Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science Scientists United States of America

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.”

On this day, June 10, 1986, climate scientist Robert Watson told United States Senators the grim news…

“I believe global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing “

The context was that in October 1985 there had been a crucial meeting of scientists in Villach, Austria. It had been sponsored by the World Meteorological Organisation, the United Nations Environment Program and the ICSU. The scientists had realised that predicted warming was likely to come harder and faster than they had been assuming. They started alerting politicians who were willing to listen (some of whom had already been engaged). Crucially, this included Republican senators (the party had completely swigged the Kool Aid yet).

1986 Peterson, C. 1986. A Dire Forecast for ‘Greenhouse’ Earth. Washington Post, 11 June. p1. 

Here’s an account

“More members of Congress became interested in climate change following Senate hearings of June 1986. In these hearings a NASA scientist, Robert Watson, testified that `I believe global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing ‘(SCEPW, 1986b, p. 22). The statement was picked up by major papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post briefly elevating what had been a relatively obscure scientific topic to national prominence. Administration officials testified before the Senate committee the next day. In general, the officials from EPA, Commerce, NASA, State, and Energy tried to downplay the significance of Watson’s comments, which only served to bring them into sharper relief. Following the testimony of the administration officials Senator John Chafee summarized the hearings as follows: `It was the scientists yesterday who sounded the alarm, and it was the politicians, or the government witnesses, who put the damper on it’ (SCEPW, 1986b, pp. 183}184). Chafee’s comments were an accurate characterization of the developing relationship between many in Congress who sought to heed the scientists’ alarm and those in the executive branch who tried to dampen it.”

(Pielke, 2000: 16-7)

See also Washington Post retrospective in 2016  very very explicit issue linkage – Pomerance acting as policy entrepreneur linking issues, at behest of Curtis Moore- see Nathaniel Rich Losing Earth

 

Why this matters

Good to know the scientists were speaking out before the magic years of 1988.

And that the administration was trying to gag them.

Useless, but good.

What happened next?

The issue stopped being so easily containable in the summer of 1988.

But the policy – of a global treaty – that was fought over, obviously. And as Leonard Cohen warned us “everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.”

And Bob Watson? He was chair of the IPCC, until Exxon got Bush to sack him….

Categories
Uncategorized

June 9, 1989 – the Australian Labor Party versus the unions versus the planet #climate

On this day, June 9, 1989, Australian Labor Party heavyweight and Environment Minister Graham Richardson faced off with (then-powerful) trade union figures.

The ALP were facing a very tight election soon. Bob Hawke was ageing, Paul Keating was wanting the top job. The economy was not good (interest rates very high) and the Liberals looked credible and were making green noises. The Tasmanian election of May 1989 had seen a huge green vote.

So, it was crucial to get this right. But what about the workers??

AN ODDLY portentous scene was played out behind the closed doors of the ALP national executive’s last meeting in Canberra on June 9 by two of the party’s toughest right-wing figures: the Federal Environment Minister, Graham Richardson, and the AWU general secretary, Errol Hodder.

Hodder, who had left the executive meeting briefly, returned to be told that while he was away Richardson had spoken of how the union movement had to reassess its position on the environment, and that someone present had said that the ACTU’s attitude on the issue was “stupid”.

Never backward in coming forward, Hodder leapt up to make a strong defence of the union movement’s reaction to the growing importance of the environmental debate.

What he said, in essence, was that the unions were well aware of the significance of the issue but the Government had to recognise a few things too. A tree might be a pretty thing to look at, but the view paled when you’d been put out of a job and you’d a mortgage to pay and a family to feed.

Clark, P. 1989. Unions may as well be talking to the trees. Sydney Morning Herald, 20 June, p13

This is a cheat – this is a 1992 document. There IS a 1989 policy, I just can’t find it right now…

Why this matters. 

Have we squared this circle yet? Really? Maybe the red-green alliance we need is at hand. I will believe it when I see it. Here’s a picture of “Richo” back in the day.

What happened next?

In order to win the next election the ALP promised an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process. And then filed the results in the circular file, obvs (more on that in August…)

Within a few months, the ACTU had changed its tune –

Moffet, L. 1989. ACTU turns a decided shade of green. Australian Financial Review, 26 September.

The ACTU has signalled it is changing its colours and turning green by making its first major policy statement on environmental issues.

The statement – to be debated at the ACTU Congress this morning -represents a concerted attempt by the organisation to overcome public opinion that the union movement is full of pro-logging rednecks.

The ACTU hopes that by tapping into the groundswell of concern over environmental matters it will prove its relevance to the community and boost its membership numbers. ACTU delegates privately conceded yesterday that the union movement had allowed itself to become an irrelevant voice in public debate on environmental issues.

Personal disclaimer/pre-emptive statement

The “right” has been extremely successful at driving wedges between environmentalists and trades unionists, with caricatures of each. Without organisation by working class people, it is not going to be possible to do anything meaningful about climate change. It just isn’t. Unfortunately, given how hard the struggle for them to even get to organise (laws designed to make it impossible to unionise), “abstract” issues like, oh, the fate of the planet, often don’t resonate. I have, in my looong life, seen moments for red-green co-operation squandered, gulfs of mutual-incomprehension and antipathy grow. We need to do better…

Categories
Denial Economics of mitigation Kyoto Protocol United States of America

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

On this day, 25 years ago, (June 8th 1997) US business interests went very public in their ongoing campaign against both domestic legislation but also international agreements on climate change.

The background, quickly – by 1989 US business interests were pushing back hard against (some) politicians concern about “the greenhouse effect.” They created a front group, with the typically misleading name “The Global Climate Coalition” to slow down (or ideally, from their perspective, stop) moves towards putting a price on carbon dioxide, encouraging renewables etc. They rendered the UNFCCC largely toothless, and they’d killed off President Clinton’s proposed BTU tax. But by 1997, pressure was growing. A big international meeting was to be held in December 1997, in Kyoto, at which rich countries were supposed to come up with plans not merely to stabilise emissions, but actually reduce them.

As per a very useful academic article (Levy and Egan, 2003) this – 

On 8 June 1997, the Business Roundtable sponsored full-page advertisements in the US press signed by 130 CEOs, arguing against mandatory emissions limitations at the forthcoming Kyoto conference. Eighty Business Roundtable members did not endorse the advertisements, however. Monsanto had led an unsuccessful effort to draft an alternative text, which acknowledged that sufficient scientific evidence had accumulated to warrant concern and industry’s engagement in developing precautionary measures. This dissenting view was brought to President Clinton’s attention at the June 1997 meeting of the President’s Council of Advisers for Science and Technology (PCAST). According to Jon Holdren, Harvard scientist and chair of the PCAST panel on energy, the President’s awareness of the minority industry faction had significant political ramifications: ‘We actually did get the President off the dime at that meeting. He mobilized an interagency task force, and started a process which eventually converged on a set of policy recommendations for Kyoto.’

See also the “Global Climate Information Project”

The kind of stuff that happened that year? Check out the youtube that climatefacts.org put up…

Global Climate Information Project ClimateFacts.org 1997 TV Ads

Why this matters. 

Splits within the business front (you go, Monsanto, you cuddly treehuggers you!) meant that President Clinton had a little more wiggle room.  For what THAT was worth. It’s worth pondering that, by the way – this often happens – different businesses/sectors, with different interests and vulnerabilities, perceive the best course of action differently. Trade associations/business groupings are often sites for those conflicts.

What happened next?

We shall come back to the Byrd-Hagel resolution soon… Kyoto got agreed, and signed. The US and Australia pulled out before ratifying. It became international law because the Russians wanted into the WTO. It was toothless, and not replaced at Copenhagen. Then in Paris… oh, blah blah blah. The. Emissions. Have. Kept. Climbing.

See also

  • Ross Gelbspan’s work
  • Oreskes and Conway (2010) The Merchants of Doubt
  • Robert Brulle‘s work
  • Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright’s work on anti-reflexivity.
Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

On this day, June 8, 1973, the Australian Treasury released a report on economics and growth that even mentioned… climate change. Here’s a newspaper report first.

“The other difficulty in assessing resources policy is that the term first appeared in Australian Government circles last year from the Department of Foreign Affairs and was based on the assumption that resources were finite and therefore somebody should be thinking about the implications for the future and producing policies on development, use and sales.

“The Treasury Economic Paper No 2, ‘Economic Growth: Is it Worth Having?’, published today, pours a bucket of cold water on that ‘assumption, arguing that resources are not finite, that they are dynamic, growing in line with technology and demand. As an example it points out that back in the ’30s the iron ore at Pilbara was known, but it was not a resource because there was not the technology to mine it economically.

Davidson, G. 1973. Planning ahead for wise use of Australia’s resources. Canberra Times, 8 June, p.2. [Trove]

Here’s the cover,

The relevant bit of the report.

Why this matters

The economic language of “oh, it will be fine, we will innovate our way out of any problems” has been with us a very long time indeed, hasn’t it?

What happened next?

Treasury did not do a great deal of thinking about climate change for another 15 years or so, best I can tell.

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

On this day, 7th June 1971, South Australian John Coulter appeared on the ABC discussion programme “the Monday Conference.” 

“It all started in 1970, when Dr John Coulter, later a Senator and leader of the Australian Democrats, met with eminent gynaecologist Derek Llewellyn Jones to establish ZPG in Australia.  Over the next six months they met with leading scientists to formulate a full page open letter in the Australian newspaper in 1971 entitled “To Those Who Shape Australia’s Destiny”.  It urged the Australian Government to investigate not only the population that Australia could support over the long term but also the details of a balanced economic system, that is, a system in which economic productivity is balanced against the capacity of the environment to maintain itself.”

“As a consequence of this open letter, John and others were invited to a debate on population on the new and influential ABC TV program Monday Conference in 1971. This led to Paul Ehrlich being invited to appear on a later program.  Paul’s appearance there and subsequent lectures around Australia had a tremendous impact.”

History of SPA

Here’s a couple of grabs of what Coulter said, 51 years ago.

and

Why this matters. 

There was knowledge for those who wanted it. Our problem has not been, since then, one of information, but ability to “maintain the rage” at an individual and collective level.


(“Maintain the rage” is a mid-70s slogan, that only decrepit Australians would know)

What happened next?

We ignored the warnings, went back to sleep. Woke periodically, as the house burned to the ground. So it goes.

Categories
Germany Ignored Warnings Science Scientists

June 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?”

On this day, 6th June 1977, German climate scientist Hermann Flohn gave a talk entitled “Whither the Atmosphere and Earth’s Climates?” At the  “Growth without Ecodisasters?” conference, aka “the Second International Conference on Environmental Future (2nd ICEF), held in Reykjavik, Iceland, 5-11 June 1977.”

Among other gems, this –

“There is no question that the impact of Man on the climatic system has now reached a level near to that of natural climatic fluctuations, and that we are on the fringe of anthropogenic climatic fluctuations on a global or at least a hemispheric scale.” “

And this

“The present situation in the field of climate modelling, and the multitude of (mostly non-linear) feedback mechanisms within the climatic system preclude an early solution to problems concerning the prediction of climatic variations, even if we accept the above-mentioned assumptions without further discussion. In addition to this, the growth-rates of energy consumption,. and of the C02 content of the atmosphere and likewise of other trace-gases, depend on many social and economic developments and on political decisions: they are also largely unpredictable.”

You can get hold of a copy of Flohn’s talk here.

Meanwhile, here’s something he had had published a couple of months prior.

Why this matters. 

“We” knew.

What happened next?

Flohn kept going, informing politicians.  

The emissions kept climbing.

Categories
Australia

June 5, 1993 and 2011- let’s have a march for #climate… It will make us feel good.

On this day, 5 June, 1993, Green Groups tried to keep the show on the road, despite the evident contempt of Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating for all matters green (because, well, what else can they do?)

Anon. 1993. Top Green Group plans March for the Future. Green Week, May 25, p.3.

The Australian Conservation Foundation public launch of Environment Week at Darling Harbour will feature a March for the Future through city streets on June 5, World Environment Day.

And 18 years later in 2011, on the same day of the year,, Green Groups try to keep the show on the road, because, well, what else can they do.  Already sold down the river by one Labor Prime Minister, they try to get behind another minimalist technocratic approach (because, well, what else can they do?)

For more about this, see this news report, from which I grabbed the image above..

Why this matters. 

We’re caught in some traps, that are not entirely “our fault,” but we don’t even recognise them as traps. We just see them as normal, inevitable, like a goldfish (is capable of) seeing water…

What happened next?

The people who had to Say Yes – MPs, said yes later in 2011. Then a new bunch of MPs said “No,” and the Emissions Trading Scheme was ended.

See also 

My article on The Conversation about “Out of Step: Marching for Climate Justice versus taking action.”

Categories
Australia Cultural responses United States of America

June 4 , 1989, 1992, 1996 – from frantic concern to contempt for everyone’s future…

So, a slightly different take on “All Our Yesterdays” – I will look at three events that occurred on June 4, but, as per the title, across seven years.  These nicely summarise the arc of concern, hedging to effective resistance to action.

First up – in the first flush of newfound concern about The Environment, a “get together” when such satellite link-ups were relatively rare (but  by no means unheard of).

Anon, 1989. Environment focus of global TV show. Canberra Times, 4 June p. 3.

SYDNEY: Australians play a part in a television program on the environment to be seen live in almost 100 countries today. Our Common Future, based in New York, will bring celebrities and world leaders together to spearhead the push towards environmental awareness.

The New York Times was lukewarm at best –

The oddest, most incoherent global television broadcast since the 1989 Academy Awards took place on Saturday afternoon. ”Our Common Future,” a five-hour program relayed to about 100 countries, was intended to create awareness of environmental problems and to urge global cooperation. For five hours, broadcast live from Avery Fisher Hall with material from the Soviet Union, England, Australia, Poland, Norway and Brazil, the program mixed musical performances with pro-environmental statements, a format akin to Live Aid, with which it shared a producer (Hal Uplinger) and director (Tony Verna).

Unlike Live Aid, the program was not a benefit, and it was less a live concert than a staged event; the audience was largely an invited one, and many of the performances were on tape. It was also considerably lower in star power than Live Aid, with Sting, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Diana Ross, Joni Mitchell, R.E.M. and Kenny Loggins as its best-known names – although an African tawny eagle stole the show when it flew from the stage to roost on the second balcony. 

And three years later, after a global treaty was “negotiated”, we have this – 

“Australian signs the UNFCCC Roz Kelly (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories), Australia signs UNCED climate change convention, media release, 4 June 1992.

Australia’s new Prime Minister, Paul Keating couldn’t be arsed to go (almost all other world leaders attended). Meanwhile, the Liberal National Party were already throwing shade –

“The opposition’s delegate to UNCED in 1992, for example, had criticized the Labor Government’s willingness to give away Australia’s sovereign rights and had emphasized the debilitative economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.48

CPD, Senate, 4 June 1992, p. 3350.Matt McDonald, 2005 Fair Weather Friend

And, sure enough, once they were in charge again, this – 

Australian industry has applauded the Federal Cabinet’s decision yesterday to oppose a targets and timetables approach to international climate change negotiations, made on the eve of World Environment Day today.

The Howard Government’s position effectively reaffirms that taken by the Keating government and its minister for the Environment, Senator John Faulkner.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, said in a joint statement: “Australia will insist that the outcome of current international negotiations on climate change safeguards Australia’s particular economic and trade interests.”

Mr John Hannagan, chairman of the Australian Aluminium Council’s major policy group, said industry welcomed this statement, “reinforcing its no-regrets position as its negotiating stand at the forthcoming Geneva talks”.

Callick, R. 1996. Coalition backs industry on climate change. The Australian Financial Review, 5 June, p.2.

Why this matters. 

These things follow a pattern – excited/exuberant “we can fix this,” (1989) then some sort of legislation (usually quite weak – 1992), then the pushback even from that…

What happened next?

We went through more waves of excitement, legislation, pushback. On a couple of occasions (2006-2009, 2018-2021). It is connected to what I call “the emotaycle.”

Categories
Australia

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

On this day, June 3 1989 the Australian Liberal Party’s environment spokesman told reporters about their ambitious environmental policies for the upcoming Federal election.

THE Federal Opposition is preparing a separate “climate policy” bringing together all issues relating to world climate change.

The document, compiled by a climate policy task force, is expected to be released within a fortnight after endorsement by shadow cabinet.

The Opposition Environment spokesman, Senator Chris Puplick, said yesterday: “The policy will take in the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer, industrial pollution, recycling, tree-planting and climate research.

“At the moment these issues are scattered over a number of policies and it’s an attempt to integrate them and find out where there might be any gaps. Obviously, it will also update things in the light of new standards being set and new technology being introduced.”

Senator Puplick criticised the proposal by the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Graham Richardson, for a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues.

“I think it is just a bit of very silly kite-flying in the sense that firstly you would have enormous problems in actually drawing up a piece of legislation to amend the Constitution,” he said.

Jones, B. 1989. Libs endorse ‘Climate Policy’. Sun Herald, 4 June, p.5.

The context was that ozone hole/the greenhouse effect had exploded onto the scene the year before. The European elections – and the Tasmanian state elections – of May 1989 had made politicians think that votes were to be had in the green… It did not last very long, of course.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that there was a brief moment of “competitive consensus” way back at the beginning of the climate issue, but it did not last. The pressures pulling apart “right-wing” parties are still there – the need for votes, and the need also to protect continued capital accumulation in the same vein…

What happened next?

The incumbent Australian Labor Party squeaked home at the March 1990 Federal Election, thanks to small-g green voters (the Green Party did not exist yet) preferencing them over the Liberals, despite the Liberal Party’s more ambitious targets.
Puplick’s career was toast, and the Liberals decided they had been stitched up by the Australian Conservation Foundation (the largest green group), leading to decades of suspicion and animosity.

(For an account, see Paul Kelly’s “The End of Certainty”)

See also (and thanks to the person who tweeted it! this I wrote for The Conversation.

Categories
United States of America

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

On this day, June 2nd, 1989 a good article with a bad title was published, summarising then current stances on “the greenhouse threat”.

Hansen, via his testimony almost a year previously, had become one target for those who were seeking to dismiss long-standing ‘greenhouse’ concerns.

Hansen had already been on the receiving end of an attempt to silence him by the Bush Administrations OMB, which had been revealed in May by Senator Al Gore.  Hansen had been on the receiving end of this sort of pressure in 1981, and it would continue throughout the rest of his career. That is what happens when you have some inconvenient truths to tell…

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that titles are rarely chosen by the author, and that just as you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, an article might be more than what is suggested or (oftentimes) less – the so-called ‘bait and switch’.

What happened next?

Hansen kept doing what a decent scientist should do – researching, reporting on their findings, refusing to be shut up.