Tag: 1980

Categories
United Kingdom

October 21 1980 – Conference on “Climate and Offshore Energy Resources” in London

Forty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1980, a conference in London…

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26222336

A report on the conference ‘Climate and Offshore Energy Resources’, Royal Society, 21–23 October 1980

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva the previous year, but Bolin was still trying to shepherd stuff around CO2 build up through the scientific collaboration systems, with help from Mustafa Tolba. Bolin of course had been banging on about climate change and CO2 buildup since 1958. And Bolin had been at a 1969 conference at the Royal Society and here he was 10 years later. 

What we learn is that we knew, and that Bolin did his best.

What happened next. It was another 8 years before elite politicians had to start paying lip service to “the greenhouse effect.”

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 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

October 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability…

Categories
United States of America

October 14, 1980 – Barry Commoner’s “bullshit” advert…

Forty-two years ago, on this day, October 14th, 1980, scientist Barry Commoner is running for president, and a ‘shocking ad’ is released.

“It’s all bullshit!”

“What?!”

“Carter- Reagan-Anderson, it’s all bullshit.”

See also https://time.com/4584919/barry-commoner-shocking-ad/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Barry Commoner had been banging on about the threats to the environment for a looong time. His first book, Science and Survival, had come out in 1966 and was a crucial node for awareness of climate change. And he finally decided to run for President to highlight the issues. Of course, that was the election that one of the Koch brothers also stood on a so-called “libertarian” platform. 

Anyway, Commoner’s campaign was not getting a lot of attention, of course. His campaign manager had the bright idea to put out an advert saying that voters should pay attention to Commoner if they were sick of bullshit. And this was back in the days when swearing was newsworthy. And it got Commoner a certain amount of attention though, by all accounts Commoner was not happy since it kind of cut across his preferred reputation as a serious and non joke/ attention-seeking candidate.

What we learn is that if you want to get attention, you have to do something newsworthy. Because the media are bored of it reporting actual issues. Because they know that the voters want a circus instead. The voters want a circus because what they can choose doesn’t really matter anyway, so they may as well be entertained. And also, some of the voters are really fucking thick. But that’s not really their fault. Education System, schooling system and society are all designed to make people thick, because thick people are easy to manipulate. The last thing you want is an intelligent electorate. What a freaking nightmare that would be. 

What happened next Commoner lost, obviously. Reagan got up. Gaia help us all.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

October 14, 1974 – UK Chief Scientific Advisor is warned about carbon dioxide build-up.

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Categories
United States of America

September 25, 1980 -Reagan turns out to be an ignorant fool. Who knew?

Forty four years ago, on this day, September 25th, 1980

“In the basement of the Fairmont Hotel three months earlier on the morning of September 25, 1980, a reporter asked California Governor Reagan whether he would speak on the Global 2000 Study. While the media heavily covered the report even prior to its release in the summer of 1980, Reagan was caught off guard by the reporter’s request because he was entirely unaware of the report’s existence.” (Henderson, 2014)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a lot of publicity in the spring and summer about the Global 2000 report of Jimmy Carter. And Reagan, who by now had the Republican nomination sewn up, was merely revealing his complacency and laziness. He was famously very lazy. He wanted to just spend holidays on his ranch by the mid 80s, and people around him were contemplating invoking the 25th Amendment and replacing him with George HW Bush.

What we learn is that rich people back in those days could actively ignore environmentalist issues and not suffer any consequence. My how times have changed. Oh yes.

What happened next? Reagan became president. Global 2000 was in every sense defeated and the Heritage Foundation used it as a punching bag in the following years.

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

Henderson, G. (2014). Raising the Alarm: The Cultural Origins of Climate’denialism’in America, 1970-1988. Michigan State University. History.

Also on this day: 

September 25, 1991- European Commission proposes a carbon tax…

September 25, 2003 – Bob Carr “strikes greenhouse deal” with European investors

Categories
International processes Italy

June 23, 1980 – G7 in Venice aims to sink Venice…

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1980, the G7 rolled back from previous “concern”

Together we intend to double coal production and use by early 1990. We will encourage long-term commitments by coal producers and consumers. It will be necessary to improve infrastructures in both exporting and importing countries, as far as is economically justified, to ensure the required supply and use of coal. We look forward to the recommendations of the International Coal Industry Advisory Board. They will be considered promptly. We are conscious of the environmental risks associated with increased coal production and combustion. We will do everything in our power to ensure that increased use of fossil fuels, especially coal, does not damage the environment.

23 June 1980 – G7 declaration in Venice (poor Crispin!!) 

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 year before the G7 had at least paid lip service to the problem of CO2 buildup as something to be remarked on, albeit alongside words about increasing coal production. Here at Venice, the CO2 was absent but the coal was there, bigger and badder than ever. In Venice of all places, which is exquisitely vulnerable to sea level rise. UK diplomat Crispin Tickell must have been heartbroken about it. What can you do?

What we learn is that the fine words are just that – just fine words. You can’t expect anything more of them. 

What happened next? More G7 meetings, more warm words. The next G7 at which climate is a big deal is Paris 1989. It’s not on the agenda at all in Houston in 1990 because Bush, because oil companies of course.

And then again, I think in 91 John Major makes a song and dance about it. And then, really it’s not until it’s not until 2005 Gleneagles that all the bullshit about climate change generally and CCS really gets a boost. 

(Btw, the G7 was never supposed to be a permanent thing. But he gives the leaders a chance to schmooze each other in nice settings and strut and fret, of course, they’re gonna grab it with both hands, and it’s gonna persist.)

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 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

June 23, 1997 – RIP Hermann Flohn

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

Categories
AFrica Caribbean

June 10, 1980 – Redemption Song unleashed on the world (“If you know your history…”)

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 10th, 1980, a crucial song came out, on the album Uprising.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bob Marley by this time was dying – though I don’t think he knew i – because he’d refused to have a cancerous growth on his foot dealt with. Redemption Song, what else is there to say? The deeper context is the words taken from Marcus Garvey (who had died 40 years earlier, to the day). If you know your history, you will know where you’re coming from. And that’s what this website is all about, isn’t it? If you know your history, you will know where you’re going to – that being hell in a handbasket. 

Without wanting to create pure, “noble savage” myths, there is something that white people, liberals and radicals could learn by paying close attention to people who’ve been on the pointy end of racism, imperialism, etcetera. 

What happened next, Marley died a year later. RIP – rest in power 

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 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

Categories
United States of America

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound.

Forty four years ago, on this day, May 8th, 1980, there was an ironic juxtaposition in the British science journal Nature…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the synfuels battle had just happened. And Americans, political leaders had been warned about the geopolitical consequences of CO2. Other people were saying the same stuff. 

What we learn is that CO2 was a really live issue in the late 70s, early 80s. People knew what was coming, they couldn’t say exactly when. And history is full of these delicious little moments, I guess.

What happened next, Exxon gave up on renewables and being vaguely responsible and all the rest of it and switched to denial very effectively. American politicians continued to be aware of CO2. There were congressional hearings, Senate hearings and then after 1985 it really picked up steam. 

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 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

Categories
United States of America

April 18, 1980 Ad Hoc Panel on Economic and Social Aspects of C02 increase reports back

Forty four years ago, on this day, April 18th, 1980, an Ad Hoc Panel of heavy hitters warned that there were not going to be ANY easy fixes for the carbon dioxide build-up issue. How right they were.

“We must recognize now that increases in energy consumption using fossil fuels will have increasingly undesirable climatic effects” NAS panel on “Economic and Social Aspects of Carbon Dioxide Increase” in letter to Dr Philip Handler, its president Cited by Speth in Global Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide Problem ..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the various ad hoc panels and groupings of Department of Energy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, IIASA etc were all pondering “well, what happens if the carbon dioxide emissions do keep climbing and the world does get warmer, what impact will that have geo politically and socially, economically?” 

What we always learn From the period of the late 70s we knew enough to be worried. And some people were worried. But idiots don’t worry(looking at you Ronald Reagan). 

What happened next? Growing concern largely came to a grinding halt when Reagan took office (It will be interesting to try to figure out who organised that 1982 conference on “carbon dioxide, science and consensus” and why).

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 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Categories
United States of America

 April 14, 1980 – Carter’s scientist, Frank Press, pushes back against CEQ report

Forty four years ago, on this day, April 14th, 1980, the US chief scientific advisor was not happy about people bigging up the carbon dioxide threat…

The following April, Frank Press, the head of the OSTP, reacted angrily to a draft of a Council on Environmental Quality report that he felt greatly overemphasized the dangers and underplayed the uncertainty. “At this moment of great national trauma with respect to energy, inflation, and foreign affairs, I believe it is a serious disservice to the public to raise widespread concern about an issue with hazards, that are, at the moment, so speculative and uncertain.”27

Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate Author(s): Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel
IN: Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 40, No. 3
(Summer 2010), pp. 318-349

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American scientists had been banging the drum for a while. And Frank Press had been on the receiving end of this, as Jimmy Carter‘s Chief Scientific Adviser. There’s a memo from 1977. There was the Global 2000 report underway. 

This, from the Council on Environmental Quality is a separate issue. The CEQ had been set up in 1970 under Nixon. I think Press was probably worried that too much attention was being paid to what was still possibly regardable as a speculative issue, despite the previous year’s Charney Report. 

It was an election year, and anything that could pin Carter as a nervous ninny was to be avoided. This was difficult since the man had already sat there dressed in the cardigan and given a “malaise speech.” But that’s the context. 

What we learn is that scientific advice is never just about the science, especially from a political appointee. 

What happened next? 

Well, I didn’t know how much influence Press had. The CEQ report did finally come out that maybe it was ready before January 1981 when it was released. Maybe it was held back until after the election?

The CEQ report was released in January 1981. But it was a dead duck because the Reagan administration was about to take office. 

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 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

April 14, 1964 – RIP Rachel Carson

Categories
United States of America

February 29, 1980 – Texaco and Exxon talk about setting up a greenhouse taskforce…

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 29th, 1980,

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered “for consideration” the idea that “an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980. 

Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a “potential area” for research and development that called for it to “‘Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.’ This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Exxon had known about the climate issue, and had been offering to do further research more recently than that. And obviously, outfits like Texaco and Exxon were in talks about what could be done; “Oh, I know, let’s set up a workshop”

What we learn

Corporates have their pressures and it is akin to that MacMillan Manoeuvre thing, but it’s also a necessary first step. So what we learn here is that oil companies were on it in the late 70s, early 80s. In the same period that Carter was talking about Global 2000.

And they didn’t speak up when Reagan came in and started backpedalling/ignoring this stuff (James Watt, Anne Gorsuch) because it helped them take their foot off the gas (or maybe, more accurately, put their foot on the gas).

 What happened next Exxon changed its tune. And then in 1988, began serious resistance to the climate 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.

Categories
Austria

February 4, 1980 – IIASA taskforce on Climate and Society

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1980, smart people in the orbit of the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis began another of their meetings.

The Task Force meeting on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, 4-6 February 1980, was the third major event in climate  studies at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IASSA had been scratching its head about climate for a few years now. In 1975 it had hosted Nordhaus and others on the economics of mitigation. It had famously also supported the work of Cesare Marchetti on carbon capture and storage. It had held a workshop in 78 and it was doing energy studies stuff. So what we see here is not an early “outlier” but a continuation of an existing process with Americans and Europeans working cheek by jowl. And don’t forget, the First World Climate Conference had taken place in February of the previous year… 

What we learn is that from the early mid 70s onwards, intelligent and/or high status, well-connected people in the scientific advice giving game were alive to the issues.

What happened next? Kellogg wrote a book that was published on the first of January 1981. Other people were beavering away on the same issues including Schneider. There’s also the Great Adaptation and so forth.

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

Ausubel, J.H. & Biswas, A.K. (1980). Climatic Constraints and Human Activities; Proceedings of a Task Force on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, February 4-6, 1980. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-026721-0

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/1222/

Also on this day: 

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

February 4, 1993 – Australian business versus the future (spoiler: business wins)

Feb 4, 2002- Global Climate Coalition calls it a day (“Mission accomplished”)