Tag: 1983

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.