Thirty one years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1994, the chair of the International Negotiating Committee (INC) R Oyela Estrada gave a speech at the Royal Geographical Society
“In his remarks to the Royal Geographic Society in London on May 31, 1994, INC Chairman Raul Estrada Oyela said that for the time being the Convention process was “waiting for (scientific) inputs from the IPCC but I wonder if they will come in time. Almost one year ago, explaining the needs of the Convention to the IPCC Bureau, I had the feeling that the IPCC was suffering (some) kind of ‘Dr. Frankenstein Syndrome’. After all, the idea of a Convention was nourished by the IPCC, but now the Convention starts to walk and begins to demand additional food, the IPCC answered that it had its own program of work and could not deliver products by client’s request. … We hoped, for instance that the Convention would profit from an IPCC workshop on the objectives of the Climate Convention in Fortaleza, Brazil, in April (1994). However, the workshop was postponed for October (1994), most probably for very scientifically sound motives. The point is that the INC shall meet next August and we are not going to have that input then” (Estrada-Oyela, 1994). London based New Scientist took these comments to make a news story entitled “Frankenstein Syndrome Hits Climate Treaty” marking the first public criticism of the IPCC by an INC official (The New Scientist, 1994).
Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the IPCC had been set up in 1988 and delivered its report in 1990. The negotiations for a climate treaty began in earnest in 1991, were flummoxed by the United States. No targets or timetables for emissions reductions were included. The rest is history.
What I think we can learn from this – the science and the politics work on different timescales, with different ideas about what success is.
What happened next COP 1 took place a year later, and gave us the “Berlin Mandate” which gave us the Kyoto Protocol which gave us (checks notes) nothing.
And the emissions kept climbing. And the concentrations kept climbing. Rather like that pile of wreckage in that note by that Walt Benjamin chap.
xxx
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.
References
Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997
Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39, 621–642 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005312331477
Also on this day:
May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward – All Our Yesterdays
May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating… – All Our Yesterdays
May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!
May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance