Author: drmarchudson

Categories
Europe

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Ten years ago, on this day, August 9, 2013, BP explains to the EU Commission how it is going to be…

The EU abandoned or weakened key proposals for new environmental protections after receiving a letter from a top BP executive which warned of an exodus of the oil industry from Europe if the proposals went ahead.

“The missive to the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, was dated 9 August 2013, partly hand-written, and signed by a senior BP representative whose name has been redacted.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

BP executives were literally writing EU energy policy. The context was that by this time the EU’s CCS ambitions were in tatters but it still needed to talk a good game. The oil companies were not interested in anything ambitious, why would they be? And so you see this kind of naked power play.

What I think we can learn from this sometimes the mask slips/is wrenched off –  it’s on occasions like this. 

What happened next

Oh, you know, the 2015 Paris COP – everyone held hands, sang Kumbaya, announced Net Zero, 1.5 degrees all the rest of 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.

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Twenty three years ago, on this day, August 8, 1990, Aussie and New Zealand politicians called for ambitious emissions reductions.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)  

Btw, on the same day, in the same country, the ABC’s Lateline had an episode devoted to:  

“The problem of greenhouse gas emissions and Australia’s record on research funding for alternative energy sources.”

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 federal government was under pressure to announce an emissions reduction target, to both keep the environmentalists happy, and for Australia to have a position at the impending Second World Climate Conference to be held in November in Geneva. And therefore, state environment ministers and New Zealand ministers saying that there should be a “Toronto target” was a good idea.

What I think we can learn from this is that any government is going to be pressured by other governments. And it’s counter pressure from the likes of Brian O’Brien and denialists.

What happened next

On October 11th 1990 the Federal Government agreed to a very hedged climate action target –  with the caveat that it mustn’t hurt the economy.  It then got ignored, having served its purpose of shutting up the greenies. The easter egg was that the Industry Commission got to produce a report that would be used as a bludgeon to say “too costly”…

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 Denial

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 7, 2003, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was up to his old climate-trashing tricks.

Howard meets with Sam Walsh and Brian Harwood and others in Sydney to scupper an emissions trading scheme that Costello etc were putting forward.. How do we know? It’s in the leaked minutes of the LETAG group…

What do I mean? The “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” (LETAG) that he’d set up. He called a meeting in May 2004 asking for oil company help in killing off the renewables he had been forced to accept as part of the energy mix…

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

The context was that John Howard was under pressure to say yes to a national emissions trading scheme. One had been defeated in 2000, thanks to his henchman Nick Minchin, but this time the whole Cabinet – the Treasurer, the Foreign Affairs, the Environment guy etc were all united in agreeing that Australia should have a national emissions trading scheme. Howard didn’t want it, so he delayed the decision by a month. He then consulted with a couple of his mates, stiffened his spine, came back and afterwards and said “no.” And was able to do it, though the action was then pilloried and used by Labour in 2006-7, to show just how anti climate action Howard had been. 

By the way, we know about this meeting, but not from its memoirs or anyone else’s. But because the information is contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group. The minutes were not usually released, but these were leaked. And they were leaked, because at a later meeting in 2004, Howard was pleading with big business to help him smash renewables. Yes, you read that right. 

What I think we can learn from this

There is a jail cell with John Howard’s name on it at the Hague.

What happened next

Howard ruled until November 2007. And over his 11 years caused enormous damage to Australia, not just on climate policy (though obviously that’s a biggie).

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
Uncategorized

August 6, 1990 – another climate documentary shown…

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 6, 1990, a BBC Panorama documentary made it as far as the colonies….

1990 Political climate [videorecording] / reporter Steve Bradshaw ; producer Charles Furneaux Published Sydney : Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1990#

 (In the UK it had been called “The Big Heat” and was broadcast on May 21.1990)

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

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

The context was that there was an insatiable appetite, it seemed, for documentaries about climate change. And the ABC showing this BBC input is nothing particularly newsworthy. But this stuff was going on all the time.

What I think we can learn from this is that when an issue is hot, there is a provision of documentaries, think pieces, books, etc.  Most end up in obscurity, deserved or otherwise. Or are cited without being read.

What happened next

The moment passed, it always does. It always has until now – now the issue isn’t going away because the consequences are piling up….

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
Industry Associations International processes

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 5, 2010…

A group of academics who have been working with the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) have called for diplomats attending the upcoming Bonn and Mexico climate talks and summit to take insurance into account.

A policy brief issued by the academic groups calls for insurance to play a key role in reducing climate change risks and influencing climate adaptation projects.

“Our research over the past years has shown that insurance solutions – with coordinated public-private action and some international support – has the potential to help vulnerable countries and people adapt to climate change”, stated Koko Warner (UNU-EHS), lead author of the policy brief ‘Solutions for Vulnerable Countries and People’. “Now it is time to move from knowledge to action. The need to link DRR and insurance and scaling them up is greater than ever to get the critical mass for adaptation”, Dr. Warner continued. 

https://www.artemis.bm/news/academics-say-insurance-could-play-key-role-in-reducing-climate-change-risks/

Home

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Copenhagen gathering had been a complete failure. And so academics thought that if they could geinsurance companies involved, then it might shake loose some of the intransigence. I don’t know if they knew it, but Greenpeace had tried the same shtick 15 years earlier at the first COP, in Berlin, with very limited success. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people always think that there is a button that can be pushed, a lever that can be pulled, to get us out of this fix. But it probably would require Cthulhu pushing and pulling with all of its tentacles repeatedly to make the machine shift. 

What happened next

The insurance companies put out some glossy reports and there was some hand-wringing and the carbon dioxide kept accumulating, 

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

August 4, 1988 – Hawke Cabinet asks for “what can we do?” report on climate.

On this day, 35 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, a meeting of the Australian government’s Federal Cabinet calls for a report on what can be done.

We don’t know more because that particular cabinet submission hasn’t been examined for release

But it did lead to THIS report, in April of the following year

NB Thanks to Senator Rex Patrick for the tweet about this, and to Sally who can’t wander who alerted to me to it.

The context 

The spooks at the Office of National Assessments had produced a report for Cabinet about the Greenhouse Effect, back in 1981, but it’s not clear it was ever discussed or seen by Fraser/Howard/Peackock etc. Through the 1980s, climate scientists got more certain – and more vocal – about the threat. Hawke’s science minister Barry Jones had LONG been aware of the climate problem.  Jones had managed to get funding for a “Commission for the Future” (something New Zealand had had already, and the Swedes had done too in the early 1970s).  

To quote myself from a 2017 Conversation article –

“Meanwhile, the Commission for the Future, founded by the then federal science minister Barry Jones, was seeking a cause célèbre. The Australian Academy of Science organised a dinner of scientists to suggest possible scientific candidates.

“The Commission’s chair, Phillip Adams, recalls that problems such as nuclear war, genetic modification, artificial intelligence, were all proposed. Finally, though:

…the last bloke to talk was right at the far end of the table. Very quiet gentleman… He said, ‘You’re all wrong – it’s the dial in my laboratory, and the laboratories of my colleagues around the world.’ He said, ‘Every day, we see the needle going up, because of what we call the greenhouse effect.‘

The first big project that the Commission for the Future did – in combination with the CSIRO –  was “The Greenhouse Project”, with Australian scientists Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock neck deep.  

The Greenhouse Project had launched in September 1987.  There was a big scientific conference a couple of months later.  The Toronto conference (which Pearman attended) was in June, by which time preparations were already well underway for a series of public meetings, linked by satellite, to happen in the capital cities of every state, in November 1988 (Greenhouse 88).


What we can learn

We knew enough to act. The pushback from industry and denialists began in 1989, and was successful in scuppering what might have been a half-decent response.  And here we are.


What happened next

A detailed report was tabled to Cabinet the following April. It makes frankly horrifying reading.  In May 1989 the Federal Environment Minister tried to get the Cabinet to agree to a target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005.  He was blocked by Paul Keating, Treasurer.

Eventually, just before the Second World Climate Conference, the Australian Cabinet DID accept a version of the “Toronto Target” but with so many caveats as to make it pointless. And Keating, still in Cabinet, extracted an agreement that the Productivity Commission would produce a 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.

Categories
Denial United States of America

August 3, 1988 – Exxon tries to downplay “the greenhouse effect.” Again.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 3, 1988, an Exxon PR flak is drafting bullshit about “THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT”, draft written by Joseph M. Carlson, an Exxon Public Affairs Managers.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had started to bang on about climate change. And so Exxon needed to go public. But going public and saying, “yeah, we’ve known about this for 10 years and we decided a while back that we were going to be obstructive” would not be particularly helpful. So instead, they tried to baffle people with bullshit and passive language and all the rest of it. 

What I think we can learn from this

What we learn is that this is just how corporates behave unless forced to do otherwise.

What happened next

Exxon funded loads of denialist groups, to the extent that the UK Royal Society asked them to knock it off. With limited effect.

#ExxonKnew

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 States of America

August 2, 1970 – LA Times runs #climate change front page story

On this day, 53 years ago, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story “Scientists fear climate change by SST pollution.”

In August of 1970, before the official publication of SCEP, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times – both outspoken critics of the SST- ran articles on the report, playing up the recommendation that the project be delayed. The story made the front page of both papers, with the LA Times declaring “Scientists Fear Climate Change by SST Pollution” and citing concerns about C02 and other gases trapped in the stratosphere. The LA Times quoted Kellogg specifically: “When you change something on a global basis,” Kellogg told the press, “you had better watch out.”

(Howe, 2014:53)

LA Times 2 August 1970

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The Context

That plans for a large fleet of supersonic passenger jets had gotten lots of environmental scientists wondering about the impact on the stratosphere, and ozone. Meanwhile, the Nixon administration had been pushing “the environment” as a topic for international discussion (something the Swedes had started), to change the topic from the attack on the people of Vietnam. The LA Times folks will also have known that the Council on Environmental Quality was about to release its first report, and that there was a chapter on … climate change in there, written by Gordon MacDonald.

What we can learn

We knew. But then, if you’ve been following this site, you knew we knew.


What happened next

Nixon wangled a moratorium on SSTs, hoping to regroup, but Congress got in and turned it into a ban. Fun fact – this failure was one of the key moments in the development of the planet-killing think tank “The Heritage Foundation”, set up to make sure Congress got lobbied effectively by business interests. (Blah blah Edward Feulner).

Kellogg organised a three week symposium on “Man’s Impact on Climate” the following year.

Categories
Arctic Russia

August 2, 2007 – Russia plants a flag on the Arctic sea-bed.

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 2, 2007, Russia planted a flag on Arctic sea-bed

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 383ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Putin wanted to throw his weight around and planting the flag on the Arctic seabed was a good “strongman” gimmick. The Arctic was, as long predicted, warming quickly, and literally changing the map of the world. Resources, wars, land-grabs, the usual stuff…

What I think we can learn from this is that the Westphalian system (created at the end of the 30 years war) is a failure, We have known that the tensions about borders and the “Law of the Sea”/”Law of the atmosphere” have been growing and growing. We’d seen it with acid rain then with ozone than with climate.

What happened next

The Arctic kept melting. People kept exploring for oil. Greenpeace got arrested. And Putin? Putin kept being a quality human being.

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

Tories trying to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration’ in planning (in 1979).

Given the current battle over “Net Zero” and the Conservative Party, I thought this might be illuminating.

So, on 18 November 1979 the Sunday Times reported that

“leaked Cabinet papers record the Government’s efforts to ‘reduce oversensitivity to environmental consideration'(The Sunday Times, 18 November 1979). ” (Lowe and Morrison, 1984: 86)

I don’t have digital access to The Sunday Times, sadly. But I do have access to the Times. And on October 6 1984, (on page 8, since you ask), there’s an article by one Tony Paterson (then the parliamentary liaison officer for the Bow Group) titled “Why the true blues must go green.” We learn

Characteristic of this outlook was the recommendation of the Government within weeks of the 1979 election triumph by Sir John Hoskyns, then head of Mrs Thatcher’s Downing Street Policy Unit, to reduce its “oversensitivity to environmental considerations” in planning decisions. Because it heeded this and similar advice, millions of conservationists have come to regard the Conservative Party, environmentally, as no more than a watchdog which barks when kicked – even though, philosophically, it can claim to be the natural party of conservation.

Who was John Hoskyns? Interesting chap. Came out of the military, set up businesses. According to the font-of-all-knowledge Wikipedia

“Without any political experience, Hoskyns dedicated most of the year 1977 to analysing what was wrong with Britain. This work formed a large part of the “Stepping Stones Report”, published together with Norman S. Strauss, a business executive from Unilever, in November 1977, created for the Conservative Party, then in opposition. The report included a diagram showing how the problems it identified were interlinked.”

So, another of those sort of “Mandate for Leadership” efforts (the Heritage Foundation in the US were presumably taking note?). It didn’t go so well for Hoskyns –

In March 1982 Hoskyns resigned from the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), frustrated by the slow pace of change,[7] including the refusal to appoint certain people to the CPRS, on the grounds that it was a non-political body.

Oh, and Hoskyns? He was someone Dominic Cummings (remember him?) spoke of as an example of how to shake things up. See this rather interesting 2020 column by Andy Beckett.

What do we learn?

I think we learn four things, in decreasing order of interest to other people.

  1. This current battle in “defence of Net Zero” is only the latest skirmish (albeit a mildly consequential one ) in the long long battle between – well, let’s not mince our words – economic growth and a habitable planet. My money is on growth, all the way up to us not having a habitable planet no more (sooner than you might think, I think).
  2. Egregious decision-making like this tends to get leaked by outraged civil servants (or even politicians) – see also the May 2004 meeting of the “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” called by Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in which he asked for fossil fuel companies for help in crushing the renewable energy scheme that he had been forced to introduce. Somebody, disgusted, leaked those minutes and they appeared in October 2004.
  3. The July 1979 kicking around of the “why bother even publishing this climate report?” discussion between (at least) Angus Maude and Keith Joseph (another Thatcher enabler) should be seen in that context.
  4. I geek – it’s fun to track down these nuggets.

References

Beckett, A. 2020. This is the man in No 10 who inspired Cummings – and he didn’t last long. The Guardian, July 24. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/24/no-10-dominic-cummings-john-hoskyns-margaret-thatcher-whitehall consulted July 31 2023

Lowe, P. and Morrison, D. 1984. Bad news or good news: environmental politics and the mass media. The Sociological Review Vol 32, 1. pp.75-90

Paterson, T. 1984. Why the true blues must go green. The Times, October 6, p.8.

Wikipedia. n.d. John Hoskyns  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hoskyns_(policy_advisor) Consulted July 31 2023

To do

Get hold of those leaked Cabinet Minutes

Get hold of the report from the Sunday Times

Get a look at Hoskyns; memoir “Just In Time”.