Tag: 1979

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..

Categories
United Kingdom

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

Forty three years ago, on this day, July 27, 1979, Thatcher’s cabinet pondered climate change. Sort of.

“Within the Cabinet Office it was rather airily suggested that ‘Ministers should at least be aware of what is proposed’ in terms of publication and consequences.82 But when the ministers found out there was anger. The Postmaster-General, Angus Maude, an elder statesman figure who had played a crucial role in Thatcher succeeding Heath as leader of the Conservative Party, wrote to Keith Joseph, guardian of the Thatcherite ideology, that he saw ‘no reason why the report should be published: it says very little and has no presentational advantage’.83 CAB 184/567. Maude to Joseph, 27 July 1979.” 

Agar (2015)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the previous Labour Government of Jim Callaghan had set up an interdepartmental committee to look at climate. Labour had lost the May 1979 election. And it was now a question of when or rather IF the report of this interdepartmental committee should even see the light of day. Various of Thatcherites apparatchiks thought no.

What I think we can learn from this is that any given report has to jump through many hoops to even see the light of day and not be watered down to nothing. So we need to remind ourselves always, of the politics of bureaucracy and what is and isn’t published, when, why, how, and usually only find out the gory details 30 years later, when the archives opened, and a version of the truth comes out. But of course, you have to remember that even the archives are only going to view clues at the scene of the crime. They’re not the truth, because things don’t get written down, things get “weeded”…

What happened next

On Feb 11th 1980 the report  got published.

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
International processes Japan United Kingdom

June 29, 1979 – Thatcher uses carbon dioxide build-up to shill for nuclear power

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 29, 1979, at the G7 meeting in Tokyo, new UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a radio interview to journalist Bob Friend where she explicitly mentioned the greenhouse effect, in order to defend/extend nuclear (this during G7 meeting in Tokyo).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that an interdepartmental committee set up by the Labour government was in process of delivering its findings. The Thatcher government wanted to bury it. Meanwhile Thatcher was a big fan of new nuclear… Thatcher had been briefed about the reality of climate change by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth and according to an interview with him she responded with incredulity and the statement ‘you want me to worry about the weather?’

What I think we can learn from this

Thatcher knew about the greenhouse effect and was willing to use it as a wedge issue against anti-nuclear greens.

What happened next

The G7 communique name-checked climate change, which then largely disappeared from these sorts of meetings for ten years. It would be 1988 before she started talking sense possibly after Crispin Tickell finally got through to her.

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

April 27, 1979 – Ecology Party first TV broadcast ahead 

Forty four years ago, on this day, April 27, 1979, the “Green Party” (then known as the Ecology Party”) had its first TV broadcast ahead of 1979 General Election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that we had just been through the “winter of discontent”, because Jim Callaghan had not called an election for December 1978, thinking that things would improve. They didn’t. Thatcher was going to win this election quite handily. The Ecology Party was new – it had been founded in 1973, first known as People. 

More information here – https://green-history.uk/elections/general/1979

What I think we can learn from this

The Green Party has a longer history than folks might think. It’s been trying to fight the good fight with limited success, thanks in part to the first-past-the-post system in the United Kingdom, they lack proportional representation as per Germany. 

What happened next

The Ecology Party became the Green Party, the Green Party finally got an MP, the redoubtable Caroline Lucas.

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

February 7, 1979 – Met Office boss bullshits about his carbon dioxide stance

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 7 1979, the had of the Met Office John Mason, sent a deeply disingenuous letter to Kenneth Berrill, a senior civil servant who had been responsible for getting an interdepartmental committee formed to look at the possibility of climate change caused by carbon dioxide build-up, and what implications that would have for the UK.

 And early in 1979, [Mason] wrote directly to Berrill, describing the carbon dioxide problem as of ‘‘immediate importance’’ and assuring Berrill that he was pouring resources into the problem. This engagement with CO2 climate change represented an about-turn in Mason’s position.  (Martin-Nielsen, 2018)

CAB 164/1422 B. J. Mason to K. Berrill, re: ‘‘Economic Effects of Climatic Change,’’ 7 Feb 1979, KEW

This – February 1979 – was just as Mason was about to fly off to the First World Climate Conference in Geneva, where he would… make sure that carbon dioxide was not agreed as an immediate threat. Whether Berrill noticed, or cared, I don’t know….  You can read about Mason’s performance in Geneva in Stephen Schneider’s memoir “Science as a Contact Sport.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

John Mason, as head of the Meteorological Office had been dismissive of carbon dioxide build up as something to be concerned about for several years. The notion that this was a U-turn from Mason, is not necessarily accurate.. Another reading of the situation is that Mason was merely bending to reality because an Intergovernmental Committee on climate had already started meeting it in late 1978.

What I think we can learn from this

Behind any creation of a committee or a report, there is always politics that you don’t see usually at the time or even later – things that are either not leaked or kept secret or in fact, never actually written down, but said in passing and in corridors.

This creates problems for historians trying to recreate “what really happened.”  Secondly, we learn that people are capable of pretending they’ve changed their mind, if it is politically expedient for them to do so.

What happened next

The Climatic Change report was subjected to attempts to suppress it, and was finally released in February 1980 as a “nothing to see here” document. You can read about this in four days on this website.

References

Martin-Nielson, J. 2018. Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2018) 48 (2): 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2018.48.2.223

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

Categories
Ignored Warnings Ireland Science Scientists

October 9, 1979 – Hermann Flohn warns Irish of “possible consequences of a man-made warming”

On this day, October 9 in 1979, Hermann Flohn (major German scientist) gave a talk about “possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming” at a conference in Dublin, Ireland.

Flohn H. 1980: Possible climatic consequences of a man-made global warming. In: R. Kavanagh (Ed.): Energy System Analysis. Proc. Intern. Conf. Dublin, 9-11 Oct. 1979, D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht, 558-568. (1981: Life on a warmer Earth, Possible climatic consequences of man-made global warming. Executive Report 3, based on research by H. Flohn, Intern. Inst. for Applied System Analysis IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 59.)

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/1097/1/WP-79-086.pdf

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 334.24ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – by the late 1970s, scientists who studied climate, energy systems etc had come to some conclusions

  1. Carbon dioxide really was building up in the atmosphere
  2. This would have real consequences 

They tried to get politicians to pay attention.  Oops

Why this matters. 

By the late 1970s we knew enough (earlier than that, I think there was room for doubt)

What happened next?

Flohn kept trying. Others kept trying. Eventually, in 1988, the issue “broke through”.