Tag: New York Times

Categories
Nuclear Power United States of America

 June 10, 1969 – pro-nukers mention carbon dioxide in a New York Times article

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]

And Maddow 2019

It was 10th June 1966-

https://digitallibrary.sdsu.edu/islandora/object/sdsu%3Acommencement1?display=list&page=10

What I think we can learn from this

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

It’s in here, a 1968 collection

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacP4mRdWzYKtMnSKuKrXdmJJUSvdoe-bb44qsCuRtfPtLixMOjsGyw1YHZQBemXnmEvKUEJdD7TK0N3XvOkDMVMQ9w0UN_eRtZXfVGvbdgtcJANstG-W_ub0B9QWN9mkvA1dBoAgw0zK9Uu0zE6gUabQEDSghhU8QuPYQJyQR5wrL4mnUJAwpNhIdNbjnHHB-mIvHUpBXFtWuz5Xng_cpNP4YNnTFEKPDJLtysbt0OCCmweHb6Ej0IeQ2Zw8aILHx2SOlJBj1y46FPxevDaLi_NFYtjrg

Seaborg, G. 1996. A Scientist Speaks Out A Personal Perspective on Science, Society and Change

Categories
United States of America

May 17, 1972 – New York Times reports carbon dioxide build-up worries…

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.”

Andelman, David, “20% Rise Feared in Carbon Dioxide,” New York Times, May 17, p. 6.  

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.

Categories
Business Responses Denial Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

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.

Categories
United States of America

January 30, 1961 – New York Times reports world is cooling

Sixty two years ago, on this day, January 30 1961, in a story that would later be used by incoherent denialists, Walter Sullivan, New York Times science reporter, reported that the world was… cooling.,

You see this clip on various denialist websites.  You don’t see this below, from the same article.

This was in the context of a symposium in New York, attended by Hermann Flohn and Gilbert Plass, among others…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .

The context was that global temperatures had been rising over the last 50 plus years (Guy Callendar had been one of many to spot this – his contribution had been to say it was down to carbon dioxide build-up). However, from about 1940, the amount of dust/smog/sulphur had increased the reflectiveness of the atmosphere, meaning some of the sun’s heat didn’t hit the Earth.  So temperatures started falling…

What I think we can learn from this

The signal did not properly emerge from the noise until the 1970s (though the reason – smog/suplhur was well understood)

Denialists cherry-pick like mad, then project that onto people who… advocate for 19th century physics.

What happened next

The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. Sullivan kept covering it, forming good relationships with working scientists like Stephen Schneider (they met late 1972) and James Hansen.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Science United States of America

January 10, 1991 – “Separate studies rank 1990 as world’s warmest year”  #ShiftingBaseline

Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.

The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.

A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.

Stevens, W. (1991)  Separate Studies Rank ’90 As World’s Warmest Year  New York Times,  Jan. 10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .

The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).  The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing).  Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).

What I think we can learn from this

The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’.  If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.

Also – shifting baselines are a thing.

By @cameron_jms

See – https://twitter.com/cameron_jms/status/1120259348788338689

And

https://xkcd.com/1321/

And the warming stripes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warming_stripes

What happened next

It kept getting warmer, as you may have noticed.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Energy United States of America

January 3, 1984 – US report on energy transition to combat climate released. 

Thirty-nine years ago, on this day, January 3, 1984, the New York Times science journalist Walter Sullivan had a story that began with words that could have been written yesterday, more or less…

“A GLOBAL strategy to reduce a potentially dangerous increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been outlined by engineers and economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University.

“In a report to the National Science Foundation, the specialists propose that the use of fossil fuel, largely responsible for the carbon dioxide increase, can be substantially reduced by greater efficiency in energy production.”

Sullivan, W. (1984)  “Report Urges Steps to Slow Down Climate Warming,” The New York Times, January 3.

Sullivan had been writing about carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere for the NYT since the early 1960s (having become aware of the issue during his coverage of the 1957-8 International Geophysical Year).

The report’s lead author, David Rose had been quoted in an August 1980 Wall Street Journal article (which we will come to later) as saying that if the CO2 theory were right “that means big trouble.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344ppm. As of January 2023 it is 417. .

The context was that by the mid-late 1970s, US scientists were able to get funding for decent studies of carbon dioxide build-up, and were even getting some sympathetic hearings from the Jimmy Carter White House. That all ended when Reagan and his goons turned up… In October 1983 two “conflicting” reports about CO build-up had been released. (something AOY will cover later this year).

What I think we can learn from this

We knew. As I have argued here, and elsewhere, ad infitum  and nauseam, there is not an information deficit,,but there is a sustained radical social movements deficit.

What happened next

The issue finally was forced onto the agenda in 1988.  Reports like the MIT/Stanford one have been written pretty much every year since then.  Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gses have climbed almost every year. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have gone up and up and up.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Rose, David J.; Miller, Marvin M.; Agnew and  Carson E. (1983) “Global energy futures and CO\2082-induced climate change: report prepared for Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/60493

Sullivan, W. (1984)  “Report Urges Steps to Slow Down Climate Warming,” The New York Times, January 3. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/03/science/report-urges-steps-to-slow-down-climate-warming.html

Categories
United States of America

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

On this day, December 22 in 1975, the New York Times ran a story “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises.”

But carbon dioxide was not in the frame.

Dr Howard Wilcox, who had a book called “Hothouse Earth” argued that – in the words of the NYT-

“man’s output of heat into the atmosphere, if allowed to increase at present energy and industrial growth rates, will raise the earth’s temperature enough to melt the polar ice caps and flood many populous areas of the earth in the next 80 to 180 years.”

 That ‘heat’ would be the key driver, was not the case…, as both William Kellogg and Murray Mitchell pointed out – the final paragraphs in the story are these:

Dr. J. Murray Mitchell, Jr.; senior research climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Silver Spring, Md. in a telephone interview offered, similar observations:

“I agree with Dr. Wilcox’s concern and his scientific analysis and statistical evidence. But I feel that the more immediate danger will come from the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide that are thrown off into the atmosphere along with the heat that Dr. Wilcox talks about.”

Baynard Webster, “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises,” New York Times, December 22, 1975

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 331ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

We need to remember that – as per the Landsberg article mentioned a few days ago, carbon dioxide was not the only villain in the picture.

What happened next

Within a couple of years, it was obvious that carbon dioxide was, in fact, the big thing to worry about. 

Categories
Activism Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

November 23, 1968 – “Hell upon Earth” warning about environmental destruction,inc. climate…

On this day, November 23, 1968  Lord Ritchie Calder gave a presidential address to the Conservation Society (a British NGO from the mid 60s to the late 1980s). Its cheerful title? Hell Upon Earth.

And among the litany of dangers ahead, this on climate change….

“It has been estimated that, at the present rate of increase (6,000 million tonnes a year) mean annual temperature all over the world might increase by 3.6 degrees centigrade in the next forty to fifty years, The experts may argue about the time factor and even about the effects but certain things are apparent, not only in the industrialised northern hemisphere but in the southern hemisphere. The north-polar ice-cap is thinning and shrinking. The seas with their blanket of carbon dioxide are changing their temperature with the result that marine plant life is increasing and is transpiring more carbon dioxide. With this combination fish are migrating, changing even their latitudes. On land the snow line is retreating and glaciers are melting.”

Calder’s speech wsa reported in the New York Times on the 24th

“Hell on Earth”  NYT article – LONDON, Nov. 23 — Lord Ritchie-Calder, president of the Conservation Society, painted a gloomy picture today of the future of the world because too many “ignorant men are pretending to be knowledgeable.”

And in the Observer by John Davy

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 323ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters. 

I used to think that unless you were particularly switched on, then climate change wasn’t really on your radar until 1988.  Then I pushed that back to the late 1970s… then…

What happened next?

Calder kept at it – see his widely-syndicated “Selling off the Old Homestead”, originally in Foreign Affairs, in January 1970

Categories
United States of America

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

On this day, October 28 in 1956, the New York Times carried another story on the build up of carbon dioxide (something it had written about the previous year too).

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 314ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American scientist Gilber Plass had been making noises about this issue, as were the Swedes. The International Geophysical Year was about to start (i.e. Roger Revelle was in the process of hiring Charles David Keeling)

Why this matters. 

We knew enough to worry and watch, back then, and to act if the worries about a build-up were to be proven (as they were, within a few more years of this article).

What happened next?

Roger Revelle hired Charles David Keeling to take accurate measurements of carbon dioxide.

Categories
United States of America

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

On this day, 11 September, 61 years ago, the New York Times carried a story – on page 29 – from their science correspondent Walter Sullivan.

The title was  “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”  

Sullivan had already written a book – “Assault on the Unknown” about the International Geophysical Year, so this finding was hardly a shock.

On this day the PPM was 314.99. Now it is 421ish- but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

Again, early days, but the issue was being watched…

What happened next?

Scientists kept sciencing. Sullivan kept writing about this stuff. Other NYT journos picked up the story too, over the following decades.