Author: drmarchudson

Categories
International processes

July 17, 1991 – G7 DOESN’T talk about climate…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, July 17 1991, the UK is hosting the G7 meeting, but manages NOT to talk about climate change… 

Langsam, D. 1991. Promises, promises. New Statesman and Society, August 16

John Major at G7, which was NOT about climate, when it was supposed to be (see new statesman 1991 08 16 article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the US had had to be dragged kicking and scowling into negotiations for an international climate treaty.

The specific context was that the UK had tried to play “Athens to the Americans’ Sparta”, without success. There was a gang of people within the US administration who knew what they wanted, and knew how to get it….

What I think we can learn from this is that there was a moment when action could have begun. After that, it was too late, really. And that moment was 1989-1991. 

What happened next. The UNFCCC treaty did not contain any commitment for rich nations to reduce their emissions, no targets or timetables. Everything since then has been a (failed) attempt to fix that. 

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: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
France International processes

July 16, 1989 – Paris Agreement….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 16th, 1989,

33. There is growing awareness throughout the world of the necessity to preserve better the global ecological balance. This includes serious threats to the atmosphere, which could lead to future climate changes. We note with great concern the growing pollution of air, lakes, rivers, oceans and seas; acid rain, dangerous substances; and the rapid desertification and deforestation. Such environmental degradation endangers species and undermines the well-being of individuals and societies.

Decisive action is urgently needed to understand and protect the earth’s ecological balance. We will work together to achieve the common goals of preserving a healthy and balanced global environment in order to meet shared economic and social objectives and to carry out obligations to future generations.

Economic Declaration (16/07/1989) – G7/G20 Documents Database

Paris Declaration!!! At G7 meeting. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the G7 meetings had been happening since the mid-1970s. At the Tokyo meeting, in 1979, carbon dioxide build-up had even gotten a mention in the final communique, and then again in 1985 (merely as “climatic change”). 

The specific context was that the climate issue had broken through, finally, in mid-1988, and everyone was mouthing the platitudes… The G7 was no exception.

What I think we can learn from this is that we had a “Paris Agreement” a good twenty five years before the 2015 one. And they were both essentially meaningless. At a species level, we have failed to do anything about climate change.

What happened next – the climate negotiations did not begin in earnest (after serious opposition from the US) until 1991. A proposal, led by the French, for targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries to be in the text of the treaty, was eventually defeated: Bush said he would not even attend the “Earth Summit” if it was in there. Everything since then has been been a failed attempt to fix that problem.

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: 

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

July 16, 1992 – American scientist claims “no firm evidence” of #climate change Australian National Press Club #denial

Categories
Australia

July 15, 1994 – ALP and BCA in good cop bad cop routine

Thirty one years ago, on this day, July 15th, 1994, a former Treasurer admits that there is a “good cop bad cop” routine going on with the peak business body.

The Business Council of Australia was the dominant influence on Labor’s reform agenda in the past decade, at the expense of other employer groups and the party’s traditional union supporters, according to the former Treasurer Mr John Dawkins.

Such was the intimacy of the relationship, Mr Dawkins claimed, that it had been useful on occasions to have the BCA appear to be a critic of the Government’s performance.

Williams, P. and Ellis, S. (1994) DAWKINS KISSES AND TELLS ON BCA. Australian Financial Review, July 15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the ALP had always had a “complicated” relationship with business, and if its leadership got too determined to do anything, well, there could always be a change of leadership, either by elections dominated by propaganda or, as a last resort, the Governor-General… This is a story repeated with social democratic parties everywhere…

The specific context was that Australia’s economy had been “opened up” (tariffs down, dollar floated etc) from the mid-1980s onwards, in the name of “reform”, which somehow magically morphed into the rich getting richer and the poor really getting the picture. The BCA, set up in 1983, played a key part in all this.

What I think we can learn from this is that the means by which policy is made – and the way nominally independent political parties are shaped – is not theorised very well by academics, who are not nearly as bright as they think they are.

What happened next – the wealth inequality in Australia, already accelerating under Keating, became turbo-charged under Howard (1996-2007). And the emissions kept climbing, though hidden behind accounting tricks and dodgy numbers – and the atmospheric concentrations 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: 

July 15, 1968 – first(?) UK government attention to the possibility of climate

July 15, 1977 – “Heavy Use of Coal May Bring Adverse Shift in Climate”

July 15, 2005 – The “Stern Review” into #climate is announced…

Categories
Australia Health

July 14, 1996 – Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, July 14th, 1996 in the midst of the second COP meeting, in Geneva the Australian Medical Association and Greenpeace combine to issue a report

Tens of millions of additional deaths a year are predicted worldwide early next century from heat waves, starvation and epidemics of infectious diseases, in a landmark report on the health impact of climate change from the greenhouse effect.

The findings increase pressure on the Howard Government to soften its pro-industry stand against action to protect the world’s climate at this week’s climate summit in Geneva.

The new report, by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environment Program, concluded that immediate action to combat global climate change was warranted.

In an unprecedented alliance, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and Greenpeace jointly launched the report in Sydney yesterday, soon after its release in Geneva. Both groups called on the Howard Government to step up actions to reduce emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.

Gilchrist, G. (1996) Act Now Or Risk Health Of Millions: Study Sydney Morning Herald July 15, p.5

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that COP2 was crucial, and the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network were helping the Howard government push back against the promises made in Berlin the previous year – that the rich nations would turn up in 1997’s climate conference with actual commitments to reduce emissions. 

The specific context was that Greenpeace had been trying to find allies in the climate fight – be it re-insurers, medics, whatever. They knew what was at stake. 

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace did the right thing – trying to build alliances, explain what was at stake. Meanwhile, the wreckers were building coalitions of their own. More vicious, better funded. Guess who won?

What happened next. The emissions kept climbing. By the third decade of the 21st century, the consequences were being felt. Many nastier consequences to come….

Greenpeace and the AMA held a conference in 1996

See book – – Climate change and human health in the Asia-Pacific Region / edited by Peter Curson, Charles Guest, Erwin Jackson.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/24537948

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: 

July 14, 2000 – Miners versus the ALP/ and climate action

July 14, 2011 – “Four Degrees or More: Australia in a Hot World” conference closes

Categories
Australia

July 13, 1999 – Australia’s emissions climbing. Obvs.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1999,

Opposition and Conservation groups attacked the Government’s greenhouse performance yesterday over revelations of a 16.9 per cent rise in greenhouse-gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. Labor environment spokesman Nick Bolkus said there was ‘no way’ Australia would meet its Kyoto greenhouse targets based on National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures, which showed a record annual jump in emissions from 1997 to 1998. Australia has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to no more than 8 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010 under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Webb, H. 1999. Emission Levels Put Cabinet Under Fire. Canberra Times, July 14, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 368ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia’s political elites had made some of the right noises on climate change in the period 1988 to 1990, but then started backtracking and weaselling.

The specific context was that since 1996 the Liberal government of John Howard had been less apologetic, and in fact almost gleeful about not bothering on emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been knowing that we were heading in the wrong direction, at faster and faster speed, for a generation. But our political systems, and those in them, well, shoulder shrug…

What happened next Shoulder shrugs! Eventually (2006-7) Labor used the climate issue as a way of dislodging John Howard. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played politics with the issue rather than getting something decent through. And then Julia Gillard (who toppled him) had to guide an emissions trading scheme through parliament. And then Tony Abbott came in and tore it up. Worst soap opera ever.

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: 

July 13, 1971 – Stephen Schneider “predicts” an ice age (so the myth goes)

July 13, 2013 – future Australian PM ridiculed for #climate idiocy

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

July 12, 2011 – Tony Abbott and the The Australia Institute

Fourteen years ago, on this day, July 12th, 2011, 

The whole purpose of the carbon tax is to phase out the coal industry…. Now, I think that the coal industry is the foundation of a modern economy. I think that affordable power is essential to Australia’s economic future. I don’t want to close down the coal industry… the Government’s own figures they say that coal will go from 80 percent of our power generation to 10 percent or 25 percent, if you include clean coal using various forms of sequestration. So, the Government’s own figures involve a radical downsizing and ultimate demise of the coal industry (emphasis added Abbott,2011a).

T.,Abbott, 2011a.Transcript of joint doorstop interview:Dandenong South, Victoria, 12 July:JuliaGillard’scarbontax. 〈http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/down load/media/pressrel/922506/upload_binary/922506.pdf〉.

And

12 July 2011: Australia Institute publishes a detailed analysis of direct action and building on past schemes suggests around $100 billion would be needed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 392ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Liberal Party, after a brief flirtation with competing for small-g green votes in 1990, had decided to stick with their mining mates and the culture war (unlike Labor, which wants to stick with its mining mates while NOT having a culture war).

The specific context was that from late 2006 the idea of putting a price on carbon dioxide became “mainstreamed” (after long long resistance). But in late 2009 Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, and ended that fragile consensus. He used carbon pricing as a scare campaign about the “great big tax on everything” on his way to become Prime Minister.

What I think we can learn from this is that political parties are not meritocracies around intelligence, integrity or vision. They are bear pits, where the most vicious and determined rise to the top.

What happened next. Abbott became Prime Minister (god help us) and abolished the (inadequate) carbon pricing scheme that Julia Gillard had managed to push through. And the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide? Up and up and up 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: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
United States of America

July 11, 1995 – Chicago heatwave gets going

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1995,

The July 1995 Chicago heat wave led to 739 heat-related deaths in Chicago over a period of five days.[1] Most of the victims of the heat wave were elderly poor residents of the city, who did not have air conditioning, or had air conditioning but could not afford to turn it on, and did not open windows or sleep outside for fear of crime.[2] The heat wave also heavily impacted the wider Midwestern region, with additional deaths in both St. Louis, Missouri[3] and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[4]

1995 Chicago heat wave – Wikipedia

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that poor people are always on the pointy end of “natural” disasters, be they floods, heatwaves, pandemics etc.

The specific context was that 1995 was the year the second assessment report of the IPCC came out. It included the fateful words that there was already a “discernible” impact of human activity, which drove the denialists to new heights (depths) of venality and stupidity.

What I think we can learn from this. We’ve had a lot of warnings about what is coming. But on each step of the way there will be people who want/need to dismiss the warnings – “there have always been heat waves” etc., And then it gets into a sterile attribution debate, and the denialists are happy…

What happened next The emissions kept climbing, and these sorts of one-in-a-hundred year events started happening more frequently.

There is a book about the social dynamics of the mortality risk, btw. I haven’t read it, but someone whose intellect I respect raved about it.

Eric Klinenberg, 2002 Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, 

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: 

July 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

Categories
Australia

July 11, 1972 – Gay rights vs ABC

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, July 11th, 1972,

At one peaceful protest, outside the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) headquarters on 11 July 1972, against the refusal by ABC management to show a segment on Gay Liberation (that featured Dennis Altman) on This Day Tonight, McDiarmid was arrested, the first such arrest at a gay rights protest in Australia.[6]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the Black Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s onwards had acted as an “initiator” movement with spin-offs for second wave feminism, Puerto Rican rights, “ecology” and … gay rights.

Also, homosexuality was still criminalised, with all the attendant fear, opportunities for police brutality, extortion, shakedowns, blackmail etc.

The specific context was that brave men and women decided they weren’t going to live like that any more, under those conditions.

What I think we can learn from this is that outfits like the ABC are not the friend of progressive organisations and ideas. They have to be pushed (hard) even to be relatively “neutral”. That’s not to say there aren’t brave and principled journos working within them, producing solid work.

What happened next – South Australia led the way in decriminalisation (it took the death of a nice middle-class man at the hands of the police – RIP George Duncan). Other states followed.

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: 

July 11, 1968 – The UN Secretary-General, U Thant, delivers report on Human Environment that mentions carbon dioxide and climate change

July 11, 1989 – Australia says “sure, we’ll take #climate refugees.” Yeah, nah.

July 11, 1994 – Australian Environment Minister admits not clear if Australia hitting targets (spoilers, it wasn’t) 

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

July 11, 2013- “don’t be evil” my fat arse….

Categories
United Kingdom

July 10, 2015 – Zero carbon homes policy abolished

Ten years ago, on this day, July 10th, 2015,

the Tories abolished the zero-carbon homes policy. It was part of their “Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation” gag.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 401ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was British housing stock is largely crap – poorly insulated etc etc. This was spotted as a problem for energy conservation in the 1970s (probably earlier), but actually doing anything about it is tremendously difficult – so many stakeholders, so much ick about having strangers in your house etc.

The specific context was a relatively sensible Labour policy had been that all new houses would need to be super-energy efficient. The big house-building companies etc didn’t like it, but had to bide their time. Then, with the implosion of the Liberal Democrat vote in the 2015 general election, the moment came. The Cameron government really began to “cut the green crap.”

What I think we can learn from this is that you can go to a posh school and emerge an ignorant sociopath. Who knew? Also, lobby groups can be patient.

What happened next is that crap energy standards for new housing remained the norm (in all neo-institutional theory senses of ‘norm’).

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: 

July 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

July 10, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel cops a serve

July 10, 2008 – first Australian #Climate Camp begins, near Newcastle

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…

Categories
Italy

July 10, 1976 – Seveso

Forty nine years ago, on this day, July 10th, 1976,

The Seveso disaster was an industrial accident that occurred around 12:37 on 10 July 1976, in a small chemical manufacturing plant approximately 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Milan in the Lombardy region of Italy. It resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations,[1] which gave rise to numerous scientific studies and standardized industrial safety regulations, including the European Union‘s Seveso III Directive. This accident was ranked eighth in a list of the worst man-made environmental disasters by Time magazine in 2010.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 332ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that post-war Europe reindustrialised at pace. The state wasn’t always so hot at spotting and doing anything about forms of pollution, which were largely seen as a regrettable but inevitable prie to be paid for capital-P Prosperity (which basically meant capital accumulation, obviously).

The specific context was that – oh, the usual…

“After the incident, ICMESA initially refused to admit that the dioxin release had occurred. At least a week passed before a public statement was issued that dioxin had been emitted, and another week passed before an evacuation began. Even then, the government was saddled with the responsibility of determining the boundaries of the evacuation area, and thereafter to organise the evacuation. This constituted a major imposition on the community as well as on government resources.”

What I think we can learn from this is that anyone who has fantasies about a competent regulatory state really needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

What happened next

The usual – court cases, no-one doing any serious chokey.

Follow-up health studies etc etc (check out the wikipedia article!)

Btw, Seveso ets a mention (oblique) in Ali Smith’s wonderful novel “Winter.”

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: 

July 10, 1985 – French state commits terrorist act

July 10, 1996 – National Greenhouse Advisory Panel cops a serve

July 10, 2008 – first Australian #Climate Camp begins, near Newcastle

July 10, 2010 – Rio Tinto amplifies the message…