Tag: 1981

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science Scientists United States of America

May 1, 1981 – scorching editorial about Energy and Climate received at Climatic Change

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 1st, 1981, a scorching editorial was submitted to a new-ish academic journal (I know, hold the front page, right?). The writer reviews some recent studies and says, well…

“Still, these studies of energy and climate might lull us into concluding that we can put off worrying seriously about man-made climate change for a half century or so. For both physical and political reasons, both conclusions may be terribly wrong.”

John Perry Energy and Climate guest editorial received 1st May 1981 – https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02423215.pdf?pdf=button

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425.85ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was clear consensus among scientists that there was a problem. They had done their level best to get politicians alert, interested, concerned. And it was fairly clear by the time this editorial was submitted, that they had failed, that there would be at least four years of ignorance and resistance ahead, and that the clock was running out.

What we learn from this is that you have to know enough to be able to contextualise a given document. And the first time I read this, I thought, “wow, gee, this guy was prescient.” And, you know, I still think that he was smart. But now that I know how much was going on in the background, with the Global 2000 report, which I was only dimly aware, Council on Environmental Quality, Charney, Department of Energy, AAAS, the European moves, it was clear that this guy was writing at a time when lots of other people were also pointing at climate change and going “shit shit shit”. Other context would be that the journal Climatic Change was set up by Stephen Schneider. Anyway…

 What happened next? We didn’t take action, the emissions kept rising. It would be 1988 before the alarm bell was heard widely enough. 

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: 

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

May 1, 1996 – US Congressman says climate research money is “money down a rat hole”

Categories
United States of America

April 17, 1981 – David Burns writes in New York Times about trouble ahead

Forty three years ago, on this day, April 17th, 1981, the alert was sounded. Again.

WASHINGTON – The atmosphere’s carbon-dioxide content has increased 7 percent since 1958, when systematic measurement began. Scientists fear that the continued use of fossil fuel and continued land-clearing and destruction of forests will raise the quantity of CO2 to double the pre-industrial level. We fear that if the theoreticians of climate are correct, sometime in the next 100 years there will be a virtually irreversible shift in the Earth’s climatic pattern; it would be on a scale unprecedented in human history. Such a ”greenhouse effect” could lead to great disruption; there might be benefits, but also costs, such as widespread hunger.,,,

17 April 1981 OpEd in NYT by David Burns of AAAS https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/17/opinion/climate-and-co-2.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is that the push for awareness of action on carbon dioxide had been steadily increasing from the late 70s. You’d had the National Academy of Sciences report energy and climate in 1977. You’d had the Charney report in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference. You’d had the Global 2000 report. And more recently, the Council on Environmental Quality. There were meetings being organised by NASA IEA, WTF WMO, UNEP, etc. And so although it may seem and James Hansen was beginning to make a noise, and although therefore it may seem early, and the first time I saw this article I thought, “wow, that’s early,” it really isn’t. 

What we learn is that this issue has been with us for 45 years, really, as a public policy issue. I mean, yes, it exploded in public attention in 1988. But policymakers were scratching their heads about it in the early 80s, or rather, the decent ones were. The thugs and buffoons were being focused on being buffoons, useful idiots for their lords and masters. 

What happened next, it would be another four years before the flow of concern about climate in the problem stream really began to kick off and another three before it breached the dams. 

David Burns was there at the AAAS meeting in Washington DC with James Hansen et al in January 1982

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 17, 1993 – Paul Keating versus the idea of a carbon tax…

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

Categories
United States of America

January 15, 1981 – US calls for effort to combat global environmental problems

Forty-three years ago, on this day, January 15th 1981, as the Reagan gang were about to take over, there was a plaintive plea…

Shabecoff, Philip. “U.S. Calls for Efforts To Combat Global Environmental Problems.” New York Times, January 15, 1981.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context 

This is the last throw of the dice for the Council on Environmental Quality under Jimmy Carter. It had done some good stuff. The CEQ staffer Gus Speth had spent the last four years trying to push climate up the agenda. There had also been the Global 2000 report, which was produced by a separate body. Carter had lost the November 1980 election to Reagan who literally does not give a damn about conserving anything but is keen for ever greater exploitation.

What we can learn from this is that we knew what needed to be done. And we kept electing people who didn’t want to do it because they appealed to our ego, or our greed or something. 

What happened next? Reagan came in and shat all over climate action, environment action. See James Watt, etc, etc. And the emissions kept climbing and it was 1988 before presidential candidates were forced to speak about it. (There’s a more interesting story of Republican senators like John Chafee and so forth, actually understanding what was at stake in the mid-80s.) And the journo who wrote this story, Shabecoff? He also wrote the June 24th 1988 story on Hansen.

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: 

Jan 15, 1971 – greenwash before it was called greenwash #propaganda

January 15, 1990 – A political lunch with enormous #climate consequences for Australia #PathDependency #Denial  

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

January 1, 1981- “Climate Change And Society” published

Forty three years ago, on this day, January 1st 1981,

 Climate Change and the Society: Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

was published.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that American and European climate scientists had been pretty sure from the mid-1970s onwards serious warming of the planet was coming thanks to the additional carbon dioxide that was being put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. I think they were also pretty sure that we wouldn’t, as a species, do anything serious to reduce our emissions. How right they were. And so the puzzle began, well, what impacts will come not just physical impacts, but sea level rise, heat, but how will that play out? How will society be affected? And how will society respond? One of the authors, William Kellogg had been in and around climate issues, carbon dioxide issues specifically, for a good 10 years. The other, Schware, had written this in 1980. And the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis (IIASA) had been holding workshops about this sort of thing. So the book, although it seems very, very prescient, emerged as all books do, from strands of academic – or intellectual, for the two are not the same – work. 

What we can learn is that smart people could see this coming and couldn’t see a way of stopping it. I think for what it’s worth, there probably were ways of stopping it, but it would have required a fundamental rethink of what resistance to capital looks like. And also how those on the progressive left – or whatever it wants to call itself – organised themselves and each other, how they measured success, etc. None of that happened then. None of it is happening now. None of it is likely to happen.

What happened next – The Republican and conservative administrations of Reagan and Thatcher kept doing everything they could to keep environmental issues down the agenda. With Reagan who kind of overdid it, leading to a backlash (see Dunlap and McCright 2010). And with Thatcher, there was the persistent issues of acid rain and then ozone until finally, in 1988, even she had to concede that the greenhouse effect was a thing. Kellogg lived a long time, long enough to see most of its predictions come true.

In June of 1982 Kellogg and Schware had an article in Foreign Affairs, the major US foreign policy journal.

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

Schware, R. 1980. Toward A Political Analysis Of The Consequences Of A World Climate Change Produced By Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5415330

Also on this day: 

January 1 1958 – control the weather before the commies do!

January 1, 1988 – President Reagan reluctantly signs “Global Climate Protection Act” #CreditClaiming

January 1 2007 James Hansen – “If we fail to act, we end up with a different planet”

Categories
Uncategorized United States of America

December 2, 1981 – “Is the world getting warmer?” (YES)

Forty two years ago, on this day, December 2, 1981, a not-particularly good article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor

Starr, Douglas, 1981.. “Is the world getting warmer?”. Christian Science Monitor December 2

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the https://allouryesterdays.info/2023/07/23/july-24-1980-global-2000-report-released/Global 2000 report had been released. And in the dying days of the Carter administration, in January 1981 the Committee on Environmental Quality’s Gus Speth had released other stuff. Other people were releasing things as well. And this is not as good an article, I think, as the Wall Street Journal one from August of 1980. That’s a “must.”

What I think we can learn from this

There was plenty of awareness about climate change in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

What happened next

There was a pivotal meeting of scientists in Villach, in September 1985. The scientists started pushing hard. In 1988 the issue broke through…

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
France International processes

Feb 26, 1981 – Science writer warns readers about the greenhouse in the Guardian….

Forty two years ago, on this day, February 26, 1981,  science writer John Gribbin had a long detailed piece in the Guardian about the state of the art of climate science, and the geopolitical implications, based on a briefing for Earthscan. “Carbon dioxide, the climate and man“ 

Read it and weep…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Carter administration had just ended. The willingness of US politicians to even talk about the climate problem would plummet, and efforts like the “Global 2000” report were on the scrap heap. (The workshop Gribbin mentions will have been organised before Reagan won the November election.)

What I think we can learn from this

We knew a lot quite early. By the late 1970s there was momentum growing.  The First World Climate Conference could have been consequential, but people like John Mason (Met Office supremo) played a blocking role.  Still, salvageable, if Thatcher and Reagan hadn’t… ach, we’d have pissed it against the wall and still been in the same omni-messes now, let’s be honest.

The lack of any digital record (I could find) about the carbon dioxide workshop of the IEA and OECD is intriguing, and makes me want to know who was there!….

What happened next

It took another seven years for the issue to climb high enough up the agenda for it to be too costly for so-called “conservative” politicians to ignore it.

References

Gribbin, J. 1981. When the climate becomes too hot to handle. The Guardian, February 26

Categories
Australia Coal

February 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Forty two  years ago, on this day, February, 25, 1981, Stan Collard, National Party senator (yes, you read that right) worried about climate change aloud, in parliament.

“Our steaming coal exports are mounting. I have no objection to that, except for one thing. I ask: Just how much further can we go with burning these masses of coal and pouring the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere? One thing that we are not sure of, of course, is the ultimate greenhouse effect that it will have on this continent, maybe even in our lifetime. I think we must consider quite reasonably just where to cry halt to the burning of masses of steaming coal and where we can bring in one of the cleanest methods of power generation, that is, nuclear power generation, until something cleaner and better comes along. I reject the suggestion that the Government is lacking in its planning, but I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.”

Senator Collard, 25 February 1981 – Hansard..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

By the early 1980s anyone who read a proper newspaper (The Canberra Times, for example) would have been aware of the potential problem. See for example November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities” or September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra… If you were pro-nuclear (and iirc Collard was), then the visit of nuclear guru Alvin Weinberg to Australia in 1979 was probably significant.  The problem was ‘in the air’, basically.

What I think we can learn from this

The National Party used to have intelligent serious people in it. Now, it seems, not so much.

What happened next

Collard was ignored Obviously.

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

Categories
United Kingdom

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

On this day, December 8 in 1981, 

As the excellent Carbon Brief has it – 

“On the evening of Tuesday, 8 December, 1981, the UK’s only commercial TV channel, ITV, broadcast an hour-long documentary called “Warming Warning”.

It was among the earliest occasions – possibly the earliest – anywhere in the world where a major broadcaster aired a documentary dedicated solely to the topic of human-caused climate change.

The documentary, which was made by the now-defunct Thames Television, has sat in the archives largely unseen ever since. Until now. “

Read more here   https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change

Here’s a good clip

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 340ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The IEA had held a meeting in about greenhouse gases in February. In September Tom Wigley gave a speech at a Uranium Institute seminar in London. Meanwhile, James Hansen et al. had published a paper in August, in Science (and the Reagan Administration had punished him by withdrawing already-agreed funds). Presumably these were a major push for the documentary…

Why this matters. 

“We” “knew”. Our problem is not information. Our problem is power – who has it, in whose interests they wield it, how they are monitored, challenged etc.

What happened next?

It was only 7 years later, in 1988, that the  issue “broke through”, and politicians had to take a position on it.