Posted on August 29, by Scott Alexander [Epistemic status: Pieced together from memory years after the event. I may have mis-remembered some things or gotten them in the wrong order.
This was the year of the first Earth Day, marking the point when the public in the United States and soon after, many other nations began urgently pressing their governments to pay attention to environmental harms.
Congress funded NOAA and EPA largely in obedience to this growing public concern, which was directed less at possible future global troubles than at visible nearby evils like filthy rivers and choking city air.
The EPA was created to deal with human health risks such as smog, not climate issues, and had only minor funds to give to global warming research.
This viewpoint made sense to scientists, who mostly put "environmental" questions in the category of immediate practical problems, separate from abstract speculations about climate change.
The planet's climate is not organized along the lines of government agencies. Nor does it fit with the standard academic scientific disciplines "Nature is ignorant of the ways our universities are organized," as one scientist remarked. Key problems in the field, such as the study of how carbon moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere, fell between stools.
No institution had a budget line devoted to these problems. So there was no community to lobby for funds, organization or policies. They had worked hard to build up individual scientific institutions, academic and international as well as Federal, in their respective fields.
In each institution, elite scientists would be in charge, directing research funds as they thought best. The result was that climate change studies, fragmented among many organizations, received a fairly reliable but modest fraction of various research budgets.
Nobody made a special effort to create a unified climate studies program, the kind of strong and independent institution that could fight for a big lump of funds. A few people did notice implications for their present concerns.
When Edward Teller told an assembly of scientists in that rising CO2 levels might eventually melt back the polar ice caps and inundate the world's lowlands, he had a personal stake as a nuclear expert. These were years when many people in government and industry, including Teller, were enthusiastically promoting the building of nuclear reactors.
Some of them noticed that the risks of greenhouse warming could give minor reinforcement to their arguments for weaning humanity from dependence on coal and oil. Recognizing an attack on fossil fuels, a scientist working for Shell International Chemical Company publicly denied that "our furnaces and motor car engines will have any large effect on the CO2 balance.
That may have helped maintain awareness of the greenhouse issue in policy circles. Two reporters who spoke with scientists in sketched out some striking implications of the greenhouse effect. If it ever became certain that CO2 was warming the planet, they wrote, we would see "a type of control regulation, law, interstate compact, and international agreement which could scarcely help clashing with some of our cherished notions of free enterprise.
Industry, which might blossom in some directions Further, in view of the global nature of the problem, ordinary international agreements might prove inadequate for effective regulation.
For decades, hardly anyone else would raise these grave questions. After all, as the New York Times's science writer remarked in a article on the prospects for global warming Oct. Most telling was C.
Keeling's measurements of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, a curve that dramatically rose year after year. The government should give the subject more consistent attention, they believed, and more money.
Above all, they called on the National Academy of Sciences to create a committee to look into the whole question of atmospheric change.No, the government should not be entitled to the decisions of U.S. citizens.
There is zero obligation regarding fast food consumption. No human being has been choked to death for not eating fast food. Plus, it is only a travesty when an individual solely burdens self with this habit and diet.
In the 21st century, vehement opposition to regulation of greenhouse gases, if not outright denial that humans caused global warming at all, became virtually obligatory for Republican party politicians.
Nevertheless actions to mitigate climate change began at all . ashio-midori.com: News analysis, commentary, and research for business technology professionals.
After being taken down twice by Blogger within a single week, we got the message: It’s Time To Go. Gates of Vienna has moved to a new address. Get the latest science news and technology news, read tech reviews and more at ABC News.
Jan 10, · Parties and Candidates. A country can be said to be democratic only when its elections constitute a real competition among numerous political party-backed and/or independent candidates.