Forty six years ago, on this day, November 15th, 1979, the FT reports
“West Germany is to set up a study which could have a serious impact on its future energy policies, which at present stress the central importance of coal. The investigation is into the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.”
Boyes, Roger, 1979. Germany Probes Fossil Fuel Effects. Financial Times, November 15, p. 2
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. 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 that the Germans had been worrying about carbon dioxide for a little while by now (Hermann Flohn’s influence, possibly?).
The specific context was by the mid-1970s meetings were being held at IIASA and elsewhere about the problem. German scientists, and some politicians, were on the case. The first World Climate Conference, hosted by the WMO, had taken place in February 1979 in Geneva. In June 1979 Helmut Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine where he explicitly mentioned carbon dioxide build-up. The G7 meeting (in Tokyo) had namechecked the issue.
What I think we can learn from this – plenty of people knew. But what are you going to do if you run on coal and nukes?
What happened next – the emissions kept climbing, of course. At the G7 in Bonn in 1985, the climate issue got namechecked again.
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.
Forty six years ago, on this day, September 6th, 1979, the American Petroleum Institute’s “do nothing” suggestion was getting some love from RJ Campion, Exxon’s climate scientist.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. 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 that in the late 1970s scientists – both employed by the state and some of the oil majors, had a pretty good idea what was coming….
The specific context was – well, here’s a passage from Ben Franta’s PhD
“Although Exxon’s research program was notable for its sophistication, the company wasn’t alone in monitoring climate science. By 1979, the API had formed a task force focused on climate change composed of representatives from the major oil companies, including Exxon’s Henry Shaw. Initially named the CO2 and Climate Task Force and in 1980 renamed the Climate and Energy Task Force, the group’s internal memos show that much like Exxon, it viewed climate research as a strategic tool to influence public perception and government regulation in favor of the fossil fuel industry.
One of the earliest known memos regarding the task force, from 1979 and written by Exxon scientist Raymond Campion, recommended the group not pursue original climate change research, because “the industry’s credibility on such issues is not high at the present time, and should an API study indicate no serious CO2 problems, the results would be greeted with skepticism.”
What I think we can learn from this is that there were paths not taken. Don’t get me wrong – even if we’d taken serious action in the late 1970s, there was still going to be serious trouble ahead. But now, well….
What happened next: The Reagan administration came in and it would not be until the very end of that shitty period – in 1988 – that the climate problem finally broke through and became an issue.
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.
The late Mesozoic rock and life records implicate short-term (up to 105 to 106 years) global warming resulting from carbon dioxide—induced “greenhouse” conditions in the late Maestrichtian extinctions that terminated the Mesozoic Era. Oxygen isotope data from marine microfossils suggest late Mesozoic climatic cooling into middle Maestrichtian, and warming thereafter into the Cenozoic. Animals adapting to climatic cooling could not adapt to sudden warming. Small calcareous marine organisms would have suffered solution effects of carbon dioxide—enriched waters; animals dependent upon them for food would also have been affected. The widespread terrestrial tropical floras would likely not have reflected effects of a slight climatic warming. In late Mesozoic, the deep oceanic waters may have been triggered into releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a chain reaction of climatic warming and carbon dioxide expulsion. These conditions may be duplicated by human combustion of the fossil fuels and by forest clearing.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. 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 that the 1970s was the decade when the basic science became “settled.” For what that turned out to be worth!
The specific context was that by this time the World Meteorological Organisation had said it would hold the First World Climate Conference, in Geneva, in February 1979.
What I think we can learn from this is that information on its own is not worth a bucket of warm spit.
What happened next. The scientists tried to interest the politicians. The politicians didn’t listen. In 1988 the politicians began to pretend to listen. Meanwhile, the emissions just went up and up.
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.
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 that through the 1970s scientists working on climatology, pollution, energy, food were starting to study carbon dioxide build-ups effects and saying in effect “er, we may have a serious problem on our hands”. This was true especially in (parts of) Europe and the US.
The specific context was that the Carter Administration was rather taken with shale oil as a way of securing “energy independence”. This raised the question of CO2 build-up to serious concern, and Jule Charney was asked to come up with a “definitive” answer to whether it was something to take seriously.
What I think we can learn from this – sometimes an issue will be “entrained” because of another one (in fact, that is surely the norm, but we struggle to understand it). In this case, an “environmental” issue gets a boost because of energy policy debates….
What happened next Charney et al basically said “there’s no reason to believe that a doubling in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide – which are likely by 2050 or so – will do anything other than result in an increase of global average temperatures of somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees.”
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.
Forty six years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1979,
“The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may be accelerated by President Carter’s new-found enthusiasm for synthetic fuel. But the atmospheric ‘crisis’ may come too slowly to bother the politicians, argues Michael Glantz.”
Glantz, M. A political view of CO2. Nature 280, 189–190 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/280189a0
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 that through the 1970s scientists got more interested in – and alarmed about – the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In February 1979 the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva.
The specific context was that in response to the second oil shock, plans for the US to make shale oil were on the front burner. People like Glantz were part of the move to say “whoa, before you get moving on this, have you thought about the carbon dioxide implications?”
What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 1970s, a moderately well-informed person would have known that there was a better-than-trivial chance of serious trouble ahead.
What happened next is that the better-than-trivial chance happened. Oh well.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, November 26th, 1979, a paper was submitted to the academic journal Energy….
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Cesare Marchetti had proposed carbon capture and storage in 1975 – his article had been published in 1977. And here were some Americans at the Department of Energy talking about what that would entail.
What we learn is that CCS has a very long history, longer than its proponents might want you to believe.
What happened next Albanese kept studying it, studying what other people did. CCS really sort of became something that people were vaguely interested in, in about 1988/89 After the explosion of the greenhouse issue. And then CCS lived in the undergrowth, for about 10 years. And then really sort of 2002/3 is the pivot where it starts to get more attention. Still hasn’t been any meaningful amount of CO2 taken out of circulation, especially if you discount the fact that a lot of what has been captured was for enhanced oil recovery.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, November 18th 1979,
leaked Cabinet papers record the Government’s efforts to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration'(The Sunday Times, 18 November 1979).
This was the effort of John Hoskyns….
Norton-Taylor, R. 1979. Topping up the Think Tank. The Guardian, Nov 24, p.19.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Thatcher had come to power in May 1979. And there were a bunch of even more extreme right-wingers trying to pull her in that direction, not just Keith Joseph. And there was this guy who had come up with a big fat book, like Dominic Cummings of his time, only successful. And one of his enemies had leaked something to the Sunday Times.
What we learn is that there are always intra government, intra department battles going on about the direction and speed of travel and so forth. And one of the time-honoured ways of fighting those battles, is leaking embarrassing information about your enemies to the press. They will happily splash that because it sells newspapers and makes them look like they’re investigators. (See also EP Thompson and the culture of leaks and non-attributed briefings.)
What happened next, the guy, John Hoskyns, wasn’t in post for terribly much longer, and it really looked like Thatcher wouldn’t be. But then the Argentinian junta delivered her an election on a plate. She took it and she never looked back. 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
