1960s response to climate change

kernals12

Banned
The idea of the greenhouse effect has been around for a while, as these New York Times articles show

June 21, 1958
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.43.05 PM.png


August 6, 1960
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.44.41 PM.png


September 25, 1955
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.46.26 PM.png


December 21, 1969
Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.47.02 PM.png


So what if these warnings were taken seriously back then. What would be the response to mitigate rising temperatures? I'm guessing we'd have a lot more nuclear power, given that wind and solar power were not practical back then. And with no lithium-ion batteries and therefore no practical electric cars, we might have automobiles running on natural gas or propane.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.39.42 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 8.39.42 PM.png
    75.1 KB · Views: 109
It might be a cause for traditional liberals and the early environmental movement inspired by Silent Spring, given traditional Republican ties to industry and some on the New Left's criticism of the environmental movement OTL.
 
In full seriousness, we saw the response to environmental issues in the 1960s. That is when the environmental movements started. At the time, it was grave within its own context but wasn't as dramatic as what we know now, but things like birds going endangered from DDT and other species being hurt and driven to the brink of extinction from it, the severe pollution of cities, acid rain, and the Great Lakes being flammable really were major issues in the 1960s and 1970s. And there was a lot of pressure and fighting on those issues. I think it would be partially progress by leaps and bounds, and partially us still not doing enough because of apathy and corporate greed. Which is the case in actual history with those other environmental issues. We have failed to do as well as we could have, but nonetheless we did manage to change by a great deal. And such would be the case with this.
 

There was never a scientific consensus whatsoever on that issue, however. Honestly, it was the scientific equivalent of a limited area of the community going "well...maybe". And their data was accurate, but failed to take into account that it indicated growing extremes on both ends of the climate (warm periods and cool periods) and increasing climatic changes, hence global climate change. However, it does come to the main issue of how does climatological data and science properly understand that there is man made climate change in the 1960s, and then how does that come to be a majority scientific consensus which then becomes a public consensus?
 
Top