Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

June 8,1991 – UK environment minister Heseltine visits USA, his climate compromise rebuffed

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1991, the UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, went on a (futile) mission to the US to try to get them to be less of a blocker in the negotiations around the climate treaty that had to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992.

You can see lots of gory details here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were upon us in full flow. The UK had just adopted the stabilisation target at least. But it was clear that the administration of George HW Bush was digging in its heels and generally being douchey. Environment Minister Michael Heseltine was therefore dispatched to see what could be done. 

What we learn from this is that even under John Major the UK was trying to be less terrible than the Bush outfit. And they’re always these behind the scenes games. It is actually one of those little incidents that would be nice to cover. Heseltine was fresh from challenging Margaret Thatcher for the leadership and precipitating her departure. 

What happened next? The American anti climate clique went round spreading bullshit about Heseltine and there was actually very unusually a public rebuke of this. See questions in Parliament about the July 12th 1991 article in The Times. For all the good it did. And then less than a year later, the pantomime ended with the British dispatching another envoy, Michael Howard this time, to raise the white flag on behalf of the Europeans. Targets and timetables were dead. A Tale of Two envoys…

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.

Also on this day: 

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

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

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

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1989, the Australian Financial Review (piss-poor, compared to the Financial Times) was talking about the money to be made…

For all the worry that the greenhouse effect is causing around the world there is, perhaps, a bright side.

The greenhouse effect has opened up a number of potentially profitable opportunities for industry. It has created a number of niche markets for environmentally safe products or new strands of vegetable.

The South Australian Government has already taken steps to help industry identify these new niche markets. It has established a council to examine the implications of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer on the future direction of industry, agriculture and the economy of the State.

McLachlan, C. 1989. Hot chances for coping with greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, 7 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect and what was to be done. Including the business press. And thanks, thank our lucky stars, it turns out there was money to be made. Because otherwise, you know, why would we act? 

What we can learn from this is that every media outlet has its frames: the Hobbesian frame for the Mail and the Telegraph and the slightly more refined but still Hobbesian view for the Times. The bleeding heart Jean Jacques Rousseau, frame for The Guardian. And “let’s make loads of money” and “let’s identify anyone who can stop us making loads of money and squash them like a bug” frames for the business press. 

What happened next? Everyone went on about how much money might be made. But then it turned out that there would be taxes and regulation in order to create new markets and the status quo actors, i.e. the incumbents, were able to squash those markets for a very long time. Until it was too late for anything to actually matter. And here we are. 

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.

Also on this day: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

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

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 6th, 1988 there is a well-publicised warning by scientists in Stockholm (Bolin etc) releasing study.

We are entering a new phase….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that ever since the pivotal meeting in Villach, in September 1985, scientists had been trying to raise the alarm – briefing senators, writing reports etc etc.

What we learn is that James Hansen’s testimony, on June 23 1988, did not appear in a vacuum. The terrain was being prepared by many others.

What happened next was that Hansen’s testimony – and the Changing Atmosphere meeting in Toronto the week after, at the end of June – set the ball rolling. 

The emissions have kept climbing, of course. As have the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. And here we are.

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.

Also on this day: 

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

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Categories
Activism

The UK non-climate election and the Blame Game – first thoughts

The United Kingdom has the pleasure of a premature but yet also long-overdue General Election, to be held on Thursday, July 4th.

The incumbent, Rishi Sunak, is trying to turn “net zero” (something he voted for as an MP in 2019) into a culture war battlefront (see my Conversation pieces on this here and here). So, he is only going to mention climate change in the context of “Costs of Taking Action”, not “Benefits of Taking Action”, and definitely not “Costs of Not Taking Action.”

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer is only going to talk in vague terms about this because he has recently had another “oh, that promise I made, well I never made it” bonfire, around the 28 billion per annum of green investment (see my Conversation piece on this, complete with Full Metal Jacket clip). He also doesn’t want to open up a flank where the Tories can repeat the gimmick that he is somehow “in the pocket of Just Stop Oil” (1).

So, is the (relative) silence on climate in the campaign so far merely down to the weakness/tactics of the two leaders? In a trivial way, “yes, of course.” In a deeper way, “yes, of course, but so damned what, and what does the finger pointing allow us not to do?”

I’m glad you I asked: What the finger pointing allows us to do is set up a Morality Tale about the bad Westminster Bubble and FPTP system (2).

And Morality Tales are very satisfying to tell – simple, clear, no shades or Jungian shadows or whatever. And they’re equally satisfying to hear.

But maybe our role – as people with freedom of speech, information and assembly – is to attend to more than our own immediate emotional comfort and intellectual ease? Maybe? Just saying…

Maybe we have to reflect that climate change has been “around” as a public issue since 1988, when it was known as the “Greenhouse Effect.” That means that if you are 53 (to choose a number at random), it’s been there your entire adult life. Even if you’re 78, it’s been around over half your adult life.

And yet here we are, in a shituation where it can be ignored, even as the planet cooks.

There is plenty of blame to spread around: not just the political parties. The media (but honestly – it’s “all the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit”). The “education” system (yes, Govey-Gove and the attempt to bin climate, but it’s not like things were healthy before, or have been healthy since).

Finally, I’ll say this. WHAT ABOUT THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS? We have had 35 years of boom and bust, of chasing issue attention cycles, of learning nothing, of forgetting everything. Of smugospheres and emotacycles.

Yes, I get that climate change is a hard issue to think about, to act on (3). But THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUNDHOG DAY?? Really?

And will “we” pay the price? Really? Yes, but before we pay the price, pretty much every other species is getting screwed, and other far-more-blameless members of our own species (not to mention future generations), they’re getting screwed.

What is to be done? That’s the wrong question, imo. The question is “what might have been done but is now largely moot?” And if you’re really interested, you can check out my answers to that question, I guess. Let me know how you get on.

Footnotes

(1) as per Ed Miliband and Alex Sammond in 2015.

(2) FPTP = First Past the Post – the particularly ridiculous system favoured by duopolies everywhere: the creatures outside looked from man to pig yadder yadder yadder.

(3) I recently tweeted this about denialists. Other people are keeping their heads in the sand for similar fear reasons.

My take: at least some of these grown men know they backed the wrong horse, know that their tribe is wrong, and are terrified of losing face, of losing their tribe, losing their self-image. And the anger & hatred is self-hatred, projected outwards.

Categories
Food United States of America

June 5, 1974 – “Food, the Next Crisis”

Fifty years ago, on this day, June 5th, 1974 we start to wonder about how food production might be affected…,

1 Stephen Schneider, “Food: The Next Crisis,” The National Observer (5 June 1974): p. 18. This article appears to have been the first time that Schneider mentioned publicly the idea of a “genesis strategy” to deal with the potential long-term effects of climate on the global food supply.

(Henderson 2014, Dilemmas of Reticence)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was some people were worrying about food running out as part of that Malthusian moment, and the Green Revolution hadn’t really kicked in. And past few years harvests had been weird, weird weather. Two months earlier Henry Kissinger had given his speech about the dangers of a change in the climate at the UN . And here’s Stephen Schneider talking about the impacts that changing climate will have. At this point, not everyone is entirely sure that the problem is going to be CO2 build up. That consensus doesn’t really start to firm up until ‘75 to ‘77. By ‘79, I think it’s fairly well accepted, except by a few idiots like Robert Jastrow and John Mason.

What we learn is that we’ve been worrying about where the food’s gonna come from, for a very long time. And it’s this sort of thing that we’ll have had Crispin Tickell pondering, ahead of his sabbatical at Harvard.

What happened next? There were more food and adaptation related issues. See The Great Adaptation: Climate, Capitalism and Catastrophe by Romain Felli for more details.

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.

Also on this day: 

June 5, 1990 – The Australian Capital Territory adopts the “Toronto Target”

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

June 5, 2002 – John Howard says Australia won’t ratify Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

June 4, 1981 – Sydney Morning Herald reprints CSIRO material about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty three years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1981, the Sydney Morning Herald ran some nice factual stuff about carbon dioxide.

4 June 1981 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on CSIRO, Ecos magazine

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JIZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1170%2C681961

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ecos, the CSIRO magazine had done a feature on CO2 build up and that made for a good cheap syndication section in the Sydney Morning Herald. Remember that by this point the occasional article about the changing climate and CO2 buildup was not unheard of. And in late 1978, for example, there had even been a television news item on the subject.

What we learn is that there is a recognised pathway: from the specialist press to the mainstream press, articles get picked up. Because there is space between the adverts that has to be filled. And the more cheaply you can do that, the more your profits. 

 What happened next is that a couple of years later climate change got another boost because of the US Environmental Protection Agency report that was front page in the Australian. And of course a few months after this article in November of 1981 the Office of National Assessments did its secret report…

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.

Also on this day: 

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

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United Kingdom

June 4, 1979 – Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

June 4, 1979 Daily Mail reports on climate change without losing its mind

Forty five years ago, on this day, June 4th, 1979, the Daily Mail managed a half-way decent article on climate change,

It continues –

Lamb’s newly published book, World Without Trees, is compulsive doomwatch reading.

Man’s obsessive squandering of trees, says lamb, is potentially disastrous.

“Trees are one of the main sponges for the carbon dioxide in the air. They mop it up. If we continue to destroy trees at the present rate, it will cause a surplus of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the First World Climate Conference had just happened. Carbon dioxide buildup was out and about. But this article was pegged off a new book called A World Without Trees by a guy called Robert Lamb, I have a copy (of course) and yes, he does mention CO2 buildup.

 What we learn is that the Daily Mail was for a short while anyway able to treat the issue of climate change without being completely idiotic about it. 

What happened next is that the Daily Mail became completely idiotic about it. 

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.

Also on this day: 

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

June 4, 1998 – A New South Wales premier signs a carbon credit trade…

Categories
United States of America

June 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit

Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 3rd, 1970, a US Senator, Warren Magnuson, realises what’s required, for all the good it does anyone.

(If you were bothered, you could compare with Eddie Scheverzade’s comments on 27 Sept 1988 about UNEP getting beefed up into a world government…)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Earth Day had happened. Everyone was writing articles about how booming we were. And the US Senator was giving a speech, probably reading into the Senate record, an article from a newspaper, or magazine. But crucially, this guy said that there should be a World Ecology Unit because the problems are global, it will need forms of global governance. Now this is the whole kind of One World Government black helicopters stuff that gets nut jobs in the States so riled. It came two years before the Stockholm Conference, which gave us an underpowered under cooked United Nations Environment Program. As late as 1988 people were talking about it. On the same day as Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society, Eduard Shevardnadze was telling the United Nations General Assembly that there needed to be a global eco government sort of outfit. 

What we learn is that we’ve known that this was a massive coordination problem across nations across generations, we’ve been unable to solve it. 

What happened next, the idea came to nothing, of course.

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.

Also on this day: 

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

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
United Kingdom

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 2nd, 2002, a now-defunct State body tried to get people interested in “low carbon spaces.”

UK publication by Sustainable Development Commission, 2nd June 2002 Low carbon spaces: area-based carbon emission reduction – a scoping study

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was scratching their heads and thinking about carbon dioxide build up and by this time,alongside the RCEP there’s another group…

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s pivotal Energy and Climate Change report had come out in 2000. President Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. The Regional Development Association agencies were doing their thing. And so, of course, the Sustainable Development Commission set up by Blair, would be talking about what counts as a low carbon place. So we’re well aware of all this.

What we learn is this language of specificity of places for low carbon goes back a long way. 

What happened next? Lots of nice glossy reports got produced, Blair went nuclear. The Sustainable Development mission went south in the bonfire of the quangos in mid 2010, thanks to Dave “Greenest Government Ever” Cameron.

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.

Also on this day: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

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

Categories
Activism

June 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address

1969 June 01 Stephanie Mills delivers here “Future is a Cruel Hoax” commencement address at Mills College.

“Our days as a race on this planet are, at this moment, numbered,” she proclaimed, “and the reason for our finite, unrosy future is that we are breeding ourselves out of existence.”

“I am terribly saddened by the fact that the most humane thing for me to do is to have no children at all. But the piper is finally demanding payment.”

http://www.conversationearth.org/cruel-hoax-stephanie-mills-106/

http://www.conversationearth.org/cruel-hoax-stephanie-mills-106-encore/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that environmental awareness had been growing through ‘67-68 and had been picked up in the mainstream media. And of course, there had been the Santa Barbara oil spill in late January 1969. And alongside that, the vicious assault on democracy and people that had been People’s Park, which Stephanie Miller would have been extremely well aware of, and who knows, possibly participated in. 

What we learn from this is that ecological awareness among the young was well underway. It didn’t need Earth Day. It didn’t need a hero Senator sponsoring stuff. The senator was catching a wave that already existed. 

What happened next, Stephanie Miller had a career as an activist, if you want to call it that, devoted her life to activism. And the mega machine kept making machining. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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.

Also on this day: 

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet