Tag: 1979

Categories
United States of America

July 15,  1979 – Carter’s “malaise” speech

Forty eight years ago, on this day, July  11st, 1979,

“We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.”

1979 15 July – Carter’s  Address to the Nation on Energy and National Goals: “The Malaise Speech”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, 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 that from the mid-1960s US Presidents had been getting warnings about carbon dioxide build-up.  It meant some nice speeches and reports, but not much else.  Carter didn’t mention carbon dioxide build-up in his malaise speech – it would have been very cool if he had, but the politics of it would have been terrible.

The specific context was that Carter was putting his finger on something, for all the good it did him.

What I think we can learn from this – people cannot handle very much truth, now can they?

What happened next- those bastards stole the summer

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

There is a book about Carter’s malaise speech, its genesis, its reception and aftermath.

What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?’: Jimmy Carter, America’s “Malaise,” and the Speech That Should Have Changed the Country 

Revisiting Carter’s “Malaise” Speech

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate change 

July 15, 1972 – Soviet Weekly on how man affects the weather… 

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

July 15, 1988 – “Racing on Capitol Hill for Title of “Mr Greenhouse” 

July 15, 1991 – RIP Roger Revelle 

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine 

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
United States of America

July 11, 1979 – New York Times warns about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty seven  years ago, on this day, July 11st, 1979,

WASHINGTON, July 10— In a report to the Council on Environmental Quality, a group of scientists warned today of the rapidly growing impact of carbon dioxide on the earth’s climate and asked that the problem be addressed in the formulation of new energy policy by President Carter.

The scientists warned that a major increase in the burning of fossil fuels, particularly synthetic fuels, could have a disastrous impact on the environment in the relatively near future.

“Man is setting in motion a series of events that seem certain to cause a significant warming of the world climate over the next decades unless mitigating steps are taken immediately,” the report declared.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/11/archives/scientists-warn-us-of-carbon-dioxide-peril-advice-on-energy.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2026, 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 that in 1953 Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass had warned people about this.  There were further warnings through the 1950s and 1960s. President Johnson name-checked carbon dioxide as a problem in 1965. Nixon was warned about it repeatedly. 

The specific context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened.  Meanwhile, the G7 had name-checked carbon dioxide build-up as a possible problem, e.gHelmut Schmidt, German Chancellor was talking about it. In the US, since 1977, a growing number of scientists had been meeting, comparing notes and warning.  They were especially worried about the Carter Administration’s plans for the creation of oil from shale and coal.

What I think we can learn from this we knew enough to be taking action by 1979.

What happened next. We didn’t take action in 1979. Or 1989. Or 1999. Etc.  Emissions have kept climbing when they should have fallen. Consequently, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have kept climbing (soaring), and now the Fafocene has begun. Oh well.

xxx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1972 – Gay rights vs ABC 

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

July 11, 1995 – Chicago heatwave gets going

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Categories
United States of America

July 7, 1979 – climate memo on Carter’s desk

Forty seven years ago, on this day, July  7th, 1979, a ,memo lands on President Jimmy Carter’s desk from his chief scientific adviser, Frank Press –

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/14/1977-us-presidential-memo-predicted-climate-change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2026, 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 Lyndon Johnson was the first US president to warn about carbon dioxide build-up, in early 1965 (thanks to the work of Roger Revelle etc).  Between then and 1979, the science had become a lot firmer, especially from the mid-1970s.

The specific context was that various scientists (including Alvin Weinberg) had been beavering away, holding conferences, lobbying Frank Press, etc etc, trying to get the issue onto the agenda.

This met headwinds though, because the Carter Administration also wanted to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and was pursuing making oil from shale, which would be a climate catastrophe. 

What I think we can learn from this. The second half of the 1970s – fully fifty years ago, is the key period when a community of scientists – not just climatologists – started going “oh shit”.  You can read all about them in William Barbat’s CO2 Newsletter…

What happened next. Press chided Gus Speth of the Council on Environmental Quality for continuing to bang on about carbon dioxide build-up. Carter lost the 1980 election. Reagan the wrecking ball came in, and the last slender chance of avoiding catastrophe was gone. Oh well. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

July 30, 1979 – synfuels would be sinful…

May 5, 1980 – Frank Press to Jimmy Carter on climate

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 7, 1969 – Newsweek writes about the “good earth,” mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 7, 1970 – an Australian banker goes “Full Extinction Rebellion”, 50 years early…

July 7, 1988 – foolish “Jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial in Nature.

July 7, 1992 – Greenhouse Action Australia briefing  

July 7, 1997 – Alexander Downer tells the truth.

July 7, 2008 – Liberals start back-tracking on climate promises.

Categories
Brazil United Kingdom

July 6, 1979 – Letter in the Nottingham Post about carbon dioxide build-up and “the greatest disaster in world history”

Forty seven  years ago, on this day, July 6th, 1979, a letter was published in the Nottingham Post, written by one K. Cooke, of Aspley.

“When hundreds of millions of trees are destroyed in the Amazon forests, as they have been over the past 65 years, the whole world suffers a loss of oxygen and an increase in carbon dioxide.

The deforestation of tropical rain forests and the wiping out of numerous species of animals and plants, produce harmful effects on the climate of the world and the balance of nature.

A Brazilian scientist says: “We are threatened with possibly the greatest ecological disaster in world history.”


But also, check out that advert!!

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 337ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been stories in newspapers (and magazines) about carbon dioxide build-up from the 1950s.  From the late 1960s, those stories started to get a bit firmer in their concerns.  Through the 1970s, scientists beavered away.  The idea that the climate was changing (either hotter or colder!) was common currency, and the 1976 heatwave/drought in Europe had got people talking. 

The specific context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in February, and the reporting on it in the UK had usually talked about carbon dioxide build-up. By this time even Margaret Thatcher had gone public (though privately deriding the idea) because it enabled her to advocate for nuclear power (see her interview with the BBC at the G7 in Tokyo on June 29). 

What I think we can learn from this – the whole topic was tolerably well-understood by intelligent and well-informed people in the 1970s. The signal had not emerged from the noise ecologically, but smart humans can spot the patterns. The wilfully ignorant, well, not so much.

What happened next

The problem finally became an issue in 1988. Then they bullshitting and kayfabe started. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

July 6, 1972 – “Workers and the Environment” conference in London…

July 6, 1988 – Piper Alpha blows up 

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

July 6, 2008 – Southern Cross Coalition launches “towards an effective and fair response to climate change” 

Categories
Germany

June 13, 1979 – Financial Times article mentions the concerns of Helmut Schmidt (German Chancellor) about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty seven years ago, on this day, June 13th,1979, the Financial Times ran an article (on page 3, since you ask) “Schmidt to seek international action on energy.”

At the end of it, this – 

“Despite West Germany’s large coal reserves, Herr Schmidt has recently expressed doubts privately about markedly increasing use of the fuel.

“His attitude appears grounded in fears recently underlined here by the scientist and energy expert, Dr Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker, that increased carbon dioxide production could, over decades, cause climatic change with serious economic and political consequences.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that Herman Flohn, a German meteorologist/climatologist had been aware of Guy Callendar’s 1938 paper and wrote about it during the war. Afterwards, Flohn had kept talking about it, and written about it.

The specific context was that various German scientists had been trying to ring the alarm bell by this point. Also, the first World Climate Conference had taken place in February 1979.

What I think we can learn is this: People knew. We knew. At the highest levels. And here we are.

What happened next: Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine, and name-checked carbon dioxide build-up (this got quoted in South Australian parliament, in case you wanted to know that). Schmidt, on a visit to the US, talked to Senator Ribicoff.  July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

And then – 

November 15, 1979 – the FT reports on German concerns about fossil fuel effects.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say” – All Our Yesterdays

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal off. Convictions eventually quashed… – All Our Yesterdays

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – Australia-Indonesia joint statement on climate change – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

June 9, 1979 – New York Times covers climate change – “Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists”

Forty seven years ago, on this day, June 9th, 1979, the Grey Lady made herself useful… 

Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists – The New York Times

  • By Philip Shabecoff; Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 8 — It is invisible, odorless and poses no immediate threat to human health. Government policies to combat air pollution ignore it completely: But the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is arousing growing alarm among scientists and environmentalists and could impede this country’s efforts to solve its energy problems.

Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is a gas released by the burning of fossil fuels. Burning oil produces carbon dioxide, and burning coal produces even more. Unlike other gases released into the air by combustion, such as sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide, or dust particles, it does not make people sick or reduce visibility.

The Government, therefore, has not regarded carbon dioxide as a pollutant and, aside from one small research operation in the Department of Energy, has not paid any attention to it.

Concerned for 20 Years

But that research office recently issued an interim report that stated, “It is the sense of the scientific community that carbon dioxide from unrestrained combustion of fossil fuels is potentially the most important environmental issue facing mankind.”

Scientists have been concerned with the increasing carbon dioxide in the air for the last 20 years. But in the absence of any hard evidence about the consequences of its presence, the issue was more for speculation and the Sunday supplements than for Governmental action.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that the New York Times had been reporting intermittently carbon dioxide buildup since 1953 under then reporter Waldemar Kaempfert, and had picked up the wire service report in 1955 of the GE scientist John Hutton giving testimony. This reporter, Walter Sullivan, was pretty famous. He’d written a book about the International Geophysical Year and was fully aware of carbon dioxide build up. In 1972 he had met Stephen Schneider, and presumably the two had stayed in touch. And here we are. 

The specific context was that by this stage, the Department of Energy, I think, from when it was still called the ERDA had been holding conferences and to a lesser extent, releasing reports about carbon dioxide build up. (That reluctance to release reports had been the final spur for William Barbat, btw.)

What I think we can learn is this: Really by the late 1970s this issue of CO2 build up was not controversial in that people admitted it was happening and that it could cause problems. There wasn’t really, yet an active, coherent denialist lobby. 

What happened next: In August of 1981 Sullivan wrote up a study led by James Hansen, it was front page news in the New York Times, and it had two interesting consequences. One is that the New York Times editorialised on CO2 to build up, and the other that Hansen found his funding withdrawn for a grant that had already been issued. That was how the Reagan administration did things. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 9, 1966 – Lovelock’s report 

June 9, 1967 – New York Times reports on temperature drop… 

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate 

June 9, 2005 – Capitalism asks G8 leaders to save the world

June 9, 2010 – Gina’s protest 

Categories
United States of America

May 22, 1979 – Frank Press asks NAS to look into climate change. …

Forty seven years ago, on this day, May 22nd, 1979,

President Carter’s chief scientific adviser Frank Press requests NAS to look at CO2

[following MacDonald and Pomerance] Finally, weeks later, MacDonald called to tell him that Press had taken up the issue. On May 22, Press wrote a letter to the president of the National Academy of Sciences requesting a full assessment of the carbon-dioxide issue. Jule Charney, the father of modern meteorology, would gather the nation’s top oceanographers, atmospheric scientists and climate modelers to judge whether MacDonald’s alarm was justified — whether the world was, in fact, headed to cataclysm.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 3xxppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that from the mid 1970s, various scientists in the United States – we’re talking Gordon MacDonald, Alvin Weinberg, Roger Revelle, perhaps a few others – had been able to lobby the ERDA to start taking climate change seriously and put pressure on the higher-ups in the science establishment in the United States, especially President Carter’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press. And Press, on this day, asked the National Academy of Sciences to have a look at the issue with new eyes to see if the fears of the carbon dioxide action advocates were fair and justified. 

The specific context was that Chief scientists understandably want to make sure a problem they are being told about is actually a problem, before they go to their political pay masters with it. That’s fair and legitimate. 

What I think we can learn from this. That for all reasonable circumstances, we knew enough by the late 1970s to be taking action.

What happened next. The NAS did the study. This was the Charney report, and it said, “yeah, if we keep tipping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere there’s absolutely no reason not to believe that the temperature will go up significantly and that will cause a world of pain” and Press clearly didn’t like that, didn’t think it should be something on Carter’s agenda, especially in the following year, which was an election year. 

Frank Press died 2020 – a life of magnitude https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004812117

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 22, 1972 – Horizon doco “Do you Dig National Parks?” – All Our Yesterdays

May 22, 1989 – Greenhouse plebiscite mooted

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

May 22, 2000 – Industry versus the greenhouse trigger

May 22 – Build Back Biodiversity: International Biodiversity Day

Categories
United Kingdom

May 3, 1979 – Nature editorialised on “costs and benefits of carbon dioxide”

Forty-seven years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1979

Costs and benefits of carbon dioxide. Nature 279, 1 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/279001a0

Bondi, H. David Davies’ editorship ends. Nature 283, 1 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1038/283001b0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Nature magazine had been reporting on CO2 build up, or at least mentioning it in passing, since 1964, and had editorialised that it was a ‘scare’ in 1971 under the editorship of John Maddox. 

The specific context was that from the mid-70s onwards, there was a build up of awareness internationally, especially in Europe and the United States, about CO2 as a pollutant. And in April, as alluded to in the editorial itself, there had been a four day workshop on CO2 build up and societal impacts in Annapolis, Maryland. Among the British attendees were Crispin Tickell, who at that point was a consigliere for British European Commissioner Roy Jenkins, and Tom Wigley, who was head of the Climatic Research Unit.

And this is exactly the same time that obviously Margaret Thatcher is coming to office, and the report by the Interdepartmental Group on Climatology is working its way through the system. There’s no mention of the Nature editorial in the files I’ve seen National Archives, which does not, of course, mean that it was not discussed. It simply means that there isn’t a surviving minute of it. 

What I think we can learn from this is 

That intelligent people from the mid-late 70s were well aware of the CO2 build-up issue.

That our Lords and masters didn’t pay any attention and that they simply sought advice from the people who were going to tell them the things they wanted to hear

Or maybe they had the misfortune to go to the wrong advice-givers and would it have been different if they’d gone to CRU? I don’t know. We’ll never know. We can’t know history doesn’t provide those experimental points. 

What happened next. Nature fell back under the editorship of John Maddox, and in 1988 he was still at his bullshit games of publishing editorials about “jumping the gun” and getting chided by Wally Broecker this time. 

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 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

May 3, 2024 – Friends of the Earth and Client Earth win a court case

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