Another G7, and of course, the usual largely presentist/ahistorical “think”pieces about what the G7 can do on climate (see here, here and here).
A few fun facts for you.
Carbon dioxide was first on the G7’s lips at the Tokyo meeting in… wait for it, wait for it… 1979. NINETEEN SEVENTY GODDAMMIT NINE. Which is, (taking off shoes to count), FORTY SIX YEARS AGO.
“We need to expand alternative sources of energy, especially those which will help to prevent further pollution, particularly increases of carbon dioxide and sulphur oxides in the atmosphere.”
And the following year, in Venice? Well, they promised to increase coal production.
Together we intend to double coal production and use by early 1990. We will encourage long-term commitments by coal producers and consumers. It will be necessary to improve infrastructures in both exporting and importing countries, as far as is economically justified, to ensure the required supply and use of coal. We look forward to the recommendations of the International Coal Industry Advisory Board.
Then in 1985, at Bonn, (then capital of West Germany) in the aftermath of the Ozone Hole discovery, more warm words.
We shall also address other concerns such as climatic change, the protection of the ozone layer and the management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes
Then, in 1989, in Paris, with “the Greenhouse Effect” on everyone’s lips, yet more warm words.
1989 Economic Declaration “We believe that the conclusion of a framework or umbrella convention on climate change to set out general principles or guidelines is urgently required to mobilize and rationalize the efforts made by the international community… Specific protocols containing concrete commitments could be fitted into the framework as scientific evidence requires and permits.”
Buried at Houston the following year, back on the agenda in London in 1991. And on and on and on it goes.
Seriously, I know we are trained to tug our forelocks to our Lords and Masters, that this is the KEY skill you have to learn if you want to get through the filters of higher education and into one of roles of the punditocracy (be it academic, journalistic, thinkwanky… sorry, tanky… or whatever), but really, when will we stop pretending???
That’s a rhetorical question, btw. “We” won’t. We will cling to our soothing stories of techno(crat)salvation as the waves close over our heads/the fires scorch our skin/choose your own death.