Categories
UNFCCC United Nations

Jan 27, 1989: UN General Assembly starts talking #climate

January 27 1989. On this day, the United Nations General Assembly passed the first agreement about a climate change treaty. It was propounded by Malta. And it led to a series of ministerial meetings now long forgotten in places like the Hague, Bergen, and so forth, with the second World Climate Conference in Geneva in late 1990 becoming a venue for political manouevres too. The UNFCCC process that began in January of 1991 and culminated in Rio in June of 1992. 

Why this matters? 

Small island states have been banging on about the problem of sea level rise for a long time. And they’ve been humored, patronized, condescended, ignored, whether they’re in the Caribbean, the South Pacific, or even really, the Mediterranean. 

What happened next.

INCs, Summits, 26 COPs (and counting) and countless other gabfests. If well-meaning (sometimes) talk saved the world…

Categories
Antarctica

Jan 26, 1978: “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” article in Nature…

On January 26 1978, a paper was published in the journal Nature, about the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet due to rising climate emissions. This paper, pithily titled “West Antarctic ice sheet and C02 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster” was written by John Mercer. You can read more about Mercer (who was a bit of a character) and the fact that he’d been researching and thinking about this since (deep breath) 1968, here…

In the 1978 paper Mercer pointed out 

“A disquieting thought is that if the present highly simplified climatic models are even approximately correct, this deglaciation may be part of the price that must be paid in order to buy enough time for industrial civilisation to make the changeover from fossil fuels to other sources of energy”

Why this matters. The sea level rise, among other things. We’re toast.

What happened next? Well, we’re not there yet. But we will be soon (a while in human lifespan terms, an eyeblink geologically speaking…) And the East Antarctic Ice Sheet? Not looking too clever either…

Categories
United Kingdom

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy”

. On this day, the United Kingdom government, led by John Major, released its “Sustainable Development Strategy”, which was going to return the UK carbon emissions levels to 1990 levels by the year 2000. And this was achieved, yep, great… except it was all part of the dash for gas and de-industrialization (off-shoring production).

What happened next? The UK government, by this time had already killed off a European Community-wide carbon tax proposed by the Danes for two reasons (at least) – because of the political difficulties around Maastricht and also pit closures. 

And the incoming Blair Government, set itself a 20% reduction target by 2010 because it thought this would be relatively easy. 

However, by 2000 it was obvious (or rather, the late-lamented Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution pointed out) that emissions reductions weren’t going to continue, and would in fact increase. Cue much talk of nuclear and CCS. Of course.

HMG still not doing nearly as well as it would like to say that it is doing. We have been making bold promises about climate action, taking credit for accidents, and dodging the blame for everything else.

Categories
Activism

Jan 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

On January 24 2017, five years ago, a judge in the United States caused controversy when he decided to frame climate change as a matter of opinion, rather than settled scientific fact

A Washington state judge has sparked outrage for remarks questioning the existence of climate change and the role of humans in global warming. During the high-profile trial of Ken Ward, a climate activist facing 30 years in prison for shutting down an oil pipeline, Judge Michael E Rickert said: “I don’t know what everybody’s beliefs are on [climate change], but I know that there’s tremendous controversy over the fact whether it even exists. And even if people believe that it does or it doesn’t, the extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.” The Skagit County judge made the comments on 24 January while addressing Ward’s request to present a “necessity defense” in court, meaning he would argue that the grave threat of climate change justified civil disobedience. [link

We have to remember the very successful campaigns in the early 90s. To shift public opinion, especially among older white guys from climate science as a thing to climate science as part of a culture war. 

Why this matters: Yes, you can use the legal system as one means by which to try to ‘shift the dial.’ But it’s by no means the only one. Most of the people using the law know that, they don’t need telling from me.

Just days before this post went up, activists fighting the supine “regulator” of oil and gas extraction from the North Sea lost their case, because the judge said, well, read it and weep.

What happened next.

Bless him, Ken Ward fought it to the Washington State Supreme Court, and won on the necessity defence

Categories
Uncategorized Weekly updates

The Week Ahead 24th Jan to 30th Jan (Week #04 update)

Welcome to week 03 of “All Our Yesterdays – 365 climate histories.”

This was the week that we hit triple figures on Twitter (thanks to followers – goal remains 2k by the end of the year).

It is ALSO the week that Chloe and I chose the February blog posts (via a yet-to-be-perfected online system) AND that I narrated the rough drafts of the entire month of February on a couple of walks/yomps.

So, progress.

And it is also the week I read an impressive book by Alice Bell – “Our Greatest Experiment” AND learnt some new “digital humanities” tricks (around turning things into searchable pdfs).

What you may have missed in the last week on the site

Stuff about corporate lobbying, not showing leadership, gambling and losing… the usual..

What I’ve been reading/watching/listening to

Brilliant piece by James Meek from the London Review of Books (July 2021) abt the political economy of those wonderful offshore wind turbines (who builds them, where, under what conditions?)

What’s coming up in the next week on the site

Antarctica breaking up, a brilliant guest post by Hugh Warwick, and a “no regrets”

What’s coming up in the next week in the real world

26 2pm EAC on “net zero aviation and shipping”

27 Jan  You and the planet: Tomorrow’s Earth | Royal Society

Categories
Antarctica Ignored Warnings

Jan 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

January 23 1995, the Larsen B ice sheet starts to splinter. This is in Antarctica. And it probably gave us the opening scene of “The Day After Tomorrow”, a not very good disaster flick from 2004f essentially a retread of nuclear war movies of the 1980s. 

The MP Chris Mullin, refers to this in his diary entry of the same day, but I cannot get hold of it right now – will update when I do.

Meanwhile, this from Squall, a wonderful newspaper from the 1990s.

Why this matters. 

The signs of the times have been with us too long before. Those poor children protesting as part of youth strike don’t always realise that since long before they were on planet they have been betrayed again and again.

 What happened next?

 We got more and more sure that the Antarctic is not stable. We’ve had warnings since 1978, (see Jan 26th post). And now well, it’s really not looking good, is it?

Categories
Fossil fuels United Kingdom

Jan 22, 2002: Exxon and on and on

On this day 20 years ago. Lee Raymond, then boss of Exxon met for an hour (or 35 minutes – accounts vary) with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Now, of course, prime ministers do and have to meet with big business all the time. But maybe we should know what is discussed, what is agreed. And when people like Blair, talk about climate change, but then pal around with Exxon. Well, I refer you to yesterday’s blog post. 

What happened next

Exxon continued to be a big funder, a funder of fossil fuel denial. Exxon, we should remember, had known about the problem of climate change since the late 70s- see Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew

And fossil fuel usage is continuing to soar. Let’s have a look at a graph of fossil fuel usage since the 1750s.

Annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, by world region (ourworldindata.org)

Can you spot the downturn after we were warned in 1988 to change our ways? Yeah, me neither..

“We” pursued precisely the opposite strategy. That little first person plural pronoun is of course, a mystification. “We” might all be responsible, but we are by no means equally responsible. There is always power politics at play, often behind closed doors as they were on the 22nd of January 2000.

Exxon buying up Biogas

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation Politics

Jan 21 (2010) – The flub that sank a thousand policies #auspol

On this day, in 2010, – yes, another Australia one, but it “matters” –  Australian  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, was caught out having to admit that his proposed “carbon pollution reduction scheme” was dead and that he was kicking the whole climate issue into the long legislative grass.

The CPRS was an insanely complex piece of legislation. Economist Ross Garnaut said of it in December 2008 that  “”Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few,”“ – and that’s before the further watering down. Green groups had called it a give-away to the fossil fuel lobby, and the Green Party had refused to support it in parliament in late November 2009, meaning that it failed to become law.

Rudd was in Norwood, a leafy, and relatively affluent suburb of a large country town called Adelaide in South Australia.

As leader of the Australian Labor Party, Rudd had used climate change as a battering ram to differentiate himself from Prime Minister John Howard, and been elected to do something about the issue. As Prime Minister from late 2007, he had been playing chicken with the Liberal National Party, especially its leader Malcolm Turnbull, and had initially rejoiced when Turnbull was replaced by the dark horse (and subsequent wrecking ball) Tony Abbott. 

But the climate conference in December 2009 in Copenhagen didn’t go well. And in the aftermath, Rudd ignored the urging of senior Labour Party members to call a snap election on the question of climate policy, and then didn’t even come up with a plan B. So he was caught on the hop. We know all of this because the period is intensely reported in the battle of the memoirs. And I’d alert you to Philip Chubb’s Power Failure. Julia Gillard’s My Story, Paul Kelly’s Triumph and Demise


What happened next?  Australia entered a period of extreme volatility about climate change that  has brought down successive prime ministers and left the country with enormous policy failures around climate, energy, renewables, you name it. If Rudd had had the courage of his convictions, or even just taken on the Green Party idea of a temporary carbon tax while an Emissions Trading Scheme was devised/an election held, none of this needed to have happened. And here we are. 

Why this matters? Because I think you can make an argument that Australia’s confusion and cynicism about climate change and politics is directly related to Rudd’s failure to pursue the climate agenda to the ballot box again, if needs be.,

Rudd had enjoyed going on and on about climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation” (which it is). People believed him. Rudd’s popularity remained stratospheric. Then, when people decided that Rudd had been using climate as just another “positioning issue,” they felt cheated, betrayed, taken for fools. Rudd’s personal approval ratings took a massive hit. Climate was the only issue, but it certainly was the straw that broke the camel’s back. 

So if you, as a political leader, are going to use climate change as an issue, you better bring your A game and if your A game doesn’t work, you better switch to your B game, which is as good as your A game. And if you don’t, you will cause havoc. And it is now harder than in Rudd’s day, because everyone is cynical, everyone is kinda terrified, whether they can articulate it to themselves or not.

Categories
Australia Ignored Warnings Industry Associations

January 20 (1992) Gambling on climate… and losing #auspol

On this day 30 years ago…, well, let me speculate. Imagine a middle-aged Australian businessman. Let’s call him Dave (“Dave-o” to his mates). Two kids, chasing his third tawdry affair with his fourth secretary, trying to dodge a second heart attack. Doctor telling him to cut back on the booze and the smoking.

Dave is sitting at the lunchtime talk of the CEDA in Australia, and he’s listening to the keynote speaker Don Carruthers of mining giant CRA (now Rio Tinto) say that the federal Government’s stance for the Rio Earth Summit in June – lead by that silly woman minister Ros Kelly – is going to threaten the Australian economy. And Dave’s next pay rise.

Here’s what the Australian newspaper reported the following day

Stewart, C. 1992. Green policies ‘flawed’. The Australian, January 21, p.3. 

“The Federal Government’s environmental proposals for the United Nations inaugural earth summit conference in Brazil in June are seriously flawed and run counter to our own economic interests, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia heard yesterday. Mr Don Carruthers, a director and group executive of mining giant CRA Ltd, told a CEDA lunch in Melbourne that the Australian stance in the lead-up to the Rio de Janeiro conference – which will be the world’s largest environment forum – would, if adopted, pose a direct threat to the international competitiveness of our economy.”

Let’s imagine, Dave is sat there, hearing Don Carruthers fulminate, and he remembers that before coming to the event he had, uncharacteristically, idly leafed through the Canberra Times (one of the more serious newspapers in Australia).

On page three, he had seen the following. 

Anon, 1992. Greenhouse cynics gambling with future. Canberra Times, 20 January. 

“One of the CSIRO’s top scientists says doubters of the greenhouse effect are gambling with the future of the world. Dr Graeme Pearman, coordinator of the CSIRO’s climate change research program, said yesterday there was little doubt global warming was a reality according to all the best scientific models.”

I wonder how Dave reconciled these two items. Does he decide that he’s 45 or 50 in a position of authority, but not necessarily power and there’s no margin in rocking the boat? That it might not be happening, anyway. Is he gonna think about being able to retire and leave the problem  – if it exists – for his teenage children, who’ve been on the demonstrations have encouraged him to join Greenpeace and buy recycled toilet paper, to deal with?

Which way does Dave-o jump? Any given individual might jump one way or the other. They might struggle (see Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg’s book about Australian middle-managers at a later date). 

But ultimately, as a species, as a society, as a political class, we know which way Australia jumped – towards ever more fossil fuel exports, and disdaining the domestic possibilities of renewables until the late 2000s.

As a species, it turns out that we lost Pearman’s gamble. What would you say to those people, to Dave, if you could have them here now for five minutes?

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage Energy Europe Industry Associations Technophilia

Jan 19 (2015) -Four utilities pull out of an EU CCS programme…

On this day, Jan 19, in 2015 “four of Europe’s biggest power utilities, represented in Brussels by Eurelectric, have decided to leave the European Commission’s CCS Technology Platform ZEP.“

The four were Germany’s RWE AG, France’s Electricite de France, Sweden’s Vattenfall AB and Spain’s Gas Natural Fenosa.

The ZEP had been set up in the mid-2000s as “a coalition of companies, scientists and environmental groups seeking ways to capture and bury heat-trapping carbon emissions mainly from the exhausts of coal, oil and gas-fired power plants.”

[On the EU’s “Zero Emissions Power Plant Programme”. See also 2011 article in Nature about Europe and CCS.]

Why? Well, money at stake. As a Bellona press release titled “Utilities feign interest in CCS to get public bail out” said

“Of the move, Bellona Europa Director Jonas Helseth said: – In their poorly concealed attempts to attain capacity payments, Europe’s utilities have misused the trust of the European Commission and Europe’s CCS community. It’s shameless how Eurelectric proudly announces the formation of a new CCS taskforce and ‘calls on policymakers to push ahead’, while simultaneously pulling out of Europe’s largest and widest coalition working on CCS.”

What happened next

Is there any CCS? 

Why this matters.

We keep assuming we can deploy these technologies at massive scale, rapidly, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s one of the ways we avoid looking at how much some of us are emitting.  There is trouble ahead.