Forty four years ago, on this day, February 4th, 1980, smart people in the orbit of the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis began another of their meetings.
The Task Force meeting on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, 4-6 February 1980, was the third major event in climate studies at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that IASSA had been scratching its head about climate for a few years now. In 1975 it had hosted Nordhaus and others on the economics of mitigation. It had famously also supported the work of Cesare Marchetti on carbon capture and storage. It had held a workshop in 78 and it was doing energy studies stuff. So what we see here is not an early “outlier” but a continuation of an existing process with Americans and Europeans working cheek by jowl. And don’t forget, the First World Climate Conference had taken place in February of the previous year…
What we learn is that from the early mid 70s onwards, intelligent and/or high status, well-connected people in the scientific advice giving game were alive to the issues.
What happened next? Kellogg wrote a book that was published on the first of January 1981. Other people were beavering away on the same issues including Schneider. There’s also the Great Adaptation and so forth.
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.
References
Ausubel, J.H. & Biswas, A.K. (1980). Climatic Constraints and Human Activities; Proceedings of a Task Force on the Nature of Climate and Society Research, February 4-6, 1980. Oxford: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-026721-0
Thirty years ago, on this day, February 3rd, 1994, the fossil fuel lobby was trotting out its favourite argument – that Australia was being treated “unfairly” in the climate negotiations, and throwing “developing countries” in to make it a more confusing message and one harder to counter.
Australia and the developing economies of the world could bear an unfairly high proportion of the costs of controls on greenhouse emissions in the event of any global agreement to adopt uniform emission-reduction targets, the Outlook 94 conference was told yesterday.
Grose, S. 1994. Unfair burden’ on Australia. Canberra Times, February, 4, p.4.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that President Clinton’s energy tax had been defeated the year before. But it simply wasn’t clear that a carbon tax was dead in Australia too. And the whole question of Australia’s commitments under the climate treaty, which had been ratified, and previous December, was making rich fossil fuel outfits nervous. And so at “Outlook 94”, which was one of the energy sector’s watering holes and ideas-swapping or meme-swapping opportunities. They, including John Daley, were pushing hard on the old idea that Australia was a special case that was being unfairly treated.
What we can learn is the rhetoric of unfairness is pervasive, and that bullies and assholes will often deny, attack, reverse victim order – DARVO.
What happened next?
The proponents of climate action put their eggs in the carbon tax basket which was entirely sensible to their eyes. And they were defeated. The emissions kept climbing. And you know the rest.
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.
Fourteen years ago, on this day, February 2nd, 2010,
the new Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, put out a media release about his absurd non-policy “Direct action on the environment and climate change” policy.
And on the same day –
The Rudd government, for no earthly reason, tabed its “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” for the third time.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Tony Abbott had become Liberal opposition party’s leader, in early December 2009, toppling Malcolm Turnbull who wanted to back Rudd’s scheme (which was piss-weak). The Rudd carbon pollution reduction scheme had been defeated for the second time in the House of Representatives and the Copenhagen COP had ended in failure. So now, Abbott was being forced to put up an alternative, which is a curious position for someone who thinks that the science of climate change was “crap.” Liberal voters needed some sort of fig leaf for squaring their love of privilege, power, so-called “free markets” with any concerns that they might have for the environment. Meanwhile, for reasons I really don’t understand, the CPRS legislation was submitted for a third time but was clearly doomed. Go figure – what a waste of effort.
What we can learn is that the politics are bewildering. Once you get down to brass tacks, stupid overconfident people – and that can apply to several characters in this story – can cause enormous damage.
What happened next?
Rudd was toppled for being a jerk and crucially no longer a vote-winner. Abbott was one of the most effective opposition leaders of all time. He destroyed, not just Gillard, and Rudd, but also the possibility of emissions trading and carbon pricing in Australia, an astonishing achievement.
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.
Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).
“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”
Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient.
What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are.
What happened next,Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development.
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.
Just over 50 years ago, one of the most innovative and remarkable syllabuses in modern English education came into being. Its story, how it started, flowered, and then died have lessons for us all today.
There seems to be two points commonly made about teaching environmental/ecological concepts to school students: it’s mostly absent in syllabuses and it hasn’t been done. The former is certainly backed by evidence, but the latter is largely untrue. This story, and what we can learn about it, are the focus here. The great push comes from a determined and unlikely source, but let’s go back a bit.
English education has had an interest in “nature studies” from the earliest times of educational technology. The BBC Natural History Unit was producing radio programmes from the late 1950s onwards. However, this was mostly aimed at primary schools. We would have to wait for the 1960s to see further progress. At this time, curriculum innovation was being strongly supported which led to numerous initiatives of which one was a semi-academic/practical approach to Rural and Environmental Studies ‘O’ level run through the University of London’s Schools Examination Board (ULSEB). An early proponent of this subject, Sean McB Carson (a Hertfordshire local education officer), saw the need for a more academic, higher-level qualification. This turned into a committee which eventually produced the first A level (again to be taken up by ULSEB) called, not un-naturally, the Hertfordshire Syllabus (compare/contrast this with a current version!). From 1972 to 1992, this became, and remains, one of the most innovative syllabuses in secondary science. It’s worth noting that McB Carson went on to refine his ideas in another influential book, Environmental Education.
What was so novel about this syllabus? Looking back, I think it was the confluence of a number of factors:
Sociological – McB Carson as a driving force, ULSEB as a supporter, an innovative Ecologist as Chief Examiner (Dr PD Coker). There was also significant student interest in the senior secondary years;
Geopolitical – the general move towards environmental awareness and concern characterised (earlier) by Silent Spring and later by the Stockholm Conference in 1972;
Educational – a syllabus unlike others that demanded deep knowledge that was integrated into a systems-thinking approach with an exam system that demanded you demonstrate it!
How did it work? There were a few minor changes over the years but this gives an accurate overview:
Topics:
Natural environment and limits of the resource base: solar systems and the transport of energy; atmosphere; hydrosphere; lithosphere; biogeochemistry;
Ecosystems: climatic and soil factors; population and community ecology; population control
Man-Environment Interactions: Human requirements for life, developmental ecology, societal development, domestication of plants and animals, environmental pressures from industrial revolution onwards;
Field Study – environmental conflicts and pressures;
Pedagogy – One of the most daunting (and wonderful) aspects was that there was no set textbook! Students (and staff) really had to know about a wide range of topics from the workings of the solar system to fundamental ecology, to planning law and all topics in between! Standard books of the time include Odum’s Fundamentals of Ecology, Ehrlich’s Population, Resources, Environment but there were many others often just covering a particular part (Cullingworth’s early Town and Country Planning was invaluable). The fundamental aim was to make sure that students had a sound background knowledge, both theoretical and applied, that would allow them to analyse a question from any perspective;
Assessment – Leaving aside the internal assessment, the external exam comprised 3 aspects – fieldwork to be assessed internally and sent off for adjudication, paper 1 – 3 hours on basics of the entire syllabus and paper 2 which has two essays requiring integration from all of the syllabus and a planning question. This last, innovative exam gave students an Ordnance Survey map and a planning issue to solve e.g. site a new town. It demanded a knowledge of planning law and practice. Ironically, our local authority planning department gave their planners the task and all failed!
So much for the technical side. What of the impact it had? As an educator and student, it demanded (and the exams tested) both core knowledge and its application. It was taught in the novel ideas of systems thinking and connectedness. Students were (in my college at least) fiercely proud of the subject and considered themselves environmentalists. Many went on to take degrees in ecology, environment, and related topics. Some became planners, others academics. We have some who have risen to prominence in the global conservation community, an international prize-winning photographer as well as those who went on to others field of endeavour. As a subject it rose in importance as a result of Stockholm in 1972 and was, alongside companion ‘O’ level seen as a vital subject to study. Sadly, the following years of warfare, oil price shocks (the first but not the last) and the rise of Thatcher meant that the subject was stumbling just as it started to take off (environmentalism, then as now, didn’t trump oil and commerce – or Thatcher’s dislike!). It’s interesting to speculate where it might have been were that not the case. Personally, I taught the course for almost all of its years and was a ULSEB subject panel member, question writer, examiner and part of the team developing interest in the course. I was also, sadly, the last person standing as exam board politics saw it dispatched in favour of topics with more political support.
If you’ve read this far, thanks! What message would I like you to take away from this? That it existed, that it demonstrated that you could have a meaningful and very rigorous subject and exam that could allow students to debate with knowledge and care for the planet. It opened up students’ eyes to the possibilities of doing things differently. Perhaps if this subject had developed as it should, we wouldn’t be needing school strikes today, 50 years after the subject started to debate the same thing I taught in 1975!
Forty four years ago, on this day, January 31, 1979 the Canberra Times’ Tony Juddery reported on a speech by American scientist Alvin Weinberg, then visiting Oz.
Weinberg was basically saying “nukes and lots of them, or else suffer climate change.”
Juddery’s take? “A visiting true believer ignores the option of solar technology.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 336ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Weinberg had been pretty sure about the climate problem and also sure about nuclear’s role in doing something about it since 1974, probably a lot earlier. He was on a tour in Australia, one of those typical “let’s bring out an expert, get some bums on seats, feel like we are an important outpost or colony in the boonies.”
Judderry of the Canberra Times was a colourful character and did a good job explaining it.
So 1979 a couple of weeks before the First World Climate Conference was going to happen. This was not a big deal down under. Fun fact; only one Australian WW Gibbs, of the Bureau of Meteorology went. No one from CSIRO not Pittock, Pearman, not even the boss, Brian Tucker; it just wasn’t a high priority back in the day.
What we learn
The great and the good were explaining reality to Australian political elites by the late 1970s. But yokels gonna yokel. And I guess this puts the National and Country senators (Collard etc) efforts in 1981 in perspective…
What happened next. In November 1981 the Office of National Assessments finally did a report.
The polymath and Science Minister (1983-1990) Barry Jones got hold of the issue. Finally, in 1986 things began to move.
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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 30, 1989, amidst all the very fine words and wringing of hands about the Greenhouse Effect…
On the morning of Monday 30 January 1989, the ABC 7.45am news reported the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, had begun an overseas trip to Korea, Thailand, India and Pakistan, with the primary aim of promoting Australian exports, particularly coal, iron ore and agricultural products. Juxtaposed with this report was one describing Senator John Button’s encouragement of Japanese investment in Australian forests designed to safeguard our timber resources. The viability of these economic moves may also be subject to the greenhouse effect. Australian exports of fossil fuel, particularly coal, may be restricted by increasing international pressure to try to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.
(Henderson-Sellers and Blong, 1989:3)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that while Bob Hawke was making lots of nice noises about the greenhouse effect – giving speeches and everyone was holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But there was also the small matter of selling as much bloody coal, both thermal and metallurgical, as you could to as many people as possible, because that’s going to make the oil companies rich, it’s going to generate some income for state and federal governments, and it’s going to help with the then pressing “balance of payments crisis.”
What we learn is that politicians always have competing priorities. The very nature of politics is the allocation of resources without violence. And so it can hardly be a surprise that Hawke is able to say one thing to one audience, and another to another. This is doublethink hypocrisy, whatever name you want to apply to it. It’s just the way things are. And in the absence of social movements capable of demanding sanity, then insanity and suicidal, short term, greed will win. And since we can’t have those broad, tough social movements, well, insanity, greed, short sightedness, and suicidal stupidity will in fact, win. And they almost have by now; won’t be long…
What happened next
Hawke was forced to agree to an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process to win the March 1990 Federal Election.
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.
Twenty years ago, on this day, January 29th 2004 the author of The Greenhouse Trap, John Daly died of a heart attack.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 377ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Daly had been spewing nonsense and bullshit about climate change for 15 years. He had written a book called “The Greenhouse Trap”, also known as “the greenhouse crap”. And I know you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead – I’m sure he was lovely to dogs and children – but people like Daly are a small part of why we as a species, and as Australians, have failed to take action. Only a small part but “which side are you on boys? Which side are you on?” Well, we know and I hope he’s having a nice afterlife.
What happened next? Denial continued because it is too painful for some people not to hide within.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, January 28, 1969.
“Oil from an offshore rig had covered the Santa Barbara beaches, trapping and killing the shore birds. College students and other young people had been enlisted to try to save the birds, by hand, one at a time. So night after night, television carried pictures of crying young people with dying birds in their arms. The networks picked this up… and across the continent environmental pollution came to be viewed as a highly personal, deeply involving part of people’s lives. The television viewers identified with the young volunteers and felt their pain.” (Sachsman, 2000)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that offshore oil drilling had been underway off the Santa Barbara coast for a number of years. There had been rising concerns about environmental pollution starting first in the cities and the air quality but also a river had caught fire or was to later in the same year, but it really caught fire before and generally a sense of fear about the consequences of industry.
What we learn – the Santa Barbara oil spill happening in a rich place managed to act as a kind of lightning rod for all of this stuff. It’s really the starting pistol for a lot. And it jolts people into awareness of the costs attached. The fact that it happened to rich people who were powerless to overcome the bureaucracy is kind of entertaining. So there’s some rather useful chapters in Wholly Round. There’s also “GOO” “get oil out”, which is akin to “Just Stop Oil.” And a sense that things were going tits up.
What happened next? There’s a three year flurry of concern. Earth Day happens in April of 1970. And then it kind of peters out by ‘72, after the Stockholm conference. You start to get other issues impinging especially stagflation economic crisis, the oil shock, etc.
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.
References
SEE ALSO HARVEY MOLOTCH 1970 AND Raina Galaitas “Wholly Round” book And Gordon MacDonald about The Environment
Thirty-two years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1992, the Australian Environment Minister was trying to keep her options open…
The Federal Government will press ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005 despite an Industry Commission report that says such reductions would cut Australian production by about 1.5 per cent, or $6 billion a year. The Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, said yesterday that the report, released yesterday, had a “very narrow focus” and failed to capitalise on the opportunities available for industries….
1992 Glascott, K. 1992. Kelly dismisses attack on greenhouse plan. The Australian, January 29, p.4.
And
The Federal Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, conceded yesterday it would be “very difficult” to achieve global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent – a target endorsed by the Federal Government.
Garran R. and Lawson, M. 1992. Kelly concedes greenhouse difficulties. Australian Financial Review, 29 January, p.5.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been a fierce battle within the Hawke and then Keating governments about greenhouse. And everybody knows the good guys lost. As part of the quid pro quo for declaring an interim planning target of a 20% reduction by 2005 (so that Kelly could go to the Second World Climate Conference with something in her hand) the then-Treasurer Paul Keating had managed to extract the concession or agreement that the Industry Commission (later renamed the Productivity Commission) would study the costs. Once the costs document was released, it was predictably used as a stick to beat advocates of energy efficiency and sanity over the head.
What we can learn is that always these battles within governments and allegedly “independent” “scientific”/economic reports are a key weapon.
What happened next? The Kelly gang lost and we’ve been losing ever since.
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.
