Sixty two years ago, on this day, January 14th 1962, American thinker and writer James Baldwin delivers a crucial bit of wisdom – “Not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” – in a New York Times opinion piece.
AS MUCH TRUTH AS ONE CAN BEAR: To Speak Out About the World as It Is, New York Times Jan 14, 1962
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 318ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that James Baldwin had fled the United States to France, simply to stay alive. Being a queer, smart black man well, you were in a “bummer of a birthmark Hal” situation, weren’t you? But he’d obviously stayed in touch with what was happening. And my god, he was a brilliant essayist, and thinker. And the reason I’m citing this is that it contains the apparently first use of his crucial phrase, “not everything that can be faced, can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”
What we can learn is that there are smart people all around and we ought to pay more attention to them and to their ideas.
What happened next. Baldwin was heavily involved in advocating for civil rights. There is a movie that you simply must see. called I am not your Negro. Baldwin died in 1987.
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.
One hundred and thirty-one years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1883, the New York Times took the righteous mickey out of something that had recently appeared in the UK scientific journal Nature…
Anon, 1883 – The Atmosphere, New York Times, January 6, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 293ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that everybody talks about the weather (but nobody does anything about it). And there was all sorts of speculation back and forth about what air quality might do to people. And this, of course, is one of the denialist “arguments”; “people have always been worried about the weather, therefore, there’s nothing new under the sun. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.” This is every bit as vacuous as it appears at first sight, but it’s very effective among people who just want to stick their fingers in their ears and shout la la la, which seems to be most everyone most of the time.
What happened next? Well, there’s other stuff that’s interesting (watch this space) but then in 1896, Svante Arrhenius’ article about carbonic acid was published.
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.
Sixty seven, on this day, November 27,1956 Waldemar Kaempffert, New York Times science writer dies.
A month earlier, on October 28, the Grey Lady had run this below.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Kaempfert had been a journalist for a long time, and he had done a couple of really good articles in the New York Times about industry warming the world. He was probably good mates with Gilbert Plass. He had written the NYT article about Gilbert Plass’s comments at the AGU in May 1953.
What I think we can learn from this
Smart people were switched on to the threat in the 1950s. It wasn’t rocket science.
What happened next
Walter Sullivan became the chief science writer at The New York Times. Sullivan was heavily involved in reporting on the International Geophysical Year and at that point became aware of the potential problem of climate change from carbon dioxide build-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.
Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.
As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.
Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…
What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…
What happened next
The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.
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.
Forty six years ago, on this day, July 15, 1977, the New York Times ran a front page story that makes you just groan. Oh, and by the way, coal use is up in the last year..
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 334.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the National Academy of Science had been doing a two year investigation into weather and carbon dioxide and was about to release its report. And clearly a journalist at the Times had been given a tip off and was getting a kind of exclusive in first.
From the 50s some scientists had been saying “hey, carbon dioxide is going to be an issue,” and had slowly been able to build an epistemic community as Hart and Victor would have you call it.
What I think we can learn from this
We knew. It was, literally, front page news.
What happened next
In the mid-late 70s it all started to come together. It was then scuppered/slowed successfully between 1981 and 1985. And then with the scientific meeting in September 1985 at Villach, the push begins again.
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.
Seventy years ago, on this day, July 12, 1953, the New York Times carried an article about the changes in the world’s weather (warmer). It mentioned our friend carbon dioxide… (Engel, Leonard, 1953. “The Weather Is Really Changing,” New York Times Magazine, July 12)
It mentions CEP Brooks, and gets info from Harry Wexler of the US Weather Bureau. And near the end, this –
“Another theory, advanced by some meteorologists, attributes at least part of the rise in temperatures to a small but definite increase in the past century in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The air’s content of this product of combustion is important because carbon dioxide has heat-conserving properties, similar to greenhouse glass.
In 1850 the air contained somewhat less than thirty parts of carbon dioxide per 1000 parts off air. In the hundred years since, industrialized, urbanized man has poured unprecedented quantities of carbon dioxide out of home and factory chimneys… As a result, there are now thirty-three parts of the gas per 1,000 in the atmosphere instead of thirty. Calculations by physicists show that this is enough of an increase to make a detectable difference in the temperature at the surface of the earth…”.
By now there are already “alarmists” out there –
“The warming-up process, however, also poses problems…. If the warm-up continues for another several decades, shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap could cause a troublesome rise in ocean levels. The rise would not, as alarmists predict, wipe out all our port cities. But it could be troublesome enough to demonstrate anew that, for all his central heating and air conditioners, climate still makes man more than man makes climate.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 312.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were clear indications the world was warming up till about, well, 1950. And lots of articles in various places, including Saturday Evening Post. And, of course, two months before this. Gilbert Plass had hit the headlines with his statement about carbon dioxide. So I don’t think he was reported in the New York Times. He was, however, reported in Time, Newsweek, lots of regional publications. So this kind of “think piece” article could be cobbled together and be of interest because everyone was interested in the weather. It’s also in the context of nuclear bombs being set off left, right and centre, and everyone basically worrying about what that might mean.
What I think we can learn from this is that awareness of these issues goes back even in the mainstream press in very early days.
What happened next
More journalistic articles, including a corker from Maclean’s by Norman J Berrilll in 1955, and Plass’s work in 1956, also garnering a lot of press attention and interest.
Engel wrote another piece of special interest in 1958
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.
Sixty one years ago, on this day, July 8, 1962, mentions the “Glasshouse Effect” in an article by George Kimgle, about the weather and climate – “But Somebody Does Something About It” New York Times Magazine,
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This article includes a useful summation of the carbon dioxide issue, which by this time was popping up in newspapers everywhere (though not at the same level as it had appeared in the 1950s).
What I think we can learn from this is that people, educated people in 1962 would have been aware of a problem.
What happened next
The following year, the Conservation Foundation held a meeting in New York about carbon dioxide buildup. And within a couple of years, the first book that wasn’t about the weather to mention climate was published – Murray Bookchin’s Crisis in Our Cities.
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.
Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 10, 1969, the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission gave carbon dioxide build-up as an anti-coal/pro-nuke argument.
“Speaking today before the opening session of the 37th annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute, Glenn T. Seaborg, chairman of the AEC said that
“While tremendous efforts were under way to cut the sulphur content of coal, oil and gas – fossil fuels – there were “no methods known of eliminating carbon dioxide that results from combustion.” ”
The Times goes on to report “Nuclear power adds no pollutants to the atmosphere.”
(Smith 1969)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the nuclear lobby was starting to realise that it could use the alleged low carbon nature of its power stations versus coal. You’d seen Teller to do this in 1957-59. You’d seen an article in the 1964 “Population Resources” book that did the same thing. And I think the editor of the journal Science Philip Abelson had also mentioned climate change as an argument for nuclear in the late 1960s…
Seaborg had already warned about this in 1966 at a commencement address at UC San Diego.
“At the rate we are currently adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere (six billion tons a year), within the next few decades the heat balance of the atmosphere could be altered enough to produce marked changes in the climate–changes which we might have no means of controlling even if by that time we have made great advances in our programs of weather modification.” [wikipedia]
The “nukes will save us from climate” thing goes back longer than a lot of people would think.
What happened next
Nukes didn’t save us from climate.
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
Smith, G. 1969. UTILITIES URGED TO BACK A-POWER. The New York Times; Jun 10, pg. 63
Fifty one years ago, on this day, May 17, 1972, the “Grey Lady” reported some basic facts.
“The continued use of fossil fuels at projected levels will mean a 20 per cent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere by the year 2000, a leading meteorologist predicted today.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 330ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Stockholm climate conference, four years in the making, was about to begin. And there were a significant number – a very small but significant number – of climate scientists and atmospheric scientists looking at carbon dioxide levels and saying “ this could be the problem.” As this site has demonstrated, by 1969/70 lots of people were being exposed to this, both politicians, but also readers of magazines and newspapers.
What I think we can learn from this
Even before the 1972 conference, there was significant awareness and concern.
What happened next
The Stockholm conference did give us the United Nations Environment Program, smaller than hoped for with less power and money. But nonetheless, UNEP was crucial in helping scientists do the research that was needed through the 70s and 80s, or rather, to get them talking to each other, across geographical more than disciplinary boundaries…
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.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 26, 1998, The New York Times runs a story, probably not that different from the one on the 26th of December 1997 in the Washington Post. That, lo and behold, industrial interests, coal miners, auto makers, etc. are going to continue to try to – to use the academic terminology – shit all over climate action. And I think this is front page news but certainly not a surprise.
Anyone who’s paying any attention knows that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy, and that the ability of powerful cashed up vested interests, to shape policy to prevent policies they don’t like, is enormous. Just because the power is enormous doesn’t mean that they always win all the time. But it means the game is rigged, y’all.
1998 Cushman of NYT breaks story – Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp368.8m. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US had been at COP-3 Kyoto meeting. I think Al Gore even signed, but it was never going to come to the Senate for ratification. But the danger was that in two years time, if there was a Democrat in the White House, things could somehow change…
What I think we can learn from this
Opponents of action take nothing for granted and are always trying to keep their muscles, their attack muscles fresh, in case they’re needed.
What happened next
Cashed up denialist kept doing their denying.
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.
