Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1988,
RS (1988) The `greening’ of Congress. Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 1988
https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0817/ewirth.html
TWO US senators recently introduced bills to help slow global climate warming. The bills could put the United States in the forefront of international efforts to combat the so-called greenhouse effect. Norway appears to be the only country to have officially committed itself to reducing carbon dioxide emissions – a key culprit in warming the climate. Norwegians plan to cut such pollution by 20 percent by the year 2000. If enacted, the Senate measures could form the basis for a more comprehensive strategy than one focused only on carbon dioxide.
A bill introduced by Vermont Republican Sen. Robert Stafford would ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for all but medical uses by 1999. CFCs help destroy the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer and play a major role in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Senator Stafford’s bill would also require the US to cut CO2 emissions by half by the year 2000. It would also impose tight limits on nitrogen oxides and other gases that contribute to ozone smog at ground level.
A second bill, introduced by Colorado Democrat Timothy Wirth, asks for smaller reductions in CO2 emissions – 20 percent by 2000. But it also calls for a comprehensive US energy policy based on greater energy efficiency, more research into alternative energy sources, research into safer nuclear reactor designs, and broader use of natural gas to fuel power plants and vehicles. It would allot more money for basic atmospheric research. It would also steer US international aid efforts toward encouraging global population control, preserving rain forests, and supporting reforestation projects.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had become a relatively regular (albeit infrequent) subject in the Op-Ed pages of Serious Newspapers over the preceding decade.
The specific context was that James Hansen’s landmark testimony before a Senate hearing in June, combined with the drought affecting the mid-west, had “the greenhouse effect” on everyone’s lips. For a great summary of this, see the “Grant Swinger” article LINK HERE.
What I think we can learn from this – “greening” of politicians tends to go almost as quickly as it comes, in the absence of robust radical social movement organisations. Which we don’t have, and won’t have. So it goes.
What happened next – there was a flurry of announcements and pronouncements in 1988 and 1989. By 1990 the reality, and the organised backlash, were biting back. And the emissions? Oh, they kept climbing, of course.
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:
August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell
August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…
August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister” – All Our Yesterdays
August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)
August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol