Thirty-eight years ago, on this day, October 12th, 1986, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s science discussion show, Ockham’s Razor – soap box for all things scientific, with short talks about research, industry and policy from people with something thoughtful to say- tackled climate change… Yes. 1986.
Ockham’s Razor [Series 86, Episode 101] – The Greenhouse Effect, Part 1 – Cause – Doctor Brian Tucker [CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the CSIRO had finally been able to ring the alarm bell about carbon dioxide. And people starting to talk about it, worry about it. And it turned up on the radio. The broader context was that there had been people on ABC radio science shows since 1969, – and conceivably earlier – warning about carbon dioxide buildup. We had Frank Fenner on 16th of September 1969 And we’d had Richie-Calder on the first ever Science Show in 1975.
What we learn is what we always learn – that we knew, we knew, we knew.
What happened next. The Commission for the Future put together the Greenhouse Project with CSIRO. It was effective in raising awareness among policy elites and mass publics in 1988 and 1989. And then they didn’t get further funding.
And as per the Rosaleen Love’s article in Arena, it all just went away because we can’t stare into the abyss for very long…
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.
Thirty eight years ago, on this day, August 30th, 1986,
ADELAIDE: Ocean levels would rise about a metre over the next 60 years and have a significant effect on the Australian coastline and coastal communities, the South Australian Minister for Environment and Planning, Dr Hopgood, said yesterday.
Dr Hopgood told the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects’ national conference that the startling prediction on ocean levels was included in the most recent information on the “greenhouse effect” known to be heating up the earth.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the CSIRO, via the Australian Environment Council and elsewhere, had finally sounded the alarm bell, about climate change, CO2 buildup, sea level rise, etc. And so here’s Don Hopgood, a decent Australian South Australian politician, telling some people the facts of life of what the 21st century will be.
What we learn is that by 1986, Australian political elites were beginning to understand the shitstorm that was coming. Not all of them, not all evenly. It would be another couple of years before it really started breaking out. And then you got the denial in response to that.
What happened next? In ‘89, they set up a South Australian greenhouse committee. And it made some fine promises. And over time, indeed (since 2003) South Australia has reduced its electricity-based carbon emissions, thanks to clever policy-making, federal policies etc.
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.
Thirty-eight years ago, on this day, June 26th, 1986, the penny starts to drop.
The 18th Meeting of the Australian Environment Council on 25 June heard a special address on the environmental consequences for Australia of probable global climatic change.
The address, by the Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, Dr. G. B. Tucker, was arranged so that Ministers could hear a first-hand account of recent studies of the effects of carbon dioxide and other trace gases on the atmosphere (the ‘greenhouse’ effect). Dr Tucker told the meeting of findings from measurements made at the Commonwealth baseline air monitoring stations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, which indicate the concentrations of key gases associated with climate change. He demonstrated the global effect which could take place within fifty years and said that the changes could not only take place in such a relatively short time, but “There is nothing we can do about it.” For instance, in Australia there is likely to be a 2 degree C rise in mean summer temperatures by 2030.
Dr Tucker said that the effect of a two degree rise in temperatures brought about by the greenhouse effect could seriously diminish rainfall in the grain growing areas of the northern hemisphere. In Australia it could cause increased rainfall in northern areas and some grain growing areas. A two degree rise could drastically alter the snowfield climate to that of an area 300 metres lower. Dr Tucker said he had used these examples to illustrate some of the problems which Australia would have to begin planning for.
The Chairman of the AEC, Dr Don Hopgood, (Deputy Premier of South Australia and Minister for Environment and Planning) said Dr Tucker had foreshadowed a complex of problems which would have to be faced in the coming years. The issue was of global and regional significance and Australia should continue to play an active role in scientific studies on climatic change and its implications.
Vol 6 (2) October 1986, page 5
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that five years previously, the Australian Environment Council had been told that climate change was a real issue and that it needed looking at and then there had been utter silence for five years, which is fascinating. Had orders come down from on high? Possibly. Possibly not? I think, probably not; I think it’s just too big an issue, and no one can think about it. And what to do about it. And it was only after Villach in 85, that they were forced to reluctantly remove their heads from the sand.
What we can learn is that some issues – and greenhouse gases build-up is number one – are simply too profound. And we say that we’re going to look at them. And then we look away, we change the subject, whether we’re an NGO like thAustralian Conservation Foundation in the mid 80s, or we are Australian Environment Council, anyone really.
And we’re still doing it. Instead of looking at the horror, we talk about more renewables as if that’s the solution. Because we can’t look into the goddamn abyss.
What happened next was that the Greenhouse Project got going, culminating in December 1988 with a big conference, held in cities across Australia.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that nine months earlier, WMO, UNEP and ICSU had organised and held ascientific meeting in the Austrian city of Villach at which scientists had come together, done the maths, shed some illusions, and realised that the shit was about to hit the fan, and if that the human species wanted a nice 21st century it needed to get its shit together. And scientists had started to alert politicians, some of whom are already of course well sensitised. Looking at you, Al Gore. Carl Sagan had given testimony to a Senate committee in December 1985. Drums were continuing to be beat. Articles were written. And I don’t know if anyone specifically briefed the Washington Post journo, but that’s the context.
What we learn is that I think even Joe Biden was in on the act talking about carbon protection or climate protection. 1988 was the icing on the cake of this issue that had been building in the problem stream for quite some time. Until politics stream and policy stream came together thanks to a series of focusing events such as the drought testimony the changing atmosphere conference, which was in essence another fruit of the Villach meeting.
It’s interesting to look at that three years from Villach to Toronto, institutionally who was doing what why how? Okay.
What happened next? The issue kept building in ‘87 and ‘88 until even George Bush and Margaret Thatcher had to talk about it. And then we all magically solved the problem. Oh yes.
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 3, 1986, there was a House of Lords debate on “the atmosphere and fuel use”
Lord Campbell of Croy was an interesting chap – “After being defeated by Winnie Ewing of the Scottish National Party at the February 1974 general election, Campbell was made a life peer as Baron Campbell of Croy, of Croy in the County of Nairn on 9 January 1975.[4] He became Chairman of the Scottish Board in 1976, and was Vice President of the Advisory Committee on Pollution at Sea from 1976 to 1984.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Villach conference in September 1985 had created a real sense of urgency among climate scientists, and in the US, a small number of senators were trying to get the issue higher up the agenda. In April 1986 the catastrophe at the Chernobyl power plant in the Ukraine had put the question of transboundary pollution on the map, and put a question mark over nuclear….
What I think we can learn from this
Nuclear always causes a glow in a certain kind of heart…
What happened next
Two years later, everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect, even Thatcher.
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.
On this day in 1986 the Melbourne newspaper The Age ran a decent and entirely prescient spread about the coming crisis.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that after the pivotal Villach conference in September 1985, scientists were pulling every lever they could. They had cred and salience because of the Ozone Hole. The CSIRO (Australian Science Body) was, with the help of the Commission for the Future, getting its public-facing act together. More immediately, the Age had run a brief front page story on 19 June.
What we can learn
The predictions were right, give or take
What happened next
Opportunities to hold hands, proclaim our virtue and … emissions. Lots of emissions
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.
Thirty seven years ago, on this day, June 2, 1986, US Senators got going…
The year of 1986 was significant in terms of congressional interest. Influential congressional leaders asserted that the issue of greenhouse warming was no longer only a science issue; policy options had to be considered. 19 in Congress, the likes of Senators Chafee, Stafford, Bentsen, Durenberger, Mitchell, Baucus, Leahy and Gore, began to pressure the White House to take action on climate change.
These Senators signed a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of NAS on June 2, 1986, requesting the NAS to review the scientific issues. These senators were ‘deeply disturbed’ by the implications of published reports on CO2 induced climate change.
(Hecht and Tirpak 1995)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various US Senators had been getting well informed about the risks of climate change by various National Academy of Science reports. And scientists such as Jim Hansen, and David Burns, and so on. In October 1985, there had been a meeting at Villach in Austria, which had really concentrated everyone’s minds. Carl Sagan had given testimony to Seators in December of 1985. LINK
Joe Biden introduced a climate bill, in 1987, and this letter by various senators, is part of the run-up to that. And we should remember that Frank Press was previously Jimmy Carter’s Chief Scientific Adviser. And he would have been very well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, having been lobbied on it and having taken action on it before (and in April 1980 having pushed back against a report advocating a policy response).
What I think we can learn from this is that before the breakout in 1988, there were lots of people in the policy stream and politics stream and the problem stream to make stuff happen, and to couple the streams. There are always efforts to couple streams before they are successfully coupled.
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.
Thirty-seven years ago, on this day, January 27 1986, engineers at the company Morton-Thiokol were begging their own bosses, and NASA administrators, to delay the launch of the Challenger Space Shuttle. They feared it could explode on the launch pad, because seals keeping fuel away from air were not going to work because the rubber they were made of had lost its elasticity, thanks to unexpected sub-zero temperatures in Florida.
As per the Wikipedia entry about one of the engineers, Roger Boisjoly.
Following the announcement that the Challenger mission was confirmed for January 28, 1986, Boisjoly and his colleagues tried to stop the flight. Temperatures were due to fall to −1 °C (30 °F) overnight. Boisjoly felt that this would severely compromise the safety of the O-ring and potentially the flight.
The matter was discussed with Morton Thiokol managers, who agreed that the issue was serious enough to recommend delaying the flight. NASA protocols required all shuttle sub-contractors to sign off on each flight. During the go/no-go telephone conference with NASA management the night before the launch, Morton Thiokol notified NASA of their recommendation to postpone. NASA officials strongly questioned the recommendations, and asked (some say pressured) Morton Thiokol to reverse its decision.
The Morton Thiokol managers asked for a few minutes off the phone to discuss their final position again. The management team held a meeting from which the engineering team, including Boisjoly and others, were deliberately excluded. The Morton Thiokol managers advised NASA that their data was inconclusive. NASA asked if there were objections. Hearing none, NASA decided to launch the STS-51-LChallenger mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was NASA was under a lot of pressure to launch, because of previous delays and because there was a civilian – a teacher called Christa McAuliffe – on board.
What I think we can learn from this
Hierarchies are “reality distortion fields”. But reality – especially physics and chemistry – will impinge, sooner or later.
It’s probably a good idea to listen to scientists and engineers who say something is really unsafe.
There is such a thing as “organisational decay” – Organizational decay is a condition of generalized and systemic ineffectiveness. It develops when an organization shifts its activities from coping with reality to presenting a dramatization of its own ideal character. In the decadent organization, flawed decision making of the sort that leads to disaster is normal activity, not an aberration. Three aspects of the development of organizational decay are illustrated in the case of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They are (1) the institutionalization of the fiction, (2) personnel changes in parallel with the institutionalization of the fiction, and (3) the narcissistic loss of reality among management.
What happened next
In case you didn’t know, the Challenger was torn apart 73 seconds into its flight.
Boisjoly spent the rest of his life trying to get other people to learn from what had happened. By all accounts, a mensch.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Schwartz, H. 1989. Organizational disaster and organisational decay: the case of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 3, pp.319-334.
And a blog post of mine, inspired by reading Schwartz
