Tag: 1980

Categories
Australia

September 17, 1980 – Canberra Times reports “fossil fuels changing climate”

Forty five  years ago, on this day, September 17th, 1980, the Canberra Times ran a story on page 7 “Fossil fuels changing climate.”  Read it and weep.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 various places (I can speak for the US, UK, Germany) research was underway and far-sighted politicians were beginning to worry. In 1977 the Canberra Times had a page 5 story “Cities “could be flooded”. While the First World Climate Conference hadn’t delivered a particularly strong statement, nonetheless, concern was there.

The specific context was that CSIRO scientists had been beavering away. One of them, Graeme Pearman, had been involved in 1977 in various studies in the US and Europe, and had returned and held a seminar. The Australian Academy of Science and others had sponsored a workshop on Phillip Island in November 1978.

What I think we can learn from this – don’t expect governments of societies built on extraction and export to be enthused when you tell them that there is trouble ahead if they don’t change their ways.

What happened next

They were not enthused. They did not, in fact, change their ways. The trouble is arriving.  But it’s early early days of the Fafocene.

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: 

September 17, 1954 – nuclear electricity will be too cheap to meter – All Our Yesterdays

September 17, 1969 – trying to spin Vietnam, Moynihan starts warning about #climate change

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

September 17, 2002 – UK Government announces feasibility study into Carbon Capture and Storage

Categories
Antarctica

September 1, 1980 – “Soft Underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” article submitted

Forty five years ago, on this day, September 1st, 1980, Terry Hughes, glaciologist, submits The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet” to Journal of Glaciology,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 338ppm. 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 weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet | Journal of Glaciology | Cambridge Core

The broader context was that the melting of ice caps was one of the “indicators” for awareness of climate change. 

The specific context was John Mercer’s article had come out in Nature in January 1978 .

What I think we can learn from this is that we had plenty of advanced warning.

What happened next – the emissions kept climbing. They were always going to climb a bit, but they are now 60% higher than they were in 1990, when we all agreed that Something Must Be Done.

See also the novel Icequake

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

Hughes TJ. The weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Journal of Glaciology. 1981;27(97):518-525. doi:10.3189/S002214300001159X

Also on this day: 

September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Categories
United States of America

August 4, 1980 – “Towards a Troubled 21st Century” reports Time Magazine

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 4th, 1980, Time Magazine was reporting on the “Global 2000” report put out by the Carter Administration.

As compared with such doomsday forecasts as that of the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, which predicted mass starvation, political chaos, and general catastrophe by the middle of the next century, the study is cautiously restrained, even muted, giving its warnings more impact in a way…. 

Less predictable, but no less frightening: a possible global heating from the growing volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—expected to rise a third over preindustrial levels by century’s end from continued burning of fossil fuels.

“Toward a Troubled 21st Century: A Presidential Panel Finds the Global Outlook Extremely Bleak,” Time Magazine (4 August 1980): p. 54

Environment: Toward a Troubled 21st Century | TIME

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 339ppm. 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 warnings had been coming for a long time. Time had covered it in 1953, after all.

The specific context was that the Global 2000 report, begun shortly after Jimmy Carter became President, was a pretty good stab at the problems ahead. Of course it was met with a fierce and stupid backlash by fierce and stupid people at the Heritage Foundation etc.

What I think we can learn from this – any effort to raise the alarm will be met with the cry of “alarmist”, no matter how credentialled, sober and cautious you are.

What happened next – in September 1980 it was obvious that Ronald Reagan, republican candidate for the presidency, wasn’t even AWARE of the Global 2000 report. And the rest? It’s history and emissions, until the latter mean there’s none of the former. 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.

Also on this day: 

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

August 4, 2004 – Australian farmers nervous about climate change. Ignored – All Our Yesterdays

August 4, 2008 – Police pepper spray #climate campers

Categories
International processes Italy

June 22, 1980 – G7 meeting in Venice

Forty-five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1980, the Venice G7 meeting happened. Check out this quote by Thomas Schelling.

My first serious acquaintance with the “Carbon Dioxide Problem,” as it was then called, was in 1978. The Chancellor of Germany [Helmut Schmidt] had put the issue on the agenda of a “Summit” to be held in Venice, and the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences for advice. (I believe the Chancellor’s motivation may have been that his nuclear energy programs were being attacked by greens, and he wanted to publicize the perils of coal.) I, utterly innocent of the subject, was made chairman of a committee of twelve, and had to educate myself in a hurry. It is pertinent to report here that among the very few people I found who had a broad background in the subject were Jesse Ausubel and Bill Clark, both IlASA alumni, and of course Roger Revelle, well known to IIASA. I never, at the time, discovered any other research organization that had done integrated work on the subject. Individuals worked on aspects of the subject, at numerous locations; only at IlASA did the topic appear to have organized itself

Schelling T. 1995 Research by Accident. IIASA Working Paper

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meetings had begun in 1975 with a one-off that was so enjoyed it became an annual thing. In 1979, in Tokyo, they’d even name-checked carbon dioxide build-up.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in the late 1970s for action to begin. That it did not is down primarily to Thatcher, and then to Reagan.

What happened next is that in 1985 the G7 again mentioned “climatic change” in passing, but it would be 1988 before the issue broke through, thanks to the long, hot summer and then James Hansen sticking his head above the parapet and saying that it was time to stop waffling…

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 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Norway

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1980, the oil companies CLEARLY knew what was coming. And not just those Evil American ones – also the nice cuddly progressive [Er, is this right? Ed] European ones….

One example of this was a talk given in 1980 [on March 21] by Finn Lied, the chair of the Statoil board, at a seminar about Norway’s energy supply towards the year 2000. Lied, who had also been the minister of industry during the establishment of Statoil in 1971–72, stressed the ‘social cost’ of the ‘CO2 problem’. His main concern, however, was not the effects that increasing carbon dioxide levels would have on nature and human life but what it meant for the oil industry’s future prospects. ‘Luckily’, Lied concluded, the emissions problem was ‘a very long-term problem that no one really dared to begin think about’.11 

Nissen, A. 2021. A greener shade of black? Statoil, the Norwegian government and climate change,1990—2005. Scandinavian Journal of History, Volume 46, 2021 – Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2021.1876757

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 429ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had happened in Geneva in February 1979. In the U the Charney report had happened. There were other reports coming out saying, “hey, carbon dioxide build up is going to be a real problem.”  If your day job was energy provision, you knew.

What I think we can learn from this is that people who knew about the problem and knew that their industry, their country, was helping to cause it, were, in 1980, sanguine, saying that proof was a long way off and they could simply kick the can down the road.

But eventually you run out of road, and the can gets bigger and you start to break your toe. That metaphor could be overused. Anyhoo. 

What happened next

Ten years later, Norway introduced a carbon tax, and Statoil started work on its tax dodge of Sleipner Field. 

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: 

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Germany

March 3, 1980 – International Workshop on the energy climate Interactions in Germany

Forty five years ago, on this day, March 3rd, 1980,

International Workshop on the energy-climate Interactions, March 3-7, 1980, Munster, Germany 

here’s on research about what we now call carbon capture and storage…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the German climatological scientific elite, people like Herman Flohn and others, including IASSAere well into the energy climate society question in the late second half of the 1970s. Tis workshop is part of all that work. 

What I think we can learn from this is that by the late 70s, people whose job it was to think about energy systems and their impact on “the environment”  were pretty sure there were interesting times ahead. Now, of course,  cynics will say “well, they’re paid to speculate on possible problems so they can get funding for workshops in “nice places”, and advance their careers.” And this is, of course, perfectly circular and is undisprovable. It also  ignores the fact that physics exists, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that was established in the 1860s, 120 years before this workshop. 

What happened next All through the 1980s up until ‘85 you see these sorts of workshops  – scientists meeting, scratching their heads, exchanging ideas, becoming more and more sure. Tthen Villach really is the starting gun, and you can say that it wasn’t science, it was the political opportunity structure, because ozone was giving them kudos. And power, social power. Or you can say it was pure play “the science”, (see Wendy Franz).

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: 

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

Categories
United States of America

January 29, 1980 -Exxon HQ tells its Vice-Presidents that CO2 build-up is “a potentially serious problem”

On this day, 45 years ago, the head of Exxon’s Science and Technology Department laid out some basic facts. We know this thanks to the sterling investigative work of Inside Climate News. You can read the whole thing here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that since 1977, Exxon scientists had been helping educate the C-suite about what Exxon’s product (i.e. fossil fuels) might be doing to the atmosphere, and helping oceanographers with their research.

What we learn is that, to coin a phrase “Exxon knew.”

What happened next Exxon kept supporting climate research for a couple of years. In the mid-80s it did a reverse ferret and became the denial generating and supporting scamp we all know and love.

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, obv

Also on this day: 

January 29, 2001 – President Bush announces “energy taskforce” #TaskforceAnnouncementGrift

January 29, 2004 – John Daly, Australian skeptic, dies

January 29, 2006 – Attempts to gag James Hansen revealed

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