On this day, 19th of February 2011, House Republicans in the United States Congress pushed through a symbolic statement throwing shade and threats of defunding at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Blaine Luetkemeyer, (still) a Missouri Republican, called the UN panel “nefarious.” [coverage here.]
The context is amusing, because it was actually their hero, Ronald Reagan, who signed off on the birth of the IPCC as an intergovernmental rather than international panel.
This theatre, this throwing of red meat to the base, chipped away at the legitimacy of the IPCC. So, while the resolution had no particular impact at the time (that I am aware of), it had a cultural one. It is also deeply uncomfortable for the scientists to be on the receiving end. And this is all part of more general “flak” as per Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model of media.
On this day, 18th February 1978. readers of The Washington Post would have learned, via an article by a journalist called Thomas O’Toole titled “Climate Experts See a Warming Trend,” that the burning of coal and oil was causing so much carbon dioxide to build up in the atmosphere that by the year 2000, temperatures might begin to rise.
O’Toole was reporting
“… the opinions of 24 climate experts in seven countries polled by the Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects which yesterday released the poll’s results in a 100-page report published by the National Defense University.”
We need to remember that in the late 1970s the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a problem and as one that was going to get worse and cause serious difficulty had moved from the academic journals and the scientific periodicals to the quality press such as the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Canberra Times. If you go looking for these, you can find them. They usually come out of various National Academy of Science reports too. We knew. We really did.
Why this matters?
What it says is that we’ve had almost 50 years to sort this out and, pace Donald Trump,, this problem was not invented by Al Gore, or by the Chinese as a hoax.
What happened next?
Well in this specific case, Carter’s Science Advisor asked some top scientists to look into the problem. This is the so-called Charney report, which said in 1979, we find no reason to believe this warming won’t happen. You can read more about it in Nathaniel Rich, and to some extent in Alice Bell’s “Our Biggest Experiment”
On this day, the 17th of February 2013, nine years ago, climate scientists, activists and activists were arrested outside the White House. They were protesting against the Keystone pipeline. Those arrested included James Hansen, actor Daryl Hannah, civil rights leader Julian Bond and environmental advocate Robert Kennedy Jr.
There were about 40,000 people on the march (though these guesstimates are always rubbery).
Why this matters
We need to celebrate resistance. Remember that we have resisted, albeit without much success, for who knows how much worse things would have been if we hadn’t.
What happened next?
Keystone may have been cancelled, but the extractivist infrastructures continue to be built…
On this day 16th of February in the year 2005, the Kyoto Protocol finally became international law. It was an agreement reached at the third Conference of the Parties (COP) in December 97, in Japanese city of Kyoto. It had called for rich industrialised countries to cut their emissions by a certain small amount in the period 2008 to 2012…
But before we get bogged down in the details, let’s go back to the beginning. When the climate issue arrived on the agenda in 1988, small and developing nations said “this is caused by rich countries. They have to take the lead in sorting it out.” And this was relatively uncontroversial in principle, at least. And so in 1992, you get the notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” and some sort of loose talk about technology transfer, etc. However – and this is crucial – the proposal to have targets and timetables for rich countries to reduce their emissions in the text of the climate treaty, due to be signed in Rio was opposed successfully.
And it was opposed successfully by our old friend, the United States of America, who basically said (and I paraphrase), “If targets and timetables are in, we will not come to Rio and you will have a worthless treaty.” So Kyoto was the first attempt, the first of many, to try to put targets and timetables back in. It was full of loopholes, famously, the Australian land clearing one (by the way, Australia got an emissions reduction target that allowed it to increase its emissions). And it also was supposed to kickstart carbon trading, something the Europeans had been sceptical about
In 2001, the new administration of George W. Bush had pulled the US out of Kyoto process. And the following year, Australia had done its little “me too” act, under its deeply inadequate Prime Minister John Howard.
Kyoto languished in limbo for years, and only got through, because Russia wanted to join the World Trade Organisation. And this was the quid pro quo. After the Russian Duma had ratified this, 90 days later, Kyoto became law for all the good that it did, which was virtually none.
Why this matters
We need to remember these histories. So we remember who’s to blame – sometimes it’s the actors, sometimes it’s the nature of a given process. We need to remember that the “sausage machine” of international law has not saved us, and is very, very unlikely to save “us.”
What happened next?
Well, Kyoto was always supposed to be replaced by something else bigger and better. And this was supposed to happen in Copenhagen. In 2009. It didn’t. The shards of agreement got swept up and glued together in a new pisspot called the Paris Agreement, which is basically the old Japanese “pledge and review” proposal, reheated. And then, six years after Paris, nations met in Glasgow, without their enhanced ambition statements for the most part. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide continues to accumulate.
On the 15th of February 1994, a brilliant anti-bullshit piece of political theatre took place.
Picture the scene. In a few months Manchester was supposed to host a major international environmental event. But amidst budget cuts and cost blowouts the organisation in charge had just lost its second head honcho in six months.
Meanwhile, the Council was embroiled in a high profile physical battle with well-connected, brave and intelligent people trying to protect a site of nature within spitting distance of the city centre (Abbey Pond).
In retrospect, the first (and only) public meeting of the “Manchester Global Forum board was always going to be hard to pull off.
Here’s one witness’s take of the scene
It was in the run up to Global Forum. It’s just beginning to get off the ground. We were quite deeply cynical about this, but they did genuinely try to involve the community, so this was an open meeting to discuss the aims and objectives of Global Forum.
So that was Councillor Spencer, the figurehead for the Council and other people named in that press cutting.
Now the enterprising Earth First!ers, and lovely students, were very creative. They made papier mache in, buckets, they got some wire, they made a framework. then covered it in black bean bags and made a face and it took 4 people to carry it, wasn’t heavy, but quite long. And it was our mascot and they christened him Isaac Newt. He was finished just in time for this open meeting and xxx organised so they could hear it from the newts. Our pallbearers, just let it all get settled sort of kept in the shadows and then very slowly marched in with Isaac Newt.
No shouting, in silence, marched straight down the central aisle. Up to the dais and plonked very gently in front of all the speakers and just sat back and enjoyed the effect
And here’s a newspaper account the following day.
As Unity Stack observes, it ticked all the boxes for a classic stunt:
Image says more than words ever could – controversial in all the right ways and left field, but conveyed simple message, save the newts, had impact
Non violent and time limited, the retreat was almost as impactful as the unexpected entry
Had the chuckle factor, even if the high table didn’t think so at the time, embarrassment factor just right
The perpetrators remained in control of the situation, so stayed in charge of the message, not hijacked by police or security actions.
Every day from Friday 11th to Thursday 24th February, a post (sometimes two) will appear on this site, to celebrate the Republic of Newtonia – a brief occupation of a site in Hulme in defence of Abbey Pond (near the Old Abbey Taphouse). In 1994, local people and environmental activists tried to stop the Council and the Science Park from filling in the much-loved pond. If you were there, and want to share your memories (and any photos or other material) please do get in touch via mcmonthly@manchesterclimatemonthly or on Twitter – @mcr_climate
Also, on Thurs 24th, the 28th anniversary of the Pond’s destruction, there is an online meeting, from 7.30pm, bringing together people who were at the Republic of Newtonia with campaigners defending green spaces now. You can book here (it’s free).
The background is this. Like other cities, Manchester had been caught on the backfoot, by the wave of “eco-concern” in 1988 and 89. It had signed up to Friends of the Earth’s “Environment Charter” and not done very much. And it wasn’t until UK Prime Minister John Major declared that Britain would host the follow up to the Rio Earth Summit, and Manchester bid to do so that things moved into higher gear. The Global Forum was supposed to be a large all singing all dancing international event while the world waited for the Rio Earth Summit, to be ratified by enough nations to pass into law. In the end, Rio was ratified more quickly than people have anticipated. And the budget for Global Forum got hacked, leaving Manchester with egg on its face. This was apparent already by the time of the “Partnerships for Change” events in September 93, but in February 94 they were still putting a brave face on things, Manchester said that it was all going to be okay. And as we’ll find out in June, it wasn’t.
Why this matters.
Because you have to understand that cities take on these agendas for other reasons in order to try and reinvent themselves in Manchester’s case, and along with the Olympic bid, (which ultimately morphed into the Commonwealth Games). Manchester leaders have always used environment as part of its marketing strategy, rather than its actual industrial strategy or decision making process.
What happened next
Manchester Council continued making absurd promises, which it did not keep.
On this day, 14th of February, Valentine’s Day 2002, 20 years ago, George W. Bush, the minority US president sent a Valentine’s Day love letter to the future called the “Clean Skies initiative.” And although the wrapping was attractive, the contents were deeply unhealthy. Clean Skies was supposed to solve the political problem created by Bush for Bush when he had pulled the US out of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol, and when Cheney (the real Prez?) had tried to kick start, yet more coal fired power plants. Folks weren’t fooled.
Why this matters?
We need to remember that those in charge of society who got there being elected, or in this case being elected by their mates on the Supreme Court, do not have our best interests at heart. They have been kicking the can down the road, blindly making ridiculous promises based on unproven technologies.
What happened next?
Clean Skies was a “failure” if you judge it on reducing pollution. Looked at another way, it was a success, giving enough of an impression of “action” so the issue of air pollution couldn’t be used against him, even had the Democrats been minded to. Bush was reelected, or elected for the first time in 2004, relatively fair and square, if you don’t count, the swiftboating of John Kerry. And the emissions keep rising, the atmospheric concentrations keep rising. The only thing that doesn’t really rise are the viewing stats on this website.
On this day, in 2015, global divestment hit the headlines (see press release here). Divestment was one of those flavour of the month style campaigns where you try to leverage one part of a broader system to cause bigger change, in this case, trying to get institutional investors to take their money out of fossil fuel stocks, and it feels good. It feels like you’re putting a face on where the money goes, to quote. Marge Piercy’s Vida “Keep naming the enemy: put faces on where the money goes.”
Why this matters
But like any tactical demand, it after a while it gets stale, it gets predictable, it gets less attention in the media. And that means fewer people turn up next time, which means the media is even less interested. And you go into a death spiral. And then along comes a new tactic. And so it goes. And that is why I’m talking today about divestment. (Again, I’m not shitting on the people who poured their heart and soul into it. I just think we need to understand that it’s a tactic, and it has a shelf-life.)
What happened next?
People don’t talk about divestment so much anymore. For a while everyone started trying to get local authorities and governments to declare climate emergencies. Now that’s dying down. We’re waiting for the next big thing. The end of the day. We need this historical and sociological perspective. But we mustn’t let those perspectives demoralise us and give us an excuse for doing nothing.
On this day in 1958, Frank Capra’sfourth and final science documentary “The Unchained Goddess” was released. According to the infallible Wikipedia “The film was televised on February 12, 1958, with a disappointing audience share and many critical press reviews.”
This is the one where you may have seen a clip on the internet on YouTube, of people discussing the build-up of carbon dioxide and eventually people looking at Miami, in glass bottom boats.
There are some very good books about and articles about this series of documentaries. See, for example, “Sonnets & Sunspots: Dr. Research Baxter & and the Bell Science Films” by Eric Niderostt.
There’s also an interesting and useful discussion of Unchained Goddess in Alice Bell’s, Our Biggest experiment. Beyond that it’s also worth noting that “Meteora” as the capricious fickle goddess was considered a bit sexist, even at the time.
But it’s also an example of how much we knew how early and how little we did one for the time capsule, one for the piece of evidence for the prosecution against humans, when there is the intergalactic court of rights.
On this day, in 1994, Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, signed an Executive Order telling all government departments – not just the EPA – that they had to consider environmental racism. The clue is in the name – “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.”
Now the crucial thing here is that these moments in history get put down as “Oh, enlightened leader leading,” but if you actually peel back, he’s (and it is usually a he) putting his name on something that is the result of years of tireless, dedicated campaigning by people whose names don’t appear in the history books. And there is always this bias towards the personality of an individual. This does not mean that the personality of individuals does not matter in specific moments. But for this sort of bread and butter (attempted) institutional change probably it doesn’t.
Why this matters
We all need to understand that institutional racism isn’t something that’s only there with the Metropolitan Police – it is baked into society.
What happened next?
Well, is the USA less institutionally environmentally racist? Is it? [This is not to criticise the heroic efforts of countless people fighting for justice!]
On this day, in 2010, 55 leading Dutch scientists wrote an open letter to the Dutch parliament, pointing out that although there were inaccuracies in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, that did not in fact invalidate the basic findings. The reason they needed to even do this was the so-called Climategate hack of late 2009. The theft of emails from a University of East Anglia server was, as the American right-wingers like to say, a “nothing” burger, but one that was briefly tasty to climate denialists.
Why it matters
Toni Morrison’s astute comment about racism, and racist narratives being there to distract and to exhaust and to prevent you from doing the work that you want to do applies here; white progressives could learn a lot from reading people of colour, who have been putting up with character assassination and – checks notes – actual assassination four hundreds of years.
The quote is this –
“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”
Listen to Morrison’s 1975 speech, recently digitised, here.]
What happened next,
The IPCC kept producing assessment reports, possibly with a little more care. The Dutch government got sued by Urgenda [see 2019 judgement] and the emissions kept climbing. And the climate denial people are now mostly doing predatory delay. And hyping the purported costs of transitioning, (not that the costs – both financial and cognitive – are anything other than enormous).
