Tag: Paul Ehrlich

Categories
United Kingdom

March 8, 1971 – The Future cancelled for lack of interest…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1971,

“Due to Lack of Interest… ” Paul Ehrlich documentary” –

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/6254d3d38f674b6288acb485fcffdeda

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the BBC was making all of these documentaries about environmental issues and whether we were taking them seriously enough or too seriously. And this is another one of those.

March 1971 is possibly “peak Ehrlich” and peak environment. Everyone knew the Stockholm conference was coming. There was a new Department of the Environment. Super departments have been created, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, etc. 

And here we are. 

What I think we can learn from this

The TV shows that we think will “wake up the masses” have been made again and again and again and again. And again.

What happened next

Ehrlich’s predictions of the inescapable famine did not come to pass, and this has definitely hurt the green cause, if you want to call it that. 

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.

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Categories
United States of America

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day May 12, 1995, the bet between those who think Technology Will Save Us and those who think that, you know, there are limits, kept going.

The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists “…that any trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get worse.” This article echoes an editorial essay entitled “Earth’s Doomsayers Are Wrong” that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco Chronicle open forum. Simon then said that “Every measure of material and environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved…” and that “All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction of the doomsayers” Thus he implied that few, if any people would likely accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have been “proven entirely wrong.” When my Stanford colleague, Paul Ehrlich, and I took up his challenge1 and named 15 environment-related trends we were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused claiming to the Chronicle (18 May 1995) that “I do not offer to bet on the progress of particular physical conditions such as the ozone layer” (as if its decline were not a negative measure of environmental welfare!).   

Schneider – https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in March 1995 the first meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “conference of the parties” (COP) was about to happen in Berlin. So, everyone was thinking about the future of climate action. Julian Simon, a cornucopian, had been taking bets with Paul Ehrlich and others and winning them. Simon’s bets were useful just-so stories for “owning the libs,” as we now call it, for generations of what’s the polite word … idiots.

What I think we can learn from this

You can be really smart and dumb as a rock at the same time especially if you you have an inability, for psychological reasons, to accept the basic fact that there are indeed limits on human ingenuity and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb damage.

What happened next

Julian Simon died without ever seeing his bets for what they were. And sadly Steven Schneider died when we needed him most.

The atmospheric CO2 kept accumulating and the damage has kept accumulating. 

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
Australia

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

On this day in 1971, Billy McMahon – until recently regarded as one of the worst Prime Ministers Australia had endured – was being dismissive about Paul Ehrlich, the American biologist and prominent doomster (Ehrlich was, in the long-run, right).

Mr HURFORD – I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has he read and/or heard of the views of Professor Ehrlich, an eminent ecologist, that, with the present growth in world population and taking into consideration the present known incapacity of the world to produce the necessary protein food, energy, etc. to support this population, the world is set on a disaster course? 

Does he realise that these views are causing great concern in the community? Will he use the vast resources of the Commonwealth Government to appraise these views and either contradict them or notify the House as to how he can appropriately alter Government policy, and Government leadership in the world, to take into account the views of Professor Ehrlich? 


Mr McMAHON» – I have not closely studied Professor Ehrlich’s statements but I have read comments about them in the Press «and» seen resumes of what he has said. I must say that I was not attracted by what he has said publicly. I well remember in my very early days at the university when 1 was studying economics that there were many other people who made similar forecasts «and» who turned out to be just as wrong. Where would we have been if we had taken notice of a most distinguished professor at the University of Sydney who said that we could not have a population much in excess of 15 million? We now know that we can take a vastly larger population than that «and» provide better living standards for people provided only that the Liberal Country Party coalition remains in government. I think the honourable member being a thoughtful person and ready to accept what I have said will know the extent to which I disagree with Professor Ehrlich.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=date-eLast;page=0;query=Ehrlich%20and%20McMahon;rec=0;resCount=Default

Meanwhile, Stephen Schneider got a letter published in the New York Times, in response to some earlier nonsense…

(Hat-tip to Real Climate for the jpg)