdgate’s A Perspective on Environmental Pollution” published

Forty-five years ago, on this day, May 17, 1979 an important book on Environmental Pollution, written by Martin Holdgate, came out (with a section on carbon dioxide build-up),

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Martin Holdgate had been working on pollution issues for 10 years by this stage and had a lot of useful data. This book had been finalised a couple of years before. The broader context of course, is that Margaret Thatcher had just taken office. And this unfortunately meant that the work on climate change that had been building under the Callaghan government was largely frozen out and ignored. So it goes. 

What we can learn is what you have already learned from the site, which is that smart people knew. We knew. People who read newspapers knew. We knew we knew we knew.

The problem was not lack of information. The problem was plausible pathways to power and influence.

 What happened next. Holdgate and others kept writing, kept working. 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: 

May 17, 1968 – “Some prophets of darkness warn of polar icecaps melting…”

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

Categories
United States of America

May 14, 1979 – The greenhouse effect is … “almost common knowledge”

Forty-five years ago today, May 14, 1979, American diplomat Harlan Cleveland made the point that the build-up of carbon dioxide had gone, over the last ten years, from obscure to “almost common knowledge.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Aspen had been hosting academics and policy wonks on the climate issue for most of the 1970s (see the book “The Great Adaptation” for more details

 What we learn is that by the late 1970s, and especially in the aftermath of the first World Climate Conference, educated/informed people knew that there was probably trouble ahead.

What happened next, the climate issue finally got traction in 1988. And the emissions are almost 70% higher than they were then.

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.

H/t to Cyrus Mody!

Also on this day: 

May 14, 2002 – well-connected denialists gather in Washington DC to spout #climate nonsense

May 14, 2010 – a day of action/mourning on climate

Categories
United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate

Forty five years ago, on this day, April 4th,1979, the Department of Energy and American Association for the Advancement of Science began a four day meeting about social sciences and climate change. 

4-7 April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate. See Felli “The Great Adaptation”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that from 1977 onwards, the Department of Energy I (don’t think it was called quite that then) and the AAAS were interested in climate and what could be done; or, perhaps more how societies might adapt because mitigation didn’t really figure that brightly at this stage. And so these sorts of workshops and meetings were happening all the time. This one was not particularly pivotal. I just mentioned it because I can… 

What we learn is that the question of societal responses to climate change was well on the agenda by then. 

What happened next – William Kellogg had no trouble writing a book published in 1981. We kept knowing, and not knowing…

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 4, 1957 – New Scientist runs story on carbon dioxide build-up

April 4, 1964 – President Johnson’s Domestic Council on climate…

April 4, 1978 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor worries about atmospheric C02 build-upApril 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
United Kingdom

March 29, 1979 – Health impacts of carbon dioxide discussed…

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 29th, 1979, a health conference in Eastbourne hears mention of the C02 problem.

Robson, A. 1979. “Environmental Implications of Fossil-Fuelled Power” https://doi.org/10.1177/146642407909900608

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that by the late 70s, there are questions being asked in Parliament, there are newspaper articles. There was an especial flurry in ‘76-77 about whether carbon dioxide buildup is indeed changing the planet. And the First World Climate Conference has just happened. The Central Electricity Generating Board has had its eye on the issue. And so it’s unsurprising perhaps, that it should be mentioned, albeit in passing, at a conference about health.

What we learn is this idea that carbon dioxide and climate change might have impacts on health goes back a lot further than 2016 or whenever. And we have been failing to do anything about this issue for a lot longer than we like to admit. 

What happened next, climate didn’t really climb on to the health agenda until well, 10 years later, when “the greenhouse effect” started to punch people in the face. 

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: 

March 29, 1993 – C02 Disposal symposium takes place in Oxford

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

Categories
Australia Nuclear Power

January 31, 1979 – Alvin Weinberg’s “nukes to fix climate change” speech reported

Forty four years ago, on this day, January 31, 1979 the Canberra Times’ Tony Juddery reported on a speech by American scientist Alvin Weinberg, then visiting Oz.

Weinberg was basically saying “nukes and lots of them, or else suffer climate change.”

Juddery’s take? “A visiting true believer ignores the option of solar technology.”

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136977708

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Weinberg had been pretty sure about the climate problem and also sure about nuclear’s role in doing something about it since 1974, probably a lot earlier. He was on a tour in Australia, one of those typical “let’s bring out an expert, get some bums on seats, feel like we are an important outpost or colony in the boonies.” 

Judderry of the Canberra Times was a colourful character and did a good job explaining it.

So 1979 a couple of weeks before the First World Climate Conference was going to happen. This was not a big deal down under.  Fun fact; only one Australian WW Gibbs, of the Bureau of Meteorology  went. No one from CSIRO not Pittock, Pearman, not even the boss, Brian Tucker; it just wasn’t a high priority back in the day. 

What we learn

The great and the good were explaining reality to Australian political elites by the late 1970s. But yokels gonna yokel.  And I guess this puts the National and Country senators (Collard etc) efforts in 1981 in perspective…

What happened next.
In November 1981 the Office of National Assessments finally did a report. 

The polymath and Science Minister (1983-1990) Barry Jones got hold of the issue. Finally, in 1986 things began to move.

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: 

January 31, 2002 – Antarctic ice shelf “Larsen B” begins to break up.

January 31, 1990 – Environmental Racism – then and now… Guest post by @SakshiAravind

Categories
Coal Fossil fuels United Kingdom

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Forty four years ago, on this day, December 11, 1979, there was a conference at the Royal Geographical Society on what might happen if we kept burning more coal. And gosh, climate change even got a mention. How farsighted of them

  • CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF UTILIZING MORE COAL, HELD AT THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM, ON 11-12 DECEMBER 1979

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in February – the UK’s John Mason had helped reduce momentum for increased activity on carbon dioxide build-up. In October 1978 an interdepartmental committee on climate change had been set up (by now its report was done, but its release was not certain – languishing in limbo (it would see daylight on February 11 1980).

There had also been an IEA report…

What I think we can learn from this

We knew, but we went ahead anyway, because, you know, maybe 19th century physics isn’t real…

See also speech to uranium institute.

What happened next

Coal kept getting dug up.

Mason changed his tune in 1988.

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..