Tag: 1979

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

April 10, 1979 – National Coal Board top scientist versus 19th century physics

On this day, 47 years ago,   Joseph Gibson, chief scientist at the National Coal Board, was keen to dampen concern and examination of coal’s global environmental impacts. With palpable glee he wrote a letter on April 10 1979 to the Chairman (Brian Flowers) and the board members.      

“I promised to let Board members have a copy of the IEA report on the greenhouse effect…. The only firm fact so far is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. It is concluded that there is no evidence of a rise in global temperature due to this concentration increase at present.” He then goes on to quote from the work, by Irene Smith – “There is little evidence to support either a complacent or an alarmist attitude…”

(Gibson, J. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect. April 10 TNA COAL 30/414)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the National Coal Board had been explicitly aware of carbon dioxide build up since (at the latest) 1972, and was looking for an excuse not to have to do much. And in Irene Smith’s work, they were able to cherry pick what they wanted. 

The specific context was that Gibson was surely aware that in other parts of the British state apparatus an “Interdepartmental Group on Climatology” was about to present a report.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who are comfortable in their own way of thinking find it hard to take new threats seriously until they are staring them in the face. 

What happened next:  The National Coal Board hired some people to do some work on the carbon dioxide work. This was good stuff, but it all kind of didn’t contribute in the way that it could have, not because those people were less than stellar, but simply because the Thatcher governments had other fish to fry. And Thatcher had made it clear herself that she wasn’t going to “worry about the weather”.  

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 10, 2006 – “Business warms to change” (Westpac, Immelt) – All Our Yesterdays

April 10th, 2010 – activists hold “party at the pumps”

April 10, 2013 – US companies pretend they care, make “Climate Declaration”

Categories
Nuclear Power Sweden

April 4, 1979 – Olof Palme u-turns on nuclear referendum

47 years ago today, the Swedish Prime Minister decides on a referendum

“The nuclear policy controversy came to a head following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, had for a long time been a strong supporter of nuclear power and against a nuclear referendum. On April 4, 1979, however, after a week of intense media coverage of the nuclear accident, Palme, afraid of losing more antinuclear supporters to the Center Party in the upcoming September 1979 elections, announced that he was in favor of a nuclear referendum. Within hours the other parties agreed to Palme’s suggestion.” (Lofstedt 1992: 4) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Palme had been made aware about climate change from carbon dioxide quite some time ago. In April 1974 he had been briefed on it by Herman Flohn. In November 1974, Palme had spoken about it publicly.

The specific context was that energy politics is always messy!

What I think we can learn from this is that energy politics are always messy. And that some referenda matter more than others.

What happened next:  

A non-binding referendum on nuclear power was held in Sweden on 23 March 1980.[1] Three proposals were put to voters. The second option, the gradual phasing out of nuclear power, won a narrow plurality of the vote, receiving 39.1% of the ballots cast to 38.7% for option 3.[2] Option 1 was the least popular, receiving only 18.9% of the votes.[2]

The actual long term result of the nuclear power politics in Sweden after the referendum has been most similar to option 1 which did not change ownership of nuclear power plants. Some were fully private and others owned by the government, and this did not change much. High profits in hydroelectric generation were not excessively taxed. Although some of the nuclear power plants were decommissioned, the Swedish government decided to reverse the policy.[3]

1980 Swedish nuclear power referendum – Wikipedia

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

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-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Academia United States of America

April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAS meeting

Forty seven years ago today, they’re half-way through what SHOULD have been a crucial meeting…

2-6  April Annapolis Maryland DOE and AAAS meeting on social science and climate.

CRIPSIN TICKELL PRESENT – see his October 1979 article in EUROPE

YOU HAVE DONE THIS ONE!!
April 4, 1979 – DOE and AAAS meet on social science and climate – All Our Yesterdays

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that since 1977 the Department of Energy had been hosting conferences, famously Miami Beach in March of 77 and commissioning reports about carbon dioxide build up. The Carter administration was “on it” as it were – or the Carter administration wasn’t, but people working in the DOE were. And I think a lot of this is probably down to a nuclear physicist called Alvin Weinberg. Anyway, here we are in April of 79 and the crucial things here are that 

  1. Tom Wigley of the Climatic Research Unit was present and presenting.

b) Crispin Tickell, then the consigliere for Roy Jenkins, was present at this meeting. We know this thanks to Tickell’s October 1979 article in Europe magazine.

The specific context was that by 1979 smart people were beginning to “freak out”, in a very measured and contained way.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have known for so long.  And done so little (well, made the whole shituation much worse).  

What happened next:  

Nature ran an editorial in May 1979 that namechecked this conference. The DOE asked people like Schelling to do a report on the societal implications that was released in early 1980 and whatever progress was being made towards tackling the carbon dioxide problem was halted with the coming of the Ronald Reagan gang in January of 1981 and here we are completely fine. Fuck. Risk. 

Also on this day

April 4, 1964 – Revelle’s PSAC Working Group Five

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-up

April 4 – Interview with Ro Randal about “Living With Climate Crisis

Categories
Energy Nuclear Power

March 28, 1979 – Three Mile Island 

Forty seven years ago on this day, March 26th, 1979,

The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown of the Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, located on the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The reactor accident began at 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, and released radioactive gases and radioactive iodine into the environment.[2][3] It is the worst accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history, although its small radioactive releases had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public.[4] The accident was the largest release of radioactive material in U.S. history until it was exceeded by the Church Rock uranium mill spill four months later.[5] On the seven-point logarithmic International Nuclear Event Scale, the TMI-2 reactor accident is rated Level 5, an “Accident with Wider Consequences”.[6][7]


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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was there had been high hopes for nuclear in the 1950s – “electricity too cheap to meter” and all that.  The coal industry had fought back, and so had, well, reality and economics.

The specific context was that the 1973-4 Oil Shock had concentrated everyone’s minds.

What I think we can learn from this is that every technology comes with costs.

What happened next – anti-nuclear activists highlighted the dangers. A few of those worried about carbon dioxide (especially William Barbat), tried to say there were bigger dangers. 

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

Barbat in CO2 Newsletter

Also on this day: 

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”

Categories
CO2 Newsletter CO2 Newsletter articles

Front page news – “Broecker’s 6 meter rise does not appear unreasonable” – C02 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 5

Here’s the front page story on the CO2 Newsletter for June-July 1980. You can find out more about the newsletter here.

We knew. We knew. Brave diligent people like William Barbat tried to amplify the science, connect the dots, connect the policymakers, the publics and the evidence.

A sense of urgency was introduced to the CO2-greenhouse problem July 30, 1979, when Wallace Broecker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, “We have good evidence that during the peak of the last interglacial period, the sea level did indeed stand 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it does now, and we don’t think the temperature of the globe was any more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.”

A 1 degree C warming is generally expected to be reached shortly after the turn of the century if the CO2 buildup continues as in the past, The energy scenario of F. Niehaus (International Atomic Energy Agency) which might halt a CO2-induced global warming just short of 1 degree C, as shown in the inset, would call for a rapid phase-out of fossil mostly by nuclear, This scenario was presented at the same Senate hearing. 

Broecker’s 6 meter rise (point ‘a’) does not appear unreasonable on a plot of temperatures vs. sea elevations ranging from ice ages to no-icecap conditions. Global average temperatures of 4 degrees to 5 degrees C cooler than now are shown for the ice ages, as used by Svante Arrhenius in his CO2 greenhouse model of 1896. Corresponding to these periods of maximum glacial advance are vestiges of shorelines 85 to 130 meters lower than now as shown by bar +b’. (Lag in destruction of the Laurentide ice sheet precludes

other equilibrium values for conditions cooler than now.)

An approximation of the pre-glacial global temperature as shown here 5. degrees C greater than now (point ‘c’) is derived from Eocene and early Oligocene subtropical and tropical sea-surface temperatures in the literature. These sea temperatures were based on oxygen isotope measurements made on shells of pelagic foraminifera which grew at that time,

Arrhenius had also judged that the average Arctic temperatures prior to the existence of ice sheets in that hemisphere were about 8 to 9 degrees C warmer than modern temperatures, based on observations of vegetation and animal life. Allowing for 3X to 4X polar amplification, this would correspond to an average global temperature 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer than now, which essentially matches the consensus of estimates for global warming which may accompany a CO2 doubling, Such a doubling is expected to be reached about 2025-2050 if growth of CO2 production continues its historical rise.

Because the West Antarctic icecap is believed by John Mercer (Institute of Polar Studies, Ohio State) to have formed at cooler temperatures than the Greenland icecap, the potential sea elevation corresponding to the absence of the Greenland ice is shown here as the sum of the rise if both icecaps were absent, that is, 12 meters higher than present. This 12 meter height – if valid can be considered to be a minimum value, for it is likely that the East Antarctic ice cap was smaller than its present size when global temperature was 2 degrees to 3 degrees C warmer.

No estimates have been published yet for how fast the Greenland ice sheet might disappear with a CO2 -induced warming, and much controversy still surrounds estimates of how fast the West Antarctic ice sheet may disappear due to a lack of precedents. If the CO2 buildup continues unabated, the  expected warming over the next half century may take place in about one-tenth the time that a similar temperature rise occurred about 10,3000 degrees before present, during which time sea level was about 0.2 to 0.3 meters per decade according to the compilations of Rhodes Fairbridge.

To illustrate the seriousness of a potential equilibrium with the warmness of a CO2 doubling, the Jefferson Memorial is depicted on the same elevation scale. For other comparisons, the absence of icecaps would correspond to sea level at the clock face of London’s Big Ben and up to the roadway of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.

Categories
Science Scientists

February 20, 1979 “An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, February 20, 1979 the following was published – 

“An Assessment of the Possible Future Climatic Impact of Carbon Dioxide Increases Based on a Coupled One-Dimensional Atmospheric-Oceanic Model” Hunt and Wells

https://doi.org/10.1029/JC084iC02p00787

A radiative-convective equilibrium model of the atmosphere has been coupled with a mixed layer model of the ocean to investigate the response of this one-dimensional system to increasing carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere. For global mean conditions a surface temperature rise of about 2°K was obtained for a doubling of the carbon dioxide amount, in reasonable agreement with the commonly accepted results of Manabe and Wetherald. This temperature rise was essentially invariant with season and indicates that including a shallow (300 m) ocean slab in this problem does not basically alter previous assessments. While the mixed layer depth of the ocean was only very slightly changed by the temperature increase, which extended throughout the depth of the mixed layer, the impact of this increase on the overall behavior of the ocean warrants further study. A calculation was also made of the temporal variation of the sea surface temperature for three possible carbon dioxide growth rates starting from an initial carbon dioxide content of 300 ppm. This indicated that the thermal inertia of the slab ocean provides a time lag of 8 years in the sea surface temperature response compared to a land situation. This is not considered to be of great significance as regards the likely future climatic impact of carbon dioxide increase.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the idea that carbon dioxide build-up could warm the planet goes back to Arrhenius in 1895. The idea got nudged forward by Guy Callendar in 1938 onwards, and then pushed to the next level by Gilbert Plass in 1953.

The specific context was that by the late 1970s, it was broadly agreed among the relevant scientific community that there was serious trouble ahead, and this is laid out in painstaking and painful detail in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter, which I am releasing through the course of 2026.

What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own, the truth on its own, will not set you free.

What happened next: More studies, more emissions, more concentrations, spasms of protest, but no action worthy of the name to actually bend the emissions curve down, and certainly reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 via various so called draw down projects is a complete fucking fantasy.

And I didn’t have kids because the second half of the 21st Century is going to make the first half of the 20th look like a golden age of peace, love and understanding. But I’m standing here narrating this, looking at sparrows and finches and things and I guess it’s my job just to enjoy it for as long as I can. I suppose.

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: 

February 20, 1966 – US Senators told about carbon build-up by physicist

February 20, 1970 – South Australian premier sets up an Environment Committee

February 20, 2017 “Clean Coal” money being spent on PR

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe” – C02 Newsletter, Vol. 1, no. 2 editorial

The eighteen issues of the CO2 Newsletter, published between 1979 and 1982 by American geologist William Barbat are heart-breakers. Here, laid out in plain language, buttressed by the latest research, were almost all of our dilemmas. Alongside publishing the 18 issues through the course of the year, and inviting various people to write commentaries, I’ll be putting up the editorials, selections from the “excerpts of recent reports” and at least one of the deeply-researched articles Barbat wrote per issue (often there were two).

First up, the editorial from Vol 1. no. 2, December 1979.

“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe” – H.G. Wells

Editorial

The CO2 Newsletter’s editorial goals are to aid enlightenment on the CO2 problem, to promote constructive and timely solutions, to reduce disagreement and to encourage cooperation.

The many persons who continue to send articles are to be thanked for their contribution toward enlightenment. Ideas for constructive solutions are just now being formed as the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds. While scientist disagreement is declining with the acquisition of new data, much disagreement exists in the political world over what national energy policy should be and what should be the role of industrial establishments in carrying it out. The revolutionary energy policies which are now being considered by the scientific community to bring the CO2 buildup to an early halt would require much more cooperation between government and business than appears to exist. Unwarranted hostility and intolerance directed towards energy companies for political gain make it difficult to address the CO2 problem effectively and early.

American businesses have not been wholly oblivious to the CO2 problem in the past. In a well-researched comprehensive report on the environmental aspects of energy production published nearly a decade ago (May 1970) in the Westinghouse Engineer James H. Wright noted that the CO2 buildup should be given consideration as a serious environmental concern.

Corporations which have diverted income from oil revenues to the production of nuclear fuels have come under political attack for attempting to monopolize energy production, when that is the least likely motive. The costly Barnwell nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant has not been allowed to operate after apparently receiving governmental approval while the investments were being made. Well-meaning detractors have been able to delay construction of nuclear plants, and rate commissions often have shifted the heavy financial burden of the delays solely to the utility owners

At this stage, recriminations would be counterproductive. We would be wise to learn from past mistakes and close ranks to prepare for the difficult task of halting the CO2 buildup.

Citation: Barbat, W. (1979) “Editorial” CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 1, No 2, p. 2

Further reading and viewing

Barnwell – the song by Gil Scott-Heron!

Gil Scott Heron – South Carolina (Barnwell)

Wright, J. 1970. Electric Power Generation and the Environment. Westinghouse Engineer. May, pp.66-80. Westinghouse-Engineer-1970-05.pdf

Categories
United States of America

1979 report warns of warming world (CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2)

The carbon dioxide issue attracted more and more attention from scientists through the 1970s. They worried that plans to expand energy production using fossil fuels would lead to catastrophe. They (and some far-sighted politicians) began to lobby President Carter, and in July 1977 Carter’s Science Advisor Frank Press wrote a memo to Carter about it. But Carter as trying to boost the “synfuels” (synthetic fuels, basically turning coal into liquid fuel) as a way of reducing vulnerability to price shocks.

In early 1979 Press asked top scientists to look at whether the CO2 problem was indeed a real issue to worry about. An ad hoc panel, chaired by Jule Charney (a very big fish), met for a couple of weeks in July, and then released its report, under the title Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. In October 1979 William Barbat released the first issue of his CO2 Newsletter. The lead article on the second issue’s front page was about the Charney report.

Report to president’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change climate

The introduction of the CO2 issue into U.S. energy policy moved a step closer in November as a scientific advisory panel reported “If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled… our best estimate is that changes in global average temperature of the order of 3 degrees C will occur and that this will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns.”

At the request of Frank Press, science adviser to the President, the National Academy of Sciences had convened this group of experts who had little previous involvement in CO2 studies to make an impartial examination of the validity of CO2 forecasts.

The group stated in its report that the basic model relating CO2 to global warming is correct, so far as they can see. “We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to negligible proportions or reverse them altogether.”

The report is summarized in Science 23 November 1979 under the title “CO2 in Climate: Gloomsday Predictions Have No Fault.” The panel was chaired by Jule G. Charney, MIT.

What happened next?

This is the famous Charney Report – interestingly, it didn’t stop Frank Press trying to chide Gus Speth into silence the following year.  April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report

Citations

Barbat, W. (1979) “Report to President’s adviser: CO2 buildup can change the climate.” CO2 Newsletter, Vol. 1, No 2, p. 1

Wade, N. 1979. CO2 in Climate: Gloomsday Predictions Have No Fault. Science, Nov 23.Vol 206, Issue 4421 pp. 912-913 DOI: 10.1126/science.206.4421.912.b

Categories
CO2 Newsletter

CO2 Newsletter Vol. 1, no. 2 – “the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds”

By December 1979 the editor of the CO2 Newsletter, American geologist William Barbat, was on a roll, and optimistic. In his editorial for the second Newsletter whe wrote

“The many persons who continue to send articles are to be thanked for their contribution toward enlightenment. Ideas for constructive solutions are just now being formed as the CO2 issue emerges from scientific laboratories to reach the political and industrial worlds. While scientist disagreement is declining with the acquisition of new data, much disagreement exists in the political world over what national energy policy should be and what should be the role of industrial establishments in carrying it out.”

The issue contains feedback from readers of the first issue, including scientists and politicians. There’s a one page article on deforestation, a whole lot of “excerpts from recent reports”

In a closing article titled “Energy alternatives to meet projected demands,” Barbat made the crucial point that

“… the CO2 problem has no outspoken champions and no legislative lobby. Nor does the CO2 issue serve conveniently as a rallying cause for activism.“

I will be creating separate posts about some of the contents of this issue. Meanwhile you can download the pdf (and see plain text) here.

Categories
Activism

November 24, 1979 – Anti-nuclear campaign launch

Forty six years ago, on this day, November 24th, 1979 an Anti Nuclear campaign launch – see  two pager about this in the London Greenpeace

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was the 1970s saw a huge growth in anti-nuclear power movements.

The specific context was – Thatcher had come to power, and was as gung-ho for nuclear as her predecessors (because, well, there’s a permanent pro-nuclear establishment, isn’t there?).

What I think we can learn from this – smart people have been writing about the problems faced by social movements/NGOs for a long time, and we could do worse than listen and learn. But we won’t do that, because it requires time, access to materials, courage, curiosity and humility.

What happened next – the coalition didn’t really last, as I suspect many knew it wouldn’t.

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 24, 1971 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Meadows explaining Limits to Growth at US Embassy) – All Our Yesterdays

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

November 24, 1992 – I’ve seen the future baby, it is murder (Cohen’s “The Future” released) 

November 24, 2009 – the Climate War in Australia goes kinetic…