Tag: 1981

Categories
Uncategorized

February 19, 1981 – Nature article “Greenhouse Effect: Act Now, Not Later”

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 19th, 1981, Nature publishes an article, by Wendy Barnaby, about an Earthscan meeting the previous week in Stockholm,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the OECD and the IEA –  and other bodies – were beginning to hold meetings about energy and environment and especially climate, in the context of the second oil shock the tail end of the 70s, thanks to the overthrow of the Shah. 

The other context was that the United States Council on Environmental Quality had been trying to get things moving, but now Reagan was present with his goons, (and see the end of the article before the greenhouse one in the screengrab above! –  it all looked a little unsure about what would happen. 

And this is also in the context of the First World Climate Conference, which had taken place in February of 1979, Nature had an interesting relationship with carbon dioxide build up, shall we say, with its erstwhile editor, John Maddox, being a vehement opponent of the theory up until and including 1987 (he seems to have climbed down from this by 1995).

What I think we can learn from this is that in the late 70s, early 80s, there was a flurry of activity, awareness, and slowly growing consensus. 

What happened next There was a flurry of reporting in New Scientist, the FT etc. A documentary, “Warming Warning”, by Richard Broadwas broadcast the end of that year, in part inspired by this report in Nature and other accounts.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

February 19, 1981 – Ecology Party meeting in Wells warns of carbon dioxide build-up

On this day 44 years ago, (February 19, 1981) two newspapers (the Shepton Mallet Journal and the Central Somerset Gazette) reported on a meeting of the Ecology Party (now known as the Green Party). The topic? Carbon dioxide build-up and its implications.

IN THE time it takes to read this sentence, 3,000 more tons of carbon dioxide will have been released into the atmosphere.

This was just one of the astonishing statistics quoted by Mr. Fred Clarke. guest speaker at a meeting of Wells Constituency Ecology Party at the Good Earth Cafe, Wells..

He showed that pollution was more than a mere nuisance; it was a threat to the natural systems on which we depended for survival.

He demonstrated how most pollution was caused by our everyday actions rather than Torrey Canyon-like disasters. and suggested practical ways to avoid pollution. [continues].

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was that the previous year the UK government had decided not to keep close tabs on carbon dioxide build-up (there were some scientists urging closer engagement).  But the question of carbon dioxide build-up was well understood in environmental circles.

What we learn is that the Ecology Party was doing this sort of thing a lot. They knew what was coming.What happened next was that the scientific certainty that there was Serious Trouble Ahead grew, and in 1988 Margaret Thatcher was finally, nine years after she had first been briefed on the topic and had dismissed it, forced to acknowledge its existence.

Categories
United States of America

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

Forty four years ago, on this day, January 15th, 1981,

The Carter Administration called today for a major, sustained national and international effort to cope with what it said were ”increasingly critical global resource, environmental and population problems.”

A report prepared jointly for the President by the State Department and the Council on Environmental Quality warned that excessive world population growth, dwindling resources and environmental degradation represent serious threats to the political and economic security of the United States.

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

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the people with a green tinge in Carter’s administration, mostly, but not entirely, huddled in the Council for Economic Quality, had tried to get environmental issues to the fore, despite being told by Carter’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Frank Press to ignore the carbon dioxide issue. 

Carter had lost the November, 1980 election comprehensively. Everyone knew that Reagan was not a fan of environmental issues. He wasn’t even aware of the Global 2000 report, and therefore this was a desperate last effort, perhaps to say to other nations “hold on. We’ll be back in hopefully four years.” It would, of course, be a bit longer than that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that policy entrepreneurs within these systems have to try to save the furniture, that you can never look at an individual news item without thinking about the broader context. 

What happened next

 Reagan’s goons went too hard too fast, and there was pushback against them, so people like James Watt and Gail and Gorsuch became hate figures and had to be removed, and as per McCright and Dunlap, what the right have largely learned is to keep the edifice and maybe even some of the rhetoric, if you like, but to gut everything from the inside in terms of funding. I. And powers and so forth and so it continues down unto this day you. 

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:

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1981 – Sydney Morning Herald reprints CSIRO material about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1981, the Sydney Morning Herald ran some nice factual stuff about carbon dioxide.

4 June 1981 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on CSIRO, Ecos magazine

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1170%2C681961

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ecos, the CSIRO magazine had done a feature on CO2 build up and that made for a good cheap syndication section in the Sydney Morning Herald. Remember that by this point the occasional article about the changing climate and CO2 buildup was not unheard of. And in late 1978, for example, there had even been a television news item on the subject.

What we learn is that there is a recognised pathway: from the specialist press to the mainstream press, articles get picked up. Because there is space between the adverts that has to be filled. And the more cheaply you can do that, the more your profits. 

 What happened next is that a couple of years later climate change got another boost because of the US Environmental Protection Agency report that was front page in the Australian. And of course a few months after this article in November of 1981 the Office of National Assessments did its secret report…

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 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United Kingdom

May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward

Forty-three years ago, on this day, May 31st 1981, the British public intellectual Barbara Ward died.

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

Barbara Ward, well you can read her Wikipedia page here, had been banging on about development, albeit from a relatively high Tory patrician, paternalistic view and also environmental issues. She was an early popularizer of spaceship Earth. Crucially, so the climate story in 1972, she had co authored with Rene Dubois a book called Only One Earth, about Stockholm conference and environment and it has mentioned CO2 buildup on such and such pages. 

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 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

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..