Author: drmarchudson

Categories
United Nations

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Forty six years ago, on this day, October 14, 1977, the head of the United Nations Environment Program mentions climate at an UNESCO conference on environmental education.

Tolba at Tblisi UNESCO conference on environmental education 14 Oct 1977 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000032763

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Program, although small and weak compared to other UN bodies, still had some weight. One of its sticks was environmental education. Mostafa Tolba here was well aware of the climate problem and was helping Bert Bolin stitch together the kind of international cooperation and collaboration that you need for an international problem.

What I think we can learn from this is that in the 1970s people were banging on about climate change in the context of Environmental education. 

[insert screen grab of 1983 thesis abstract that you sent Jenna Ashton]

What happened next

Here we are 40 years later and environmental education is still not on the agenda. I think part of this is if you did teach children about the fragility of the planet and and how to do systems thinking then it would be harder to keep them in line as obedient production and consumption units 

see also Noam Chomsky quote on the Kyoto Protocol and what they teach you at university highly educated people is to conform and consume. 

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.

Categories
Australia

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 13, 1990, Australian Environment Minister Ros Kelly defended the decision taken to have loopholes in the climate change target…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 13, 1997, Australia was busy saying “yeah, nah” to the world…

The Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, defended the Government’s conditional greenhouse target, saying an unqualified one would have been “irresponsible”.

On Thursday, Cabinet agreed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent on 1988 levels within the next 15 years.

However, no action will be taken that might adversely affect Australian international competitiveness.

Lamberton, H. 1990. Kelly defends greenhouse ‘conditions’. Canberra Times, 13 October, p 3

Greenhouse countdown

The temperature is rising in the debate over greenhouse and Australia is coming under increasing pressure to declare its hand ahead of the Kyoto summit. A lot is at stake, writes Lenore Taylor.

Every world leader John Howard speaks to about greenhouse gas emissions wants him to answer one question. What can Australia do?

Bill Clinton asked him at the White House. Tony Blair asked him at 10 Downing Street. Neither got an answer.

Australia has invested enormous diplomatic and political energy explaining what it can’t do – and according to the Government it definitely can’t agree to any absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

But it has failed to say what it can do.

Taylor, L. 1997. The heat is on. Australian Financial Review, 13 October, p. 16. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354/363ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1990 the Australia Federal Government had made a promise with tricksy caveats that had kept its domestic allies – or people that needed to pretend they agreed – on side and allowed for the international reputation not to be too much in the toilet. Seven years is a long time in politics. In 1997 John Howard was doing his level best to to minimize Australia’s commitments under the UNFCCC that Ros Kelly had signed. The State and corporate interests, as they saw them, had not really changed – Howard was simply being more honest about it all, because he was being forced to be honest with his back up against the wall.

What I think we can learn from this

That it is too easy in every sense to tell stories about government policy-based entirely around public utterances or perceived personalities of state functionaries leaders. I have been guilty of that of course, we all have. But we also need to remember that states are battlegrounds of and reflections of powerful interests, be they ideological such as churches but also private companies and multinationals etc. Within this mix you’ll also find the usual collection of unions and civil society busy-bodies and do-gooders and somewhere at the bottom the usual collection of, well, people who are trying to figure out if they can afford to stay alive next week and both heat and eat.

What happened next

Australia kept up the criminality.

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.

Categories
Australia

October 12, 2007 – Judge grants mining licence, doubts climate change

Fifteen years ago, on this day, October 12, 2007, Queensland is Queensland, again…

The presiding member handed down his decision on 15 February 2007, dismissing QCC’s objections and recommending the applications for the mines be granted without any conditions sought by QCC or any conditions addressing greenhouse gas emissions. He doubted the fact that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were contributing to climate change and pose a severe threat to the environment.

(McGrath, 2007: 225)

There was an appeal, President McMurdo, with whom Holms JA and Mackenzie J agreed, found that the fact President Koppenhol relied upon material doubting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, ‘in the circumstances… amounted to a denial of natural justice to QCC.’

The Court of Appeal ordered the decision to be set aside and the matter remitted to the Land Court (which had assumed jurisdiction for mining objections by the time the appeal was decided) to be determined according to law.

Six hours after the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 12 October 2007, the Queensland Premier and Minister for Mines announced the Queensland Government would enact special legislation to ‘ensure the coal mine’s future’.

(McGrath, 2007: 226)

Within hours of the Queensland Court of Appeal handing down its decision, the State’s Premier, Anna Bligh, announced her government would legislate in Xstrata’s favour – an announcement all the more striking because Xstrata had just been the beneficiary of similar legislation in the Northern Territory after the Territory Supreme Court upheld a challenge by the Northern Land Council against the Territory government’s approval of an expansion of Xstrata’s McArthur River zinc mine. Despite the prevalence of special legislation in Australia approving major projects without adequate environmental scrutiny or proper public participation, Xstrata set a record in being the beneficiary of two such Acts in five months.

(Bonyhady, 2007: 23)

Government to legislate to ensure coal mine’s future. Media Statement from Premier Anna Bligh and Minister for Mines Geoff Wilson, 12 October 2007.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Queensland governments of any political persuasion have a long and sordid history of siding with developers and the white shoe brigade. Nothing really much changes whoever’s in government. And of course governments are able to use the police forces as attack dogs and the court system as usually their rubber stamp.

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game and the game is rigged.

What happened next

 The Queensland government has kept going into that for big infrastructure projects. 

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 Andrew McGahan Last Drinks…

Categories
Australia

October 11, 1990 – Australian Federal Government makes climate promise, with fingers crossed

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 11, 1990, the Federal Government of Australia, under Prime Minister Bob Hawke, made its first “commitment” to reduce emissions.

The Commonwealth Government followed the states and also adopted the Toronto Target of a 20 per cent reduction, a target that in retrospect appears hopelessly optimistic. (Scorcher, p. 47)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Second World Climate Conference was coming up. October 10th was the last cabinet meeting before Ros Kelly would be flying off to Geneva and she couldn’t go empty-handed. Meanwhile the environmental lobby wanted a strong target.

Previous Environment Minister Graham Richardson had tried to get the Toronto target agreed in May 1989, and had been shot down by Paul Keating.

What I think we can learn from this

Politicians like targets – it makes them feel and look responsible and responsive. As long as there are caveats and loopholes, they’re happy enough. Other people are willing to sign on with that, more or less. The target is usually so far in advance that the politician will have at least left public office or if it’s a 30 or 40 year in the future target then they’ll be dead and they don’t care. Legacy games, that’s what these are, that’s all they are. But the other effect of the existence of a target is it allows middle-class people to snooze rather than get up on their hind legs.

What happened next

 Kelly went to the second World climate conference shortly after. The international negotiations began properly.

The Industry Commission also did a report about the economics of climate change this was one of the quid pro quo that Paul Keating, still at this stage Treasurer, had extracted for going along with the the Interim Planning Target Australia never took the steps it would have needed to meet the interim Planning Target and by 1995 it was a dead duck. As will our species be in another 20 or 30 years. You could almost say in fact that we are already functionally extinct. We just don’t know it yet but I digress…

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

Hudson, M. 2015 – https://theconversation.com/25-years-ago-the-australian-government-promised-deep-emissions-cuts-and-yet-here-we-still-are-46805

Categories
Australia Kyoto Protocol

October 10, 1997 – Australian businesses say ‘yes’ to a decent Kyoto deal

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 10, 1997, the Melbourne Age ran a front page story about businesses looking forward to Australia agreeing to actual emissions cuts…

Canberra — The Federal Government’s hard-line stance against greenhouse gas reductions has failed to win the support of Australian business.

Two-thirds of 630 company directors in a national survey across a range of sectors supported global reduction targets for Australia, with 70 per cent of those favoring a legally binding agreement.

However, directors were almost evenly divided on how targets should be set, with 50 per cent supporting a uniform goal across all countries and 48 per cent supporting different targets reflecting local economic conditions.

The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said this week the Government would not sign an agreement unless Australia was allowed to continue increasing emissions.

He said binding, uniform targets would unfairly damage the economy, costing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in potential investment in energy and energy-intensive export industries.

The survey on environmental realism, by KPMG and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that 69 per cent of directors regarded environmental measures as a cost but also as an opportunity for innovation leading to improved commercial performance.

Miller, C. (1997) Business Supports Gas Emission Cuts. The Age, October 10, page 1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was trying to claim that business was united in opposition to a strong deal at Kyoto in which Australia agreed to be ambitious.

Someone had the bright idea to actually do an anonymous survey of business and it turns out the results were not what Howard had said. Therefore this was front page news

What I think we can learn from this

That it is good to to not take the claims of your opponents at face value and to actually test their claims especially if the claim is that “business is united behind policy X or Y”, because almost by definition there are businesses who would benefit from the status quo being shaken up and they would like the state to do some shaking up.

New businesses may be able to form trade associations and get their case under the noses of the right ministers, make ministers think “this is a constituency that can’t be ignored/fobbed off or told to piss off “ Whether those new and small trade associations can get in the media and start challenging existing “common sense” and create a new common sense is another question

What happened next

 Howard sent Robert Hill as Environment Minister to Kyoto. Australia got an incredibly generous deal, partly through good luck but also exhaustion. And essentially were told they could just keep emitting what the hell they liked. 

It was a disgrace it was possibly the most shameful moment in Australia’s climate diplomacy against some stiff competition

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.

Categories
Australia

October 9, 1991 – Greens get labeled religious fanatics, don’t like it.

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 9, 1991, an Australian politics and economics commentator Ross Gittins is, well, Ross Gittins…

MY suspicion was right: the column I wrote a few weeks back about the greenhouse effect drew a sheaf of letters from readers. I write on lots of controversial subjects, but none sends the readers scurrying to their word-processors like a mention of the environment.

I argued that, since the greenhouse problem is global and Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is tiny, there isn’t much we can do about it in the absence of an international agreement.

The letters were almost universally disapproving; some weren’t too polite about it. So are my views quite out of step with the Herald’s readers’? I doubt it. People who violently disagree with something they read in the paper are more inclined to put pen to paper than those who don’t.

Gittins, R. 1991. Thou shalt not stuff up the environment. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October, p. 15. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the green moment that hit the headlines in 1988 was fading, and fading fast – even though the problems were real and getting realer. Meanwhile, Gittins needing to fill a newspaper column and get a rise out of his readers, was on display here 

What I think we can learn from this is that the conversation was never very sophisticated morally or intellectually and we’ve probably gone backwards thanks to dementia, reaction formations, organised denial, you name it.

What happened next

 Gittins kept scribbling, people got to read him. The emissions kept climbing. 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.

Categories
Antarctica Arctic

October 8, 1978 – The Times runs an “ice caps melting” story

Forty five years ago, on this day, October 8, 1978, the Times ran an article, on page 15, about the ice caps melting, based on a Nature article.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that US scientists had produced lots of data and reports that really pointed to a warming world because of carbon dioxide. The World Meteorological Organisation and UNEP were doing the same. The First World Climate Conference was coming up in a few months …

What I think we can learn from this – the Times used to be a real newspaper.

What happened next

We did not act on climate change. And the Antarctic did indeed start to properly melt, as had been hypothesized in 1973. And the West Antarctic ice sheet is exquisitely vulnerable because it is sitting on mountain peaks rather than bedrock.

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.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 8, 1971 – Lord Kennet pushes back against Nature’s “John Maddox” on the greenhouse effect.

Fifty two years ago, on this day, October 8, 1971, former Junior Minister Lord Kennet decided to push back against the “carbon dioxide is definitely not an issue to worry about” line coming from John Maddox, then editor of the journal Nature.  Kennet had, in 1968, been the first UK politician (afaik) to talk about the possible problem of climate change. Here’s an excerpt from Kennet’s letter.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Maddox, the editor of Nature, had been consistently smearing those who raised environmental concerns. Wayland Young, aka Lord Kennet had been an effective minister in the last Wilson government, and was quite right in what he said here.

This was in the context of the British state having a new Department of the Environment and preparing its international negotiating position ahead of the Stockholm conference it was a member of the Brussels group to slow things down

 (Also see that Maddox had been schooled by Ian Martin of Thames Television on 28th of February 1970. Ian Martin had essentially been talking about “wicked problems” and “post-normal science”, but these terms did not exist yet.)

What I think we can learn from this is that just because you’re the editor of a Big Scientific Journal doesn’t mean you don’t need to be taught about how the world actually works by politicians and television executives. Of course, you’ll refuse to learn …

What happened next

Kennet continued to work on environment stuff including water pollution. Maddox wrote a book called The Doomsday syndrome in 1972, and turned out loads of articles and speeches dismissing the greenhouse effect all through the 70s and 80s. And as late as 1988, after Jim Hansen and Steve Schneider spoke up he was still chiding them.

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.

Categories
Australia

October 7, 2010 – Julia Gillard scraps the “Climate Assembly” idea

Thirteen years ago, on this day, October 7, 2010, newly re-elected (sort of) Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided not to go ahead with her “citizens’ assembly” wheeze from the election campaign. There’ll be a multi-party climate change committee instead …

Gillard scraps climate assembly… Sydney Morning Herald.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 389.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in order to try to square the circle about climate change Gillard had proposed a climate assembly on the election campaign. This was widely perceived as a way of kicking the whole idea into the long grass clearly after negotiating with the independents and the Greens – legislating and emissions trading scheme was the price of their support. The whole climate assembly idea was simply no longer relevant, and so it was killed off. We got the multi-party committee on climate change. The liberals were invited to participate, but it was not in their interests to do so; they would rather be outside the tent pissing in …

What I think we can learn from this is that participatory structures like “climate assemblies” or “citizens assemblies” can be used to defer decision-making and to give everyone a sandpit to play in. It always comes back to the basic question of who is going to implement this and who’s going to monitor whether it gets done or not.

And if you’re not talking about that then all you’re doing is setting yourself up for failure down the road. But talking about that brings up lots of difficult questions about building sustained and sustainable groups, learning new skills, sharing their skills. Embedding those skills within a group at all tremendously difficult instead let’s just have the orgasmic moment.

What happened next

The multi-party committee on climate change came up with the ETS proposal and suggested the emissions trading the Climate Commission and so forth. And they all got along more or less but everybody knew that by 2013 ahead of the next election the happy families would fall apart, and the Greens would need to split off in order to shore up their vote. And Labor would also want to pin any failures on the Greens. And so it came to pass. Meanwhile the citizens’ assembly idea keeps getting put forward by naive or stupid or careerist dickheads.

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

Categories
Australia Science

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 6, 1989, the Hawke government got a briefing from people who knew what they were talking about. Nobody can say they were not warmed. Sorry, warned ….

“Prime Minister’s Science Council – “Global Climatic Change – Issues for Australia”

Two topics of considerable importance both to the Government and to the nation are being discussed at today’s meeting. They are global climatic change and the issues it raises for Australia, and resources for science and technology and their utilisation.

Also included in your press kits is a paper describing recent developments in government policies for science and technology and significant actions taken since the may statement ‘ Science and Technology for Australia’. Global Climatic Change Issues for Australia
This morning the Council is discussing the scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect and considering the effects of possible changes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that even having a “science council” was a relatively new thing. Politicians tend not like to be told that what they’re doing is going to have bad consequences. They would rather be able to pretend that nobody told them. The leader of this group was Ralph Slayter, who had been around for yonks and had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up no later than 1969 and possibly a lot earlier. Hawke was facing an election in a few months, so being able to dress himself up as responsive and aware were going to help him with green votes. (Am I too cynical?)

What I think we can learn from this

There is an interplay between the science, the scientists, the politicians and the politics. The idea that the politicians must also always “listen to the science and the scientist” is a comforting one, but reality is far harder because there isn’t one settled science. You also have a difference between production science and impact science and anyway the whole thing is shot through with questions about appetites for risk and what you are finally aiming at. The claim that politicians should be under the thumb of scientists is “risky” shall we say.

What happened next

Various science panels have persisted. Famously under Howard the chief scientific advisor role was part-time and it was filled by someone who also simultaneously working for the mining company Rio Tinto. In 2011 the chief scientific advisor quit and the assumption is it is because she wasn’t being listened to and not enough action was being taken on climate change

But ultimately the people to blame for that are the citizens of democracies not getting stuck in and being democratic actors. But then, that brings us back to bureaucracy and the neoliberal state and neoliberal societies and and what’s that line by Brecht about the government being very disappointed in the people and abolishing them in electing a new one (this was after the East German workers’ uprising in 1953).

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