Tag: 1987

Categories
Australia

September 17, 1987 – report on “The Greenhouse Project” launch

Thirty six years ago, on this day, September 17, 1987, a novel effort between the CSIRO Atmospheric Physics people and the Australian government’s Commission for the Future was reported on (the launch happened on the 16th). Known as “The Greenhouse Project”

The greenhouse effect is not just another disaster story but a real phenomenon that is likely to have far-reaching economic and social impacts within considerably less than a human lifetime, according to a CSIRO scientist.

Dr Graeme Pearman was speaking at a press conference launching the Greenhouse Project, a national campaign organised jointly by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO to alert Australians and Australian industry to the possible consequences of the effect.

A rapid build-up of “greenhouse gases” could cause sea levels to rise by up to one metre in the next 40 years and global temperatures to rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius.

A one-metre rise in sea level would put the main street of Cairns underwater and result in the disappearance of large areas of beaches around the coast, Dr Pearman warned.

Anon (1987) Launch of Greenhouse Effect plan. Sydney Morning Herald, September 17

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp348.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.

 

The context was that CSIRO 1986 realised that climate change was going to be a real problem. This was after 5 years of silence pretty much among the Australian Environment council folks. Science Minister Barry Jones had managed to create a foresight organisation called “The Commission for the Future,” and the greenhouse project was its first effort and very successful one at that.

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists and policymakers were aware of the climate problem and trying to do something about it before the 1988 breakthrough. And the momentum was ultimately lost because the issues are complex, and because business fought back (but everyone knew that business would fight back.)

What happened next – the Greenhouse Project gave us a scientific meeting in December 1987 but then also Greenhouse 88 – a satellite linked up conference in the capital cities of Australia that have passed into a kind of folklore.

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
Cultural responses United States of America

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 23, 1987,  Calvin blames his mother, and her generation…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bill Watterson is a stone cold genius. The cartoon says so much about youthful exuberance and the joys of pointing the finger.

By 1987, yeah, lots of people knew already. You didn’t need to be a particular genius to understand that climate change was coming.

What I think we can learn from this is that proper humour about climate change is really hard to do. Some have managed it.

What happened next

Calvin & Hobbes kept publishing for a few more years but then went out on a high very sensibly. Showbusiness adage about leave them wanting more 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.

Categories
United Kingdom

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 9, 1987, oceanographer and all-round smart guy Wally Broecker warned of “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” in the journal Nature.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Context

Broecker wrote the first article (ish) – see also 1961 AMS/NYAS solar variation meeting to use the term “global warming”.  He had been trying to educate politicians (including Paul Tsongas) for a long time.

What we learn

The 1988 ‘explosion’ of concern was preceded by lots of patient work.


What next

A year minus two days later,  the editor of Nature, John Maddox, inadvertently revealed that he didn’t read what was published in his own journal. Or if he did, he was incapable of understanding it.

Categories
United Nations

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 20, 1987, the report that popularised “sustainable development”  was launched.

“Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the Stockholm Conference which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere. Our Common Future placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.”

Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had been wringing their hands about the “North-South” divide in the 1970s. The New International Economic Order did not materialise. Then in 1980, Willy Brandt, north south report had been produced to little apparent effect. And I don’t know a cynic might argue that the Brundtland process was set up by well-meaning technocrats in the North, under pressure from people in the South who genuinely wanted a different world, give them opportunities to hold hands and sing Kumbaya and talk about how much change was needed. The question of how this cat would be belled, less evident.

Through the Brundtland process, which culminated in the release of Our Common Future, there had of course been talk about climate, including in a meeting in Norway in 1985, which we will come back to. 

What I think we can learn from this 

We need to remember that the dreams of redemption and sustainability of sustainable development as Brundtland put it, have been around forever. It’s now called Net Zero. When Net Zero dies it’ll be called something else. And it’s interesting that net zero isn’t even about justice. It’s about technocracy. But that’s for another day.

What happened next

The big meeting that was scheduled to talk about the Brundtland report and its implications in 1992 kind of got dominated by the climate treaty negotiations. (Climate change burst onto the agenda, the public agenda in 1988. And then despite the best efforts of the Americans, by 1991 negotiations for a climate treaty, we’re underway.)

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..