Categories
Academia United States of America

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1982

Look for a file marked “carbon dioxide – climate change” and perhaps to your amazement you will read in this publication details of Reagan’s two-day gathering titled Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus, September 19-23, 1982. President Reagan’s right hand man and head of his Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Frederick A. Koomanoff, started the meeting and wrote into the record and with President Reagan’s and Congress’ full backing ..

“The Executive Branch and the Congress clearly regard the CO2 issue as one deserving serious, sustained and systematic investigation. The credit for this lies in the good science and solid research that has and is being performed.”

Will the wonders of that man ever stop? Reagan’s right hand man wasn’t all, he came at the urgency of the CO2 crisis two-fisted when his left hand man chipped in with even more in affirmation of the joint executive and congressional commitment to work to resolving climate change. That left hand was James C. Greene, Science Consultant to the Congress’ Committee on Science and Technology and he was the whip at the meeting there to make sure the attending scientists were fully engaged with the urgency of this topic.

“A veil hangs ominously over the earth, from pole to pole, over all the continents, and over the oceans,” Greene noted, adding, “To a significant degree, man has put it there. It is called simply enough, carbon dioxide pollution. If today’s worst case scenario becomes tomorrow’s reality, it will be too late to reverse the atmospheric buildup or to ameliorate the severe adverse human and environmental impacts of this pollutant. However, if we quickly develop a sufficient research program to provide the necessary answers, there may still be time to rend the veil or at least keep it from reaching the dimensions of disaster. This is a major goal of the Federal carbon dioxide research program and it requires the cooperation of scientists, governmental officials, and the citizens.”

President Reagan through his carefully scripted right and left hand men urged the scientists participating in the conference to not merely be scientists but rather to become energetic advocates, as they revealed in the prepared statement,

“Involvement of scientists at all levels of public policy development is absolutely necessary if correct decisions are to be made — C.P. Snow expressed it best in his book Science and Government, when he wrote, ‘I believe scientists have something to give which our kind of society is desperately short of … that is foresight.’ That is why I want scientists active in all the levels of government. You must provide the information and the foresight — no one else can. The carbon dioxide issue is a case in point,” and then concluded, “Until recent years, scientists were not even certain if the carbon dioxide buildup would increase or decrease the Earth’s temperature. Now, the controversy is, what is of impact and how long before it will be felt worldwide?”

So Dear Republicans fellow countrymen and women of every sort, remember the teachings of one of your heroes who knew what was important and stop with the blustering nonsense. Yes I know that the cost of doing the right thing is today being spun into a spectacular trillion dollar budget figure and comes with a cabal of folks all too eager to be appointed bankers, or is that banksters, of that money but we have a solution to that carpetbagger problem.

http://russgeorge.net/2015/12/09/dear-mr-president-please-return-to-your-old-haunts/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ronald Reagan was being a complete prick on all things environmental. Or rather the people who would put the meat-puppet Reagan into Office were being pricks, They had put James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in with the goal of destroying the Department of the Interior and the EPA. But these two asshats were making enemies too quickly and not making good results.

Someone came up with a bright idea of holding a conference which I know virtually nothing about- whose idea, what purpose what invite list but anyway, so I am speculating a bit.

What we learn. It happened and it probably acted as a safety valve so that some of the more right leaning willing to go along with whatever they were told for the sake of their careers type scientists could point to that event and say “it’s not entirely fair to accuse the Reagan administration of doing nothing.” These sorts of events or documents, useful earthing devices so that the buildup of static electricity can be dissipated harmlessly. Kind of like a lightning rod.

What happened next. Reagan continued to be an asshat, albeit an increasingly senile one (there were rumours that some around him were considering invoking the 25th Amendment).

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 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
United States of America

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” 

Forty years ago, on this day, May 28th 1982, the biologists were at it again,

“Duke University in Durham, North Carolina on August 4-5, 1977 for “Workshop on Anticipated Plant Responses to Global Carbon Dioxide Enrichment”…. Five years later, on May 23-28, 1982, a similar “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity” was held in Athens, Georgia.”

(Idso, 1982: 72- 73)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had five years previously been a conference on essentially, “rising carbon dioxide levels will be great for plant growth. So there’s nothing else to worry about.” And this was a sequel, I don’t know why it happened. Maybe they had some money leftover or something or they just wanted a jolly and to catch up with old friends.

What we learn is that as late as 2023. “CO2 is plant food and therefore nothing to worry about” is still being circulated by intellectual giants like Richard Tice, of Reform UK (a private company masquerading as a political party). I mean, it’s just embarrassing for our species. But there you have it. 

What happened next Sherwood Idso has been the go-to guy for denial and lukewarm-ism for a long time.

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 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 1988. 

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 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
United States of America

January 4,1982 – Global 2000 Report updated

Forty two ago, on this day, January 4th 1982, a symposium “The Global 2000 Report to the President: The Authors Update Their Work”, was held in Washington DC.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that under Jimmy Carter, the Global 2000 report had been produced. See here and here. And now two years on, waiting months on, though producing an update, and presumably tying it to the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at which Jim Hansen, Herman Flohn, and others were to speak

What we can learn is that determined people have been trying to keep the issue of environmental degradation/destruction/humanity’s Death Wish, on the political agenda. And to put it back on the political agenda when it gets “de-agendized.” Tried tirelessly, for a very long time; that they did not succeed is not really their fault. Or maybe it is, I don’t know. And they were clever in trying to combine voices and build a sense of momentum, a “one two” punch as it were. And you see this again later, in June of 1998, and 1988, when Hansen gives testimony, just before the Toronto conference on the Changing Atmosphere.

What happened next, I think they were largely ignored at the time. Reagan was deep into his sabre-rattling and Cold War bullshit (that almost got us all fried, btw). Global 2000 people kept trying and were met in 1983 with “get your retaliation in first” tactics from our friends at the Heritage Foundation. And it would be another six years before climate change really, really 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.

References

Dearborn, N. W. (1983). Global 2000: Radar for the ship of state. Futures, 15(2), 111-125

Also on this day: 

January 4, 1977 – US politician introduces #climate research legislation

Categories
United Kingdom

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

Forty one years ago, on this day, August 17, 1982, UK diplomat Crispin Tickell warned us all we might get crispy…

Tickell, C. (1982) The experiment that could become too hot to handle. The Times, August 17, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Tickell had been beavering away on the climate issue for seven years by this stage. And earlier in the year, James Hansen and Herman Flohn had made some pretty big bold statements at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington DC that had been reported in the New York Times. The IEA and the OECD, were continuing to hold workshops, so was the UNEP. And for Tickell the issue couldn’t wouldn’t go away because he understood what was at stake. Bless him. 

What I think we can learn from this

Elites really knew. And didn’t act. Some “elites” (the upper crust is just a bunch of crumbs sticking together).

What happened next

Tickell and others (John Houghton etc) finally got through to Thatcher in 1988. She gave her speech and that made it possible to talk about the issue/impossible not to…

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
Australia

Australian films “The Coal Question” and “What to do about C02” – interview with Russell Porter

The Australian documentary maker Russell Porter kindly agreed to an interview about two of his films for the CSIRO, “the Coal Question” (1982) and “What to do about C02” (1984).

The short version (though you really would benefit from reading the whole thing) is this – we knew. We really did. Skilled communicators got hold of scientists who knew how to communicate.

The Coal Question: (watch here)

Can you remember, did Film Unit ‘pitch’ to energy institute’, or did the energy unit come knocking and say ‘we’d like you to do a film about coal’

1. The film project selection system worked in various ways. In some cases we would identify a subject that looked interesting and then discuss it with the relevant experts, and if it was broadcastable in theme and scope, we would talk perhaps to the ABC Science commissioning editors. In other cases, the Institutes (or Divisions as they became) within CSIRO would express interest in having a film made about their work, and my job would be to liaise with the scientists involved and prepare a script, which was then sent back in a few stages to be revised and refined. I was always keen to avoid them looking too “institutional” and boring. 

In this case I think the energy Institute expressed an interest in publicising their work, I developed the script and, once it was approved, it formed the basic blueprint for making the film. Shooting and post-production on 16 mm was expensive, so we used to aim for a ratio of about ten to one (of material shot to the final edited length), so pre-scripting was essential. (Ratios these days are often 50 or 100 to one – false economy because the saving by shooting on inexpensive digital video are lost in lengthy post-production, and the craft and quality elements that come from careful preparation also suffer.)

Where did your information re: climate come from (did you already know Graeme Pearman from, say, the 1980 climate conference he organised)

2. The film unit was located in the old Information and Media (or some such) Centre in Albert St East Melbourne. which also housed a large library full of journals and editorial departments for specialist publications. It also housed the very experimental computing research division (where they were trying out a kind of prototype internet/electronic data-base sharing system, in collaboration with Harvard and Oxford). I tried to keep on top of interesting-looking developments or program as they came through the internal bulletins and publications like New Scientist (which I still subscribe to). CSIRO was a big and highly respected organisation in those days, with over 7,000 very bright employees engaged in often pure and original science. The climate conference was before my time (I joined in 1982), but the subject was beginning to create some lively debates within the organization. 

 

Was there any attempt to control the script/content before it was released? 

3. I don’t remember there being any attempt to “control” the content,  but as I say they had to approve the final draft of the script. The heads of the Divisions and their scientists were the experts, and I deferred to them. But they were all also pretty smart characters with considerable social awareness and sense of responsibility. I loved the fact that they would not say or allow any opinions that were not based on hard empirical evidence. Proper old-school scientific rigour. With films for a general audience I used to say that if they could make me understand what they were doing, I could interpret that for the public. 

Was there any overt ‘push back’ from anyone (within coal industry, government CSIRO etc) after it was released? If so, from who, what kind of push back?

4. I can’t remember any negative reaction to the coal film – there may have been some, but it would have been at a level that didn’t reach me. The industry lobby groups were also fairly docile in those days, and the politicians were less obsessed  with pleasing their neo-liberal constituencies – that came later I think. I remember feeling that I had to be careful not to be promoting an industry that to me, even back then, I saw as environmentally destructive, so the  “balance” in it, regarding emissions etc, was at my instigation – and they went along with it.

Are there other, earlier films I should be aware of? Or films about renewable energy?

5.  In terms of other CSIRO films, if you go to the website http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/ you can search by subject,and it will then give you the option of images or videos. “Climate” + “videos” for example yields this: http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/search/?tags=&newkeyword=climate&keyword=&library=&assettype=video&rgb=&deviation=30&page=1 

I made “Mysteries of the Lleeuwin” which is mainly about oceanography rather than energy / climate issues per se, and “The Heat is On” (2001) was after my time, but seems to be one of the “Sci-Files” shorts, which replaced the old “Researchers” series which were originally screened as fillers on commercial TV. There is another two-minuter in the series called “Oil from Plants”. A search on the site for “solar” yields these:

http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/search/?tags=&newkeyword=solar+&keyword=&library=&assettype=video&rgb=&deviation=30&page=1 HIAF was the only one I worked on.

Anything else you’d like to say about the Coal Question

6. I think “The Coal Question”  was aired on the ABC Quantum programme, as was my film on Australian trees called “Green Envoys“, shot in Zimbabwe and Southern China in 1986, funded by the Fed government as part of the Australian contribution to the International Year of Peace. (1986)It was originally planned to make it about two CSIRO research projects in Africa, trees in Zimbabwe and dry land soil farming techniques in Kenya. I went over to research it in February, returned with the crew in June, shot the trees project and then discovered that the Kenyans had withdrawn our permission to film at the last minute. It was due to go to air in September so we had to frantically re-schedule and re-write, and decided to make it all about trees. We had to get the then Foreign Affair Minister (Bill Hayden) to fast-track permits and visas etc, and off we flew to remote areas of southern China (Guangxi and Leizhou).  http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/video/12230/green-envoys/

What to do About CO2? (watch here)

Where did the impetus for “What to do about C02?” come from?

1. “The Greenhouse effect” as it was known then, was certainly an emerging interest of mine, and I think the ABC also wanted to do something on it. Much of the research was coming out of Atmospheric Physics Division in Aspendale so I went there first and met Graeme Pearman and I think Barrie Pittock, They were both keen to spread the word, and very charismatic interview “talent” (unlike many scientists). 

You interviewed Bert Bolin – did he happen to be in Australia at the time?

2.Bert Bolin was in Australia at the time, I´m not sure why, but he was already internationally renowned for his work on climate change, so we took him to a Melbourne beach and interviewed him there. Similarly I heard that botanist and broadcaster David Bellamy was addressing a crowd at the Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne, we ran down there from the Unit´s base and grabbed him after the talk. He was quite a famous figure in those days for his arrest during protests against the damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania. He became an all-purpose environmental issue commentator, so  we got the interview opportunistically. He was discredited  (and banned  by the BBC a least) when he became a denier of anthropogenic climate change, calling it “poppycock”. https://www.azquotes.com/author/30827-David_Bellamy).

Was there any attempt to control script/content?

3 No I don´t think there was any attempt to control the content. CSIRO and its scientists were kind of national sacred cows in those days, a source of national pride. This was before the whittling away and push to commercialize and downsize the organisation. This was also before the age of the internet, so here was much less official manipulation of media and ideas. Fake news, and the rot of anti-science and anti-intellectualism that has since taken over Australia, at least in terms of the people in power, were still decades away.

Can you recall any effort to get a politician (e.g. Barry Jones) to talk in the show about carbon dioxide as a problem?

4. No we didn´t approach the sainted Barry Jones. The Film Unit was intended and I think mandated to be non-partisan politically, and the feeling was that our brief was to stick to scientists, but in retrospect he would have been good value. The choice of Jeff Watson as the presenter was made by the ABC I think. He had a lot of cred as the founder of Beyond 2000, and he was a good choice.

What was the response? Positive? Negative? Any attempt to ‘push back’ from anyone?

5. The response to the film was generally good, it got a few positive reviews in the press and was deemed suitable by the Education department to be distributed to high schools. My own kids saw it at school. The Unit never promoted the films we made much, apart from within CSIRO´s general educational outreach through magazines etc. I don´t recall any pushback, but I can imagine the outcry from the conservative heads-in-the-sand brigade if it was made today with government money. Bob Hawke and Keating were in government for most of the time I was there.

Anything else you’d like to say about the film?

6. Not much more to say about it, other than I have used it quite a bit when teaching documentary in the USA and elsewhere, usually to positive feedback. It is old fashioned didactic filmmaking in a way, which has almost disappeared in the current digital point and squirt observational/reality style filmmaking. I´m currently working at the Uni of Tasmania making a series of films/online courses about identifying, living with and managing dementia (via the Wicking centre). Some of my colleagues there have seen it, and one said it is the best film they have seen on climate change issues, despite being made over three decades ago. 

For more about the CSIRO’s Film Unit, see

Hughes, J. 2018. From cold war to hot planet: Australia’s CSIRO film unit. Studies in Documentary Film., Vol 12, no 1.