Categories
Guest post Scotland United Kingdom

June 24, 2009 – Scottish Parliament passes insufficient climate legislation; claims ‘leadership’ anyway

On this day, June 24th, in 2009, the Scottish parliament unanimously passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act. This enabled the devolved Scottish government, led by the Scottish National Party’s minority administration, to look slightly more progressive than the UK New Labour government at Westminster. This government, then led by Gordon Brown, had passed the Climate Change Act for the whole of the UK in 2008.

Some provisions in the Scottish Act went further than the UK legislation; for example a slightly higher emission reduction target for 2020. This was the result of a parliamentary bidding war (a 42% target reduction in Scotland, compared to 34% for the UK as a whole). Also, there were to be annual targets to sit within 5 year carbon budget periods (the UK Act didn’t have those annual targets).

Sarah Louise Nash has written extensively in the academic journal Environmental Politics about the alliances that were formed in Scotland to shape the Act during a period of increased activist and media attention to climate change (paywall). A key factor was the desire for Scotland to be able to position itself as a global leader at the COP19 summit held in Copenhagen later in 2009, which ended famously in acrimonious failure.

In 2019, during the latest wave of enhanced activist and media concern about the worsening climate crisis, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act was amended to set more stringent emission reduction targets. The UK Government had just altered its legislation to set a net zero target for 2050 (up from an 80% reduction target). Scotland again followed suit and positioned itself as slightly more ambitious by proposing net zero by 2045, with interim targets for 2030 and 2040. The Scottish Green Party abstained on the Bill that introduced the new targets, arguing that an 80% reduction target by 2030 is needed, instead of the Bill’s 75% target (increased from the SNP’s proposed 70%).

Just like in 2009, 2019’s legislative change came before an important global summit that failed to meet inflated expectations. COP26, scheduled to be held in Glasgow in 2020, and delayed due to Covid until 2021, involved Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon trying, with limited success, to get on stage to position Scotland as a world leader, as cringy selfies showcased by the Murdoch Press (Sunday Times) help make apparent.

Nicola Sturgeon poses in red with various leaders at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021.

Despite the talk of global leadership, the climate scientist professor Kevin Anderson noted in Scotland’s 2020 Climate Assembly that ‘when you look at Scotland’s consumption emissions, that is its total carbon footprint over the last twenty years, you will see that there has been no meaningful reduction over that twenty year period’.

The lesson to take from this history is that, despite bidding wars for the status of virtue and global leadership on climate change that help to increase legislative ambition, the numbers still fail to add up when the baseline for ‘leadership’ is so disastrously low.

Dr Robbie Watt is an academic at University of Manchester, a core group member of Climate Emergency Manchester and an all-round lovely bloke. He has another guest post on All Our Yesterdays, here.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United States of America

June 24, 1986 – New Yorkers get to watch a documentary on “The Climate Crisis”

On this day, June 24 in 1986, A New York television channel showed a documentary with the does-what-it-says-on-the-tin title of “The Climate Crisis”-

“PICKING up where a high-school chemistry class might end, ”Nova,” the public-broadcasting science series, offers the nonmatriculating viewer an advanced course in worrying. The cause of the concern is all the carbon dioxide that’s being pumped into the industrialized and motorized air. The hour-long broadcast is called ”The Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect,” at 9 tonight on Channel 13.

“The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth’s mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.”

Mitgang, H. 1986. Earth’s Climatic Crisis Examined by ‘Nova’. New York Times, 24 June.

Why this matters. 

Good to remember that serious efforts were being made. It’s too easy to tell stories about “then this politician did this, then this CEO did that”, and therefore public opinion changed to “x”.

It is an easy narrative device, and it is a career-helper AND it helps with this idea (comforting) that there is a bridge to storm to save the Titanic by grabbing the wheel and yanking.  

Yeah, no.

What happened next?

Public education efforts continued. Two years later, eight years after she was first given credible warnings, Thatcher started saying the “right” words, as did George Bush. That went well, didn’t it?

Categories
UNFCCC

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

On this day, 23rd June 1997, world “leaders” gathered in Rio for a meeting packed with self-congratulatory speeches, this one to celebrate (if that is the word), five years since the Rio Earth Summit. (The 1992 Rio Earth Summit is the one that gave us the Biodiversity Treaty and the UNFCCC).


In the US the American Petroleum Institute was taking out full page ads to put pressure on President Clinton. In Australia Clive Hamilton co-ordinated the release of an open letter from 131 economists about the cost-effectiveness of early action.

Meanwhile, this good reporting by an Aussie journo gives you a sense of what happened. (John Howard didn’t go to Rio +5, but then his predecessor Paul Keting had not gone to Rio itself).

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases.

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, hands-hakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

James Woodford, Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June 1997

Why this matters. 

They pile promise upon promise, don’t they? Maybe the promises are what the Angel of History is seeing, as part of the wreckage upon wreckage hurled in front of his feet?

What happened next?

The next big event in the circuit was COP3, in Kyoto. An agreement was made that – as per the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities agreed at Rio – rich countries would go first in cutting emissions. The US and Australia never went with it. The fossil fuel use exploded. The atmospheric concentrations went up and up.

Categories
Science United Kingdom

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise”

On this day 22nd June, 1976, the Times (pre-Murdoch) ran a story with the headline “World’s temperature likely to rise”’, buried at the bottom of page 9.

“A warning that significant rises in global temperature are probable over the next century has been issued here [Geneva] by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

This would be the consequence of a build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide – which has already risen by 10 per cent in the past 50 years – because of increased use of oil and coal fuels.”

WMO were, it turns out, having a spat with the “Ice Age is coming” folks… 

Why this matters. 

We. Knew. Enough. To. Be. Worried. And taking action, by the late 1970s. This was not a deep dark state secret. This was in the fricking newspapers.

What happened next?

Sank without trace. In 1979 the WMO held the First World Climate Conference, also in Geneva. Momentum, but not enough to survive the arrival of the Thatchers and Reagans of this world…

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse)

On this day, June 22 1988 the film   Who Framed Roger Rabbit  was released. 

I walked out the first time I saw it, because I was an eighteen year old moron with no idea of what he was seeing.  

Anyway, spoilers – this is an homage to Chinatown, but with cartoons’s about a conspiracy to kill off public transport and force everyone into cars.

And there’s folks out there who will quibble (waves at Cameron) or, in fact present counter-arguments, but you know, National City Lines was a thing. This sort of stuff does, in essence, happen.  

If you like your politics and economics in cartoon form.

Why this matters. 

These are cognitive maps, if we choose to use them. Mostly we choose not to. So it goes.

What happened next?

Los Angeles. Bless it.

Categories
Australia Cultural responses

June 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf…

On this day, June 21 2007, in the midst of one of the periodic waves of public agitation about climate change, the Australian Broadcast Corporation launched “Carbon Cops.” No I haven’t watched it. This website is enough of a wrist-slasher to manage, without subjecting myself to this sort of futile censorious neoliberal Calvinistic horror.

“Carbon cops Lish Fejer and Sean Fitzgerald are on a mission to change habits of Australian families by measuring their carbon emissions.”

TV shows on global warming leave most viewers cold. Carbon Cops may change that, writes Michael Dwyer.

WHAT if our planet was under siege by some omnipotent celestial foe, but television stations were unable to acquire footage compelling enough to galvanise the required response?

That appears to be the inconvenient truth confronting green TV shows. In a medium that thrives on explosive hits, the merely smouldering issue of global warming is proving about as gripping as watching trees grow.

This year we’ve already seen two well-intentioned environmental awareness shows come and go – or rather we haven’t, judging by the ratings for SBS’ Eco House Challenge and Channel Ten’s Cool Aid: The National Carbon Test.

Now the ABC braves the precarious balance between worthy and watchable with a six-part domestic challenge series titled – with an admirable lunge for some of that hot, sci-fi/CSI intrigue – Carbon Cops.

Anon, (2007). Carbon culprits cop a dose of reality. The Age, 21 June.

Why this matters. 

God, this sort of preachy atomised and atomising scolding shite, that makes people feel guilty about relative trivialities, and hails them as consumers but never as citizens, is part of the reason we are so doomed. We need people who cut their own carbon footprints but who spend most of their time and energy expanding their political footprints and those of other people who give a damn. That requires functioning social movement organisations that don’t fall over (implode) the first time something goes wrong.

What happened next?

It didn’t last. It never does.

Categories
United States of America

June 20, 1979 – Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House

UPDATE: If you’ve come here for this, you might also be interested in a new post (October 1st 2024) about Jimmy Carter’s climate change actions. Happy birthday President Carter!

On this day, June 20, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter had 32 solar panels put on the White House.

It was organised by Dennis Hayes, who had been one of the co-ordinators of Earth Day in 1970, and then headed of Carter’s Solar Energy Research Institute

There is a brilliant blog post by Oliver Carpenter of the UK Science Museum about this here. See also Scientific American.

Such a pity that the Science Museum is lending its name to the continued extraction of fossil fuels. What can you do?

Why this matters. 

It could have been different. That would have required a miracle, it’s true, but it could have been different.

What happened next?

Reagan came in, as a front man for a bunch of goons. The goons trashed the joint. The end.

Categories
Cultural responses United Kingdom

June 20, 1977- “Alternative Three” – An early Climate Hoax 

On June 20 1977 the mockumentary (as we would now call it) “Alternative 3” was broadcast. It was supposed to go out on April 1st, but a strike scuppered that.
So, the documentary, which – well, let’s go to Wikipedia –

 Purporting to be an investigation into the UK’s contemporary “brain drain“, Alternative 3 uncovered a plan to make the Moon and Mars habitable in the event of climate change and a terminal environmental catastrophe on Earth…

It was claimed that scientists had determined that the Earth‘s surface would be unable to support life for much longer, due to pollution leading to catastrophic climate change. Physicist “Dr Carl Gerstein” (played by Richard Marner) claimed to have proposed in 1957 that there were three alternatives to this problem. The first alternative was the drastic reduction of the human population on Earth. The second alternative was the construction of vast underground shelters to house government officials and a cross section of the population until the climate had stabilised, a solution reminiscent of the finale of Dr Strangelove. The third alternative, the so-called “Alternative 3”, was to populate Mars via a way station on the Moon.[6]

Why this matters. 

Atmospheric consequences were well enough known in the mid 70s to be the stuff of parody. I have a copy of the book – it’s WILD

What happened next?

There are still people out there who believe it.

It’s a bit like the (wonderful) Report from Iron Mountain, by Leonard Lewin.

Categories
Activism Denial United States of America

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood”

On this day in 1997, the cuddly-sounding but actually simply evil “Global Climate Coalition” ran the following newspaper advert, as part of the huge, well-funded and well-coordinated campaign to … (checks notes)… render human civilisation quite unlikely in the second half of the 21st century.

Image via the fantastic “Inside Climate News” site.

Exactly 12 years later, on June 19, 2009 there was a “Mothers Day of Action” in the US, as part of a push for a climate and energy act.

“On Friday, June 19th, 1Sky and groups like MoveOn, Green for All, Oxfam and others are calling for a national day of action to make the climate bill stronger. It’s a day for you to “get visible” in your community. Please invite your family, friends and neighbors to rally at your representative’s district office and make your voice heard loud and clear.

Sign up now for this national day of action: http://www.1sky.org/getlouder

Your voice lets your representative know that there are concerned citizens — like you — who want a stronger bill to create millions of clean energy jobs and begin to tackle climate change. So now it’s time to get louder!…..

Why June 19th? Right now, several committees are working on this bill, and we expect a House floor vote by the end of June. This is the critical moment we’ve been working for in the House, so it’s time to make ourselves visible!

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that the language of motherhood has been used a lot (I think it is a two-edged sword, tbh) – that this did not suddenly emerge in about 2018. Corporations and threatened industries can cloak themselves with the mantle of the underdog, of innocence, and go all DARVO too

What happened next?

GCC shut up shop in 2002, “mission accomplished”.

MAU shut up shop in 2011 – mission not really accomplished. So it goes.

Categories
Science Scientists Uncategorized United Kingdom

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

On this day, June 18 1976 the UK Meteorological Office’s director, John S. Sawyer, replied to a request from the Cabinet Office. Two days earlier they’d asked for his take on Reid Bryson, a prominent US atmospheric scientist. Bryson was predicting imminent climate change (but NOT from the build up of carbon dioxide, which he considered a non-issue.


Sawyer was scathing – Bryson was “completely misleading and alarmist”.

The context is that by the mid-70s, with a series of “weird weather events” (including the 1976 drought, then underway), policymakers were beginning to wonder if something was up with the weather.

You can read more about this,and where I got the above information from, in the excellent paper Computing the Climate: When Models Became Political“by Janet Martin-Nielson. The specific quote is this –

In 1976, the Cabinet Office wrote to the Meteorological Office’s director of research, John S. Sawyer, asking for his views on Bryson’s work. Bryson is ‘‘completely misleading and alarmist,’’ replied Sawyer only two days later, and, he continued, ‘‘the evidence that a permanent climatic change of significant magnitude is in train is at best exceedingly sketchy.’’42

 J. S. Sawyer to D. C. Thomas, 18 Jun 1976, KEW, CAB 164/1379  Martin-Nielson, 2018 Computing the Climate

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that it wasn’t a straight line, that carbon dioxide build-up was only one of the ways that scientists thought the weather could change. That uncertainty can be hard to recollect in the aftermath of 1985 onwards…

What happened next?

Bryson refused to accept that carbon dioxide was driving observed climatic changes. These things happen – people don’t like to admit they backed the wrong horse.

A report on climatic change finally got presented to Margaret Thatcher in 1980. Apparently her response was incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather.” And this, from a chemist.