Tag: 1983

Categories
Canada

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

Forty years ago, on this day, December 20, 1983, a documentary about what was coming was shown.

1983 Climate Crisis

This summer’s record temperatures may be one of the signs that the earth’s atmosphere is warming up. NOVA looks at the climate predictions and hazard warnings for the next century, based on the effects of our soaring consumption of fossil fuels.

Original broadcast date: 12/20/83 

Topic: environment/ecology

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 1983 had been a big year for environmental issues. You had the June conference of the Global 2000 people but most significantly in October you’d had the EPA and NAS reports, which presumably were part of the impetus for this documentary which you can see online.

Some of this footage may have been taken from the 1981 Anglia TV documentary “Warming Warning” – which would explain the director credit for Richard Broad…

What I think we can learn from this is that people knew.

What happened next

The NOVA documentary got repeated and I think in 1986 it was on in New York and I did a blog post about it without knowing all the details.

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
United States of America

November 15, 1983 – “Energy Futures and Carbon Dioxide” report…

Forty years ago, on this day, November 15, 1983, an MIT and Stanford report comes out… (reported on January 3 1984 by New York Times)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that from the late 1970s, the US Department of Energy and others were funding studies of global energy demand and the climate impacts. The lead author of this report, David Rose, had been quoted in The Wall Street Journal article in August 1980 [LINK] as saying, if the build up is real, then this is serious. 

The build-up was real, this was serious. 

The report was finished on this date, and it was reported on in January of the following year by Walter Sullivan, of the New York Times. 

Meanwhile, shortly before this was finished, the EPA and the NAS had had reports out. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a hell of a lot of the serious intellectual work had been done by the early 80s. It was simply a question of getting the politicians on board that took another five years. And as soon as that was achieved, there was an enormous, virulent pushback. 

What happened next

We did not heed the warnings. The Age of Consequences is upon us and the dildo of consequence, never arrives lubed.

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
United States of America

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference.

On this day, forty years ago, American scientists and science communicator Carl Sagan hosted a conference on the consequences of nuclear war…

Sagan and his colleagues orchestrated the “Conference on Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War,” held in Washington DC to garner as much public and political attention as possible. The steering committee scheduled the two-day event to begin on Halloween. On October 30, 1983, Sagan published an expose on nuclear winter in Parade Magazine, a popular Sunday newspaper supplement with more than twenty million readers. Chaired by George Woodwell and kicked off by Stanford University’s eloquent president, Donald Kennedy, the conference itself was less a scientific meeting than an extended, staged press release. A satellite link – relatively new technology in 1983 – connected an audience of several hundred scientists, journalists, and politicians to members of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

(Howe, 2014:139)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 343ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Context

With the coming of the second Cold War (with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, sharpening with the arrival of Reagan and his lunatic friends), scientists started thinking about what would happen if a nuclear war happened. Even a “small one”, some thought, would burn forests, releasing huge clouds of dust that would blot out the sun, creating a “nuclear winter.”

What we can learn

Climate change from carbon dioxide has been tied up with other global atmospheric threats (real and perceived – oxygen depletion, ozone depletion, acid rain, nuclear war). There is no “clear” narrative that ignores those…

 
What happened next

There were claims and counter-claims about this, and some scientists disagreed with Sagan (notably Steve Schneider). By 1986, with the coming of Gorbachev (in 1985) and the Chernobyl disaster, it seemed less likely that a war would happen. Meanwhile, along came the Ozone hole, and then the climate stuff kicked in, post-Villach…

Categories
United States of America

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

On this day, 40 years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency released the second revised edition of “Projecting future sea level rise : methodology, estimates to the year 2100, and research needs” by John S. Hoffman, Dale Keyes, James G. Titus.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measurements.

The context was that the EPA had, like others, been taking an interest in long-term effects. Long-before “the Greenhouse Effect” became a threat (finally) acknowledged by our lords and masters, smart people were doing the sums.

What we learn – nothing. We never learn anything


What happened next – the issue broke through in 1988, for what it was worth. And we have spent the 35 years since then making things worse.

Categories
United States of America

October 21, 1983 – “Changing Climate” report released

Forty years ago, on this day, October 21, 1983, another climate change report was released, just a couple of days after the Environmental Protection Agency one. It took a much more “yeah, nothing to worry about really” line.

and – https://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/21/us/haste-of-global-warming-trend-opposed.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was –

The report had been commissioned in 1979, thanks to the efforts of a Democratic Senator, the lead author William Nirenberg. It is now seen as a direct rebuttal if you will, of the EPA report though, obviously, it wasn’t written as such. For the lowdown, see two articles, one by Naomi Oreskses and the other by Nirenberg’s daughter.

 The point of the Changing Climate report is that it gave aid and comfort to those who were saying “oh still nothing to see here.” The Reagan administration was still pretty deep in denial, having shat all over the Global 2000 report. And here we are.

What I think we can learn from this

A variation on the “horse race politics”

What happened next

“Despite their conflicting conclusions, both reports actually confirmed the inevitability of greenhouse warming, but George Keyworth and Whitehouse counsel Ed Meese played up the disparities between Nierenberg’s “sober” NAS report and the “unnecessarily alarmist” EPA study, imbuing press coverage of the climate issue with a sense of confusion rather than concern. The press, not surprisingly, took more interest in the “debate” between the EPA and NAS scientists than in the broader implications of the science itself. Both studies were soon forgotten.“

(Howe, 2014:134)

See Merchants of Doubt chapter about this – argues it is two different reports, the physical scientists agreeing with other reports, and two chapters by economists…

MOD page 180

Has also led to two articles – From Chicken Little to Dr Pangloss

It would be another four years or five years before climate was able to properly take off again. And Nirenberg was still in the thick of nonsense like the George Marshall Institute.

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

Nicholas Nierenberg rebuttal of Oreskes

https://www.nicolasnierenberg.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/1166378/oreskescritique.pdf

And William Connelly

https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/10/nierneberg-concluded-oreskes-i

Categories
Australia United States of America

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

Twenty years ago, on this day, October 20, 1983, the Murdoch-owned newspaper The Australian gave a tolerably accurate summation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s report.

The Australian page 3 climatic change (based on EPA report)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Australian runs a page three greenhouse gases story that isn’t a complete shit show?! By this point, climate change was well understood as a potential long-term problem in Australia, various magazines, newspapers would run stories. Senators would make speeches… 

What I think we can learn from this

 I guess, what we learn is that The Australian newspaper has decayed markedly, perhaps never from a particularly high baseline. But now it’s just a fucking rag.

What happened next

There was another climate report released by the National Academy of Science the following day. And that is the topic of tomorrow’s blog post….

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
United States of America

October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

Forty years ago, on this day, October 18, 1983, your average television-watching American gets a dose of reality.

On October 18, 1983, all three U.S. television networks ran two-minute stories on the greenhouse effect, and CBS and ABC placed their stories at or near the top of the news programs. What had happened? The Environmental Protection Agency had issued a report analyzing the impact of the greenhouse effect on the temperature of the earth. CBS and ABC featured John Hoffman of the EPA urging that preparations be made for the future.

Sachsman

EPA report – https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/10/18/EPA-report-predicts-catastrophic-global-warming/2626435297600/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 342.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” had come out. It said that, well, you could institute a global carbon tax or rather even if you could, which was a long shot, it would only delay warming by a few years. This was, I think, the first time that all three major networks simultaneously covered the environment story.

What I think we can learn from this

We should remember that Walter Cronkite had been talking about climate in his documentary, The 20th Century, in the episode, The Power of the Sea on March 22 1960. Spilhaus had said what he said.

What we can learn is that 40 years ago, American people were told what was happening pretty clearly. I don’t think there was any massive spike in membership of the Sierra Club or EDF or whatever. And as Joshua Howe in his excellent “Behind the Curve” notes, they just weren’t taking it on as an issue because it’s too big. It’s too diffuse,

“Joseph Smagorinsky, author of the climate-modeling chapter for Changing Climate, was highly critical of the EPA report. Speaking at Youngstown University, he said, “Evidently the EPA was hell-bent on coming up with spectacular numbers. . . . It’s bad enough when an individual does this kind of thing, but when a federal agency does it . . .”105” (Nierenberg et al. 2010:344)

What happened next

The American people did not rise up and save themselves, because some of them at least probably thought “why bother, we’re all gonna get nuked anyway?”

This, you see, was also the time of the Second Cold War fears of the nuclear winter, if there were a “nuclear exchange” (of course that also got people thinking about the atmosphere as something that humans could seriously fuck up.)

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

July 1, 1983 – Australian High Court “saves” Franklin River (it woz the activists wot won it)

Forty years ago, on this day, July 1, 1983, in a landmark decision, the High Court on circuit in Brisbane ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 in the federal government’s favour, – i.e. the Tasmanian government could not build a damn dam across the Franklin.  “Judges Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane were in the majority and justices Wilson and Dawson with Chief Justice Gibbs were in the minority” (source).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 345.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been a huge campaign by environmentalists and “normal” civil society to save the Franklin river from being dammed. This included not just the usual marches and petitions and meetings, but lots of lobbying of individual politicians, targeting marginal seats and… nonviolent direct action. The ALP, under Bill Hayden, had promised to stop the Franklin and once elected in March 1983, new leader Bob Hawke followed through. The High Court narrowly said that the Federal Government had the power to do that sort of thing.

What I think we can learn from this is that court cases to courts will sometimes solidify a win for civil society that has been fought for, and sometimes overturn it. But even if the government has new powers, as it did in this case, getting them to use those powers is another thing altogether because ministers and prime ministers are usually coming under very effective counter pressures. 

What happened next. The dam never got built. The Feds never used those powers (Labor afraid of pissing off powerful miners and developers, and voters in specific seats). Tasmania remained a flashpoint for environmental concerns. And the Franklin campaign of 1983 became a touchstone and talisman and was unfortunately the subject of an attempt of repeat in Queensland in 2019. And you could argue that that gave Scott Morrison another three years as prime minister…

We can sometimes be seduced by our own myths, and the danger is probably greatest 35 years later, when those who were young and now thinking of legacy, and the granular detail has been long forgotten.

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
United States of America

May 13, 1983 – idiots get their retaliation in first…

Forty years ago, on this day, May 13, 1983,  the Heritage Foundation made a clever pre-emptive assault on the impending  conference of the “Global Tomorrow Coalition” in Washington DC…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global 2000 report ordered in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter had continued to be a rallying point for environmentalists and those concerned about, well, the future. The Heritage Foundation, which had been set up in 1973, as an attack dog on precisely these questions, wanted to throw a spanner in the works and give journalists covering the upcoming conference, either ammunition or else a quandary. Report it as a “some say/others say ” horse race or, if they did not report on the Heritage Foundation’s critique, they can be smeared as “biased”, and part of the liberal media establishment. 

What we can learn from this is that organisations like the Heritage Foundation are fantastically good at shaping the public discourse. They seek to minimise the splash that their opponents can make. They do this with both preemptive and responsive propaganda efforts. This only comes about if you have lots of money and the people who have lots of money understand for the most part, that funding outfits like the Heritage Foundation, or whatever new group is required, is money well spent. 

What happened next

The conference happened. The Heritage Foundation released a book called The Resourceful Earth in 1984.  Edited by Julian Simon who had already been attacking the Global 2000 report. And in The Resourceful Earth  the meteorologist Helmut Landsberg, who was to die a year later made unfortunate predictions about what the climate would be. Oops. Landsberg, like Brian Tucker in Australia, couldn’t cope with the fact that climate science was undercutting the cherished technocracy and economic growth “values.”

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.