The world revolves around Washington. It was there, in May 1953, that Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass warned a scientific conference that the carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere when humans burnt ever more oil, coal and gas would heat the planet, with the impacts being obvious by the century.
It was there in November 1965 that President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee released a report saying Plass’s concerns might well be justified.
It was there in January 1982 at another scientific meeting that at American and German scientists warned “the signs are so ominous that we must expect (a large climatic impact) and take action to avoid it.”
And it was there, on Thursday, that The Trump administration announced its intention to pull out of both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), alongside many other organisations.
By the late 1970s the build up of carbon dioxide was attracting serious attention by ever more alarmed scientists (see, for example, the 1979-1982 CO2 Newsletter I recently uncovered). President Carter’s science advisor asked skeptical scientists to “kick the tires” on these views. The “Charney Report,” produced to meet this request said they could find no reason to doubt that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled, then there would be a warning of anywhere between 1.5 to 3 degrees.
The incoming Reagan administration was uninterested (or, hostile) to these concerns. By 1985 two things had changed. The scientific consensus around carbon dioxide build-up as a problem had become even firmer, and thanks to the discovery of the Ozone Hole, the credibility of atmospheric scientists was sky-high (sorry about that, but it was there and I had to use it). After a pivotal meeting in Villach, Austria scientists grabbed every alarm lever they could, and pulled. In December, Carl Sagan gave his famous, gripping, testimony, In… Washington.
Speaking to reporters after giving testimony in Washington (where else?) in June 1988, scientist James Hansen famously said“it’s time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect is here.”
Well, if there HAS to be a treaty…
1989 saw a flurry of international summits, both specifically on climate, and “sustainable development” more generally. Not coincidentally, the “Global Climate Coalition”, made up of mostly but not exclusively US oil companies, automobile makers and other usual suspects (on their attacks on the IPCC, which the Trump administration is also pulling out of, see here).
As I wrote when President George HW Bush died, the US could have got in on the ground floor. He didn’t. Once the push for a treaty became inevitable, the Americans decided to make the best of it, and prevent outcomes that would be too challenging (some within the US Department of State had felt bruised over the speed of a treaty to protect the Ozone Layer, a few years earlier.)
The main sticking point for the Americans – and there were competing factions within the Bush administration, which led to some whiplash statements and negotiating positions, at least until the “skeptics” won – was that targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations were not to be included in the any climate treaty. As Bush repeatedly and publicly said “American way of life is not negotiable.”
Only once the offending targets and timetables by rich countries were removed from the negotiating text did the Bush Administration agree that Bush would attend the Rio Earth Summit and sign the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Article 2 of that treaty makes for rueful reading now. It states that the goal is
“to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”
Fine words butter no parsnips.
Thirty years of dummy spits
However, the idea that rich countries, which had caused the problem and were wealthy, should go first on emissions reductions could only be delayed, not defeated. The first “Conferences of the Parties”, in early 1995 ended with the Berlin Mandate, calling on rich countries to come to the 1997 COP with a plan, which ended up being held in Kyoto Protocol.. This sparked a huge pre-emptive effort against the “Kyoto Protocol” driven by the Global Climate Coalition, with other bad-faith actors adding their two cents (some will have seen the play Kyoto, about the Climate Council), leading the US Senate to vote, 95-0 in favour of a motion that said, in effect, “we’re not cutting until poor countries agree to”
The US – with help from Australia – pushed a “technology will fix it” line, but once Kyoto was ratified by enough nations to become law, in 2005 (a quid pro quo with Russia, which wanted World Trade Organisation membership), then the US had to re-engage.
Famously at the 2008 G8 meeting Bush said – revealingly – “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”
The 2009 “last chance to save the world” meeting at Copenhagen ended in disarray and the next five years saw the pieces of the dropped vase were glued back together in time for the Paris Agreement, which managed not to mention the dread words “fossil fuels.”
Trump announced in 2017 that he would pull out of the Paris Agreement. That man Biden from 1986 re-entered in 2021, and Paris, and introduced huge incentives for “clean tech” (renewable energy and other more dubious ventures, such as direct air capture under the “Inflation Reduction Act and other pump-priming schemes. Although the IRA should have made big business happy, they decided not to try to defend it in the face of Trump’s obvious hostility.
And now this. A couple of random observations;
As the costs pile up, and reality becomes harder and harder to ignore
The Trump administration is not doing what is in the long-term interest of American capital, which could have made more money via Biden’s IRA. While there was a “logic” to anti-Kyoto activity, this anti-climate crusade seems far more ideological
What next?
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.
IF the US goes ahead and pulls out (and there’s little reason to believe they won’t – their claims should be taken both literally and seriously) then several things happen.
There will be an audible sigh of relief from Australia – especially Adelaide – that they lost out on hosting the next COP.
The various academics who critique the whole UNFCCC process as not fit for purpose will try (and sometimes fail) to keep from saying “I told you so.”
There will be a blizzard of academic papers on “multilateralism” and bilateral deals between states, with the focus switching to what cities and technologies can do.
People invested in the COP process will insist it continues, and say the role is to keep the US seat warm for the glorious day in 2029 when a Democratic president restores “order” and “sanity.”
Regardless of what happens, we should remember the following
When Gilbert Plass made his warning, humans (mostly in the West) were pumping out about 6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 314ppm
When the UNFCCC was agreed, emissions were about 23 billion tonnes and the CO2 level was 355ppm
Today, despite all the pledges, all the renewables and so forth, we are pumping out about 40 billion tonnes, and the CO2 in the atmosphere is 428ppm, and galloping upwards.
More emissions means more CO2 hanging around in the atmosphere. More CO2 means more heat in the Earth System, means more extreme weather events and – between them – a remorseless rise in temperatures, with all that that entails.
Still here? Okay, thanks for the vote of confidence.
Now. Read this [link]. Ideally out loud. Ideally twice. Then stop and think about what that would feel like.
Want some more? From some Brits who only moved to the States a couple of years ago? The BBC can oblige. Here you go.
If you need a dose of vicarious misery pornography, and the Middle East doesn’t do it for you (wrong colour people, wrong languages etc) then Mother Nature and the 24hr news beast can provide. Endless photos, horror stories. Here comes the 21st century.
And of course, as you will also know if you’ve been following this even cursorily, there are just tons of “conspiracy theories” doing the rounds, and a lot (no, I mean a LOT) of articles, tweets about that. Which is what I am here to write about.
The articles include these three, which are both worth your time
The first two (I’ve added the Heglar upon finding it, on Oct 13) are very focussed – as journalists and pundits often are – on the recent past. Not so many of them make the obvious points (reasons of space, and focus and time and so on) that
There is a good book by Jason Rodger Fleming (2012) on all this, called Fixing the Sky. The cover art is from a 1950s magazine article, and you can see it in this All Our Yesterdays tile.
3. There have been stories about people controlling the weather for, well, since humans began telling the stories. Gods would do it and then their self-appointed ‘ambassadors’ on earth would (claim to do it). It’s a standard sci-fi trope. The two examples below are among MANY. I chose them because
a) They’re from the mid-1970s, when ALL sorts of anxieties were knocking about (the seeming end of prosperity, cheap oil, the American empire, the emergence of climate threats etc).
b) I have read them both and loved them, since watching Geostorm. My article (Hudson, 2017) on that disaster film includes LOTS of examples of weather control films, and some excellent observations from a ‘sci-fi tragic’ friend I am seeing tomorrow, for the first time in far too long.
c) The covers are mint.
And these novels were inspired by things like HAARP –
“High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a US government-funded program that studies the ionosphere” [Wikipedia].
Not to haarp on about it…
4. People can have a hard time separating stories they have heard a lot from “reality” (like, you know, bearded sky gods who take a personal interest in whose and what type of genitals an individual is rubbing their own genitals against).
Also, have we all forgotten Donald F – sorry, ‘J’ – Trump and his sharpie? The Dorian-Alabama thing in 2019, aka Sharpiegate. Have we?
Philosophical interlude
What did we do in response to the pain we can’t imagine? And the ‘stupidity’ we are sure we are better than? We – some of the best among us – reported and commented on what was happening without offering historical, political, psychological context. Blinded by our fear of what is already here, and what it presages.
Conspiracy theories about weather manipulation are, unfortunately, the logical next step in climate denialism, and the traction they are getting shows how hard it is to get out of this absurdly terrifying loop.
I know we shouldn't expect consistency from conspiracy fantasists, but seeing people claim that "human beings can't possibly alter the climate" AND "human beings are causing hurricanes with cloud seeding/chemtrails/Jewish space lasers" suggests we really are doomed as a species.
I know we shouldn’t expect consistency from conspiracy fantasists, but seeing people claim that “human beings can’t possibly alter the climate” AND “human beings are causing hurricanes with cloud seeding/chemtrails/Jewish space lasers” suggests we really are doomed as a species.
I can hear the objections, that I am being unfair to these (good) thinkers and misunderstanding the limits of a limited social media platform. SO I say, calmly and quietly, the following.
YES I KNOW THESE ARE TWEETS BUT THERE ARE SUCH THINGS AS
Twitter threads
Blogs and columns you write and then tweet about to your tens/hundreds of thousands of followers so they are not merely confirmed in their fear/disdain, but forced to think.
And the rest of us? We do like to the mock the Jewish Space Laser people. (I understand that impulse, and give into it most of the time)
And we push the stupidity narrative.
And we framed the problem as (only) stupidity. And not our stupidity.
I will say this several times in the rest of this rant. The stupidity narrative (especially on its own) doesn’t help. You could almost say it is… what’s the word… stupid?
But it is both easy and also it makes us feel good. And ultimately, what matters more than that?
Most of the people pushing these lines probably don’t like the Conservatives very much. And if they’re old enough and British, they probably didn’t like John Major (UK Conservative Prime Minister from 1990 to 1997).
In February 1993, speaking to the entirely wonderful newspaper the Mail on Sunday, Major said – in the context of the murder of a 2-year old boy by two 10 year-olds – “ ‘Society needs to condemn a little more and understand a little less,”
But we need to condemn a little less and understand a little more.
What’s the backstory?
The back story is not just “neoliberalism” (though that really hasn’t helped. It is not as if the “Keynesian” government of the Glorious 30 (1945-1973) were beloved (see Seabrook, 1978; Gross, 1980; Slater, 1972). Things weren’t great before (though in retrospect they look like, well, a Golden Age). Nearly 40 years of ‘austerity’ and widening wealth gaps has happened.
Enormous social changes (some for the ‘better’, some perhaps not). Enormous technological changes. People feel hella disorientated, aggrieved etc.
And on neoliberalism? It is part of the response to the Crisis of Democracy. What’s that? Well, here’s a short Noam Chomsky video.
But humans are also fragile, cognitively. It’s easy to plant false memories in them. [Wikipedia]. And we are so surrounded by stories, all day. We are made of dreams and bones, sang Pete Seeger. And stories.
It’s a comforting story, people believe it. And it is a very short sidestep to Smart, Qualified People acting nefariously in cahoots with the WEF, OECD, PTA, whoever.
At least somebody is in charge, at least somebody knows what is going on. “Phew, we do, ultimately, live in a rational society.”
Except, remember that Nate Bear article you didn’t go and read? Or you did and you’re about to get a repeat….
Bear talks about reading a well-meaning tweet from someone who laments ‘if only we’d been told about the brain-damage aspect of COVID in 2020, we’d have acted differently’ and observes it got a lot of likes and retweets. And Bear writes
I’m going to be honest about what this says to me.
It says that too few people who consider themselves informed, clever, rational, followers of science, have spent any time thinking about how bad things happen and why.
It suggests to me a certain amount of privilege in your circumstances and life experiences.
My brain kind of translates it as how did I, a white person in the global north, where I thought we had our shit together, end up living in such an irrational society?
Bear, N. 2024.
What about the race, class, gender and general powerlessness (stripped out civil society). And the pandemic if you haven’t spoken of it before and anyhoo, recap
So, here’s a new section I am going to put in all these sorts of rants, I mean, “considered and very publishable in respected outlets think pieces.” You can call it mechanical, abrupt, virtue-signally, whatever floats your boat. I will call it forcing myself to think about things I can – as a white, male, hetero, middle-class, able-bodied mofo – very easily pretend don’t actually matter (pro-tip, they do).
Incomplete list to consider (e.g. age, species)
Well then.
Race
Why might black people be suspicious of the medical system? Why might they have crazy crazy ideas about being neglected, or used as unconsenting guinea pigs, their diseases treatable but left untreated? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED. But that sort of thing has definitely stopped. For sure. Yes.
Class
Just go reread the quote about losing everything at the top. And also look at the people in that meme with the bandages on their ears. They are of a different class. They are part of a class that likes Trump’s tax cuts. And the permission Trump gives them to sneer at anyone Not Them.
Gender
Think about all this in interplay. And think about what it will be like for female meteorologists. Remember, when the death threats started flying at Australian climate scientists in the late 2000s, women copped more. And still are (as per Gergis, 2024).
Powerlessness
It’s all combined. The neoliberalism (destroying the democratic state), the algorithms and surveillance and carceral state. The sense of hopelessness that anything will get better, that the enormous challenges will be dealt with. There ARE evil actors out there, meaning harm. But it’s easier to punch on meteorologists than the people who wrote Project 2025, because those guys have the power to mess you up good and proper. So allow your fear, hate, despair, anger to be channelled towards punching ‘down’.
Pandemic
Unprocessed trauma. Trauma about how the whole thing has been memory-holed. See also Terror Management Theory
Synergy/intersectionality
Yeah. If you have to ask, you won’t ever understand.
Time for more Bear. Read more Bear.
“Under conditions of depoliticisation, people either reach for conspiracies or mold their understanding of events into long-standing explanations of the world. This goes as much for centrists and even some leftists as it does for the right.
“Centrists famously lack the ability to see the world through prisms of imperial capitalist power, leftists see imperial capitalist power behind every crisis, and the right see manufactured threats to a loosely defined freedom as behind every crisis.”
Bear, 2024
What it implies/what is coming next(what hand-wringing opportunities for guilty impotent liberals [most of us] lie ahead?
At times like this, one needs to quote the famous Swedish political philosophers Ulvaeus, and Andersson.
“Something bad is happening, I’m sure you do agree
People care for nothing, no respect for human rights
Evil times are coming, we are in for darker nights”
The anger and all the rest of it isn’t going away, whether Trump i) wins, ii) steals or iii) is somehow unable to steal and that nice Kamala Harris gets into the White House. The goose, like the planet, is well and truly cooked.
More death threats and shit against the impact scientists (meteorologists, disaster preparedness etc etc – see the Walzer quote below).
What is to be done? (by social movement organisations. But won’t be)
Oh, the usual.
Create and maintain functional groups that support members, extend their skills, knowledge and relationships while avoiding co-optation, cognitive capture, repression and burnout.
Work with other similarly effective groups across a range of issues (all the issues), sharing resources and working to democratise the state (good luck with that) and using the state to control private concentrations of power.
Create and defend venues for individuals and networks to figure out what is actually going on.
Easy-peasy.
It’s the only way you’ll prevent climate meltdown, and as long as you start in the early 1970s and work consistently and persistently and don’t suffer too many setbacks, by about 2026 or so you’ll be home free.
What are the academic theories I find useful for thinking about this/Concepts for you to use (in rough order of importance or alphabetical order or no order whatsoever because there were other things I had to do and anyway i) ymmv and ii) about three people are reading these
Terror Management Theory [Wikipedia] – people scared of death. And they figure ways to ignore it, blame others
Anti-reflexivity – we’re fed up with how damn COMPLICATED the world has gotten. See this by McCright and Dunlap.
It’s a bit of a miracle that an article (okay, rant) about conspiracy theories hasn’t already referenced Lewis Carrol and “Six impossible things before breakfast.”
Well, here’s three impossible things to do before breakfast. (Also, like accusations, every bit of advice is a confession).
A little humility
Maybe (we) liberals could reflect on all the patently absurd shit we either believe or find convenient to pretend in pubic to believe?
About markets, democracy, progress, the capacity of their institutions to cope with climate change.
A little fucking humility might be in order (1)
Marilyn Robinson’s 1989 book Mother Country: Britain, the Welfare State and Nuclear Pollution was so incendiary that those loveable scamps at Greenpeace sued her for libel (and won). Among its many gems was one she wrote(and I can’t find the exact page number or quote, so this is a paraphrase – if you have a copy, please let me know) (2).
“Most people know a little about some things and nothing about everything else. They have little islands of knowledge in vast seas of ignorance”
And Robinson was writing thirty years ago, before the sea level rise – literal and of metaphorical ignorance was rising.
A little empathy, compassion, hermeneutical phenomenology, whatever label you want to stick on it.
Who knows, maybe some compassion and imagining what the world would look like in someone else’s shoes? (3).
Update on October 13, 2024 – See this from Heglar (2024) on the question of compassion
So why are folks running to invent new conspiracy theories when the real, undeniable conspiracy is right there? Because for them to change their mind would be to lose a very real part of their identity and, perhaps, to have to consider the possibility that some of their other beliefs may not be real either. And that might mean they need to find new communities or even new families. Changing your mind about something as colossal as the ground you live on and the air you breathe is not unlike coming out of a cult.
But we don’t treat people that way. We treat them like doofuses who fell for an obvious lie. Ultimately, who does that serve? Perhaps it’s time we start treating these people as what they are: victims of a manipulative, deliberate lie. And then turn our attention back toward the people who lied to them.
TO BE CLEAR: THIS IS DISTINCT FROM CONDONING OR TOLERATING DEATH THREATS.
Earn your ‘keep’ as intellectuals and tackle the “Warzel challenge” Remember those two articles at the beginning of this post. Well, the second was by a guy called Warzel. “We need new ways of thinking.”
The whip-smart American journalism professor Jay Rosen (you should follow him) screengrabbed this bit below of Warzel’s essay. I’ve not got access to the full Warzel, but I trust Rosen to get to the crux.
Maybe stop fucking wallowing in the fucking smugosphere and riding the emotacycle off the cliff? Eh?
And as anyone who knows the author can attest, if you’re getting humility advice from Marc Fucking Hudson, you are in far deeper shit than you actually understand
The closest a perfunctory google search (GoogleBooks not letting search of MC) was this
“How is one to understand the degradation of the sea and earth and air of the British homeland by people who use the word British the way others of us use the words good, and just, and proud, and precious, and lovely, and clement, and humane? No matter that these associations reflect and reinforce the complacency that allows the spoliation to go unchecked; still, surely they bespeak self-love, which should be some small corrective. I think ignorance must be a great part of the explanation–though ignorance so obdurate could be preserved only through an act of will.” From Granta.
This had me making some jibe about MTG (the g stands for gourd – as in Empty Gourd. Geddit?” It’s not funny (but I thought it was at the time) and it is EXACTLY the sort of shit that is going to piss people off for no benefit. I have ZERO problem pissing people off if there is a potential benefit (to them and me both, ideally). But for the yucks? Really? Isn’t that just using other people’s misery and confusion to make us feel more powerful and superior in the moment? Isn’t that morally and politically bankrupt? Oughtn’t I to grow the fuck up?
See also what else I’ve written
Oh, there is the old “Conspiracy -Apocalypse- Paranoia” booklet I should dig out and scan because it is bound to be startlingly brilliant, oh yes.
See also what other people have written
When the Conversation article goes live, I will post it here.
Seven years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2017, the once and future President does another empty stunt.
28 March 2017 Trump signs exec order to ‘bring back coal’ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/trumps-order-on-energy-promises-coal-jobs-and-a-clean-environment-what-does-that-look-like
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 406ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
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 context was that Donald Trump had just enjoyed the biggliest inauguration crowd ever, and was doing the normal sorts of grift that conmen do, signing executive orders and bleating and ranting.
What we learn is that people want to believe them. By the time this post, which was drafted in December of 2023, is published, it will be clearer about whether Trump is indeed going to be the Republican nominee for president. It’s looking at the stage that he will be. But anything can happen. (update – but hasn’t yet, Jan 27 2024).
What happened next, Trump did not bring back coal, because coal is in structural decline. And you can piss in the wind, and that seems to be enough for some people….
On this day, eight years ago, Donald Trump tweeted that global warming was a hoax. Specifically –
This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2014
This was neither Trump’s first or last tweet on the subject. There’s this corker from a couple of years previously:
We can see this as a morality tale of a wicked man or we can take an historical and sociological view. Historically, we could look at the 1991 campaign especially aimed at older white men. Under the name or Information Council on the Environment (“ICE” – geddit?), as described in Ross Gelbspan’s book “The Heat is On” and elsewhere (see the climatefiles too!)
Sociologically, we could use anti-reflexivity, the concept of McCright and Dunlap developed, to explain not just Trump, but Trump’s enduring popularity with people who pine for an imagined 1950s where straight, white men. were in charge. Women were in the kitchen, people of color were “colored” people who knew the place and Mother Nature was under the thumb.
I don’t need to tell you what happened next – you’re watching it.
