Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 6, 2006, the Canadian culture wars kept going.
April 6th 2006 “open letter” of “60 experts” to Harper in Financial Post Page 93 of Climate Cover-Up?
“Last week 60 accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines wrote an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister. They wrote to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the […] government’s climate-change plans.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
There was a strong (and ultimately successful) effort to get Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. This sort of thing, with the usual code words “balanced, comprehensive” was part of it.
What I think we can learn from this
Those who want to keep being rich, and don’t care if the planet burns down as a consequence, they’re persistent and skilful.
What happened next
Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, and is in a tussle with Australia for “shittiest climate criminal settler colony”.
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 nine years ago, on this day, January 24, 1984, Canadians got to understand what was coming, via a CBC documentary, including Stephen Seidel, one of the authors of a recent US EPA report “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?”
As per the Climate State website –
Topics discussed include, the scientific consensus, weather patterns, sea level rise, adaptation, climate actions, or the greenhouse effect. This 1984 documentary outlines our understanding of global climate change at the time.
There’s weather, and then there’s climate. Weather patterns come and go, but forecasting has become much more accurate through improved meteorological techniques. Climate change is harder to predict. But, as the CBC’s Peter Kent shows in this 1984 documentary, it’s happening.
Carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere have been steadily rising, and by the year 2100 the average global temperature may rise by five degrees Celsius due to the greenhouse effect.
“Good evening. Tonight on The Journal a full edition devoted to the greenhouse effect, which will eventually cause the greatest global climatic change since prehistoric times. The full effect won’t be felt for a century or more, but younger members of our audience may well live to experience the first changes. Our grandchildren almost certainly will. We fully expect a certain amount of scepticism among viewers in this unusually cold winter to the proposition that warmer weather is ahead for Canada and the rest of the world. However, as you’ll see, the scientific community is virtually unanimous in the prediction of a warming trend, and that the irreversible warming will create major disruptions of what we’ve come to consider as normal weather patterns. The only disagreement seems to be in the timing and magnitude of the disruptions caused by the greenhouse effect.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419
The context was that in late 1983 two big reports on climate (an EPA one saying ‘srsly, trouble ahead’ and an NAS one saying ‘meh’) had been released. Climate was now a suitable topic for documentaries and panel discussions, at least to break up the monotony of “are we all going to fry in a nuclear war?” And the two kinda dovetailed, what with the concerns about a nuclear winter…
What I think we can learn from this
Again, we have known. The people who were children then are adults now, and I don’t see a whole lot of transformational change, so expecting today’s kids to organise transformational change when they are “grown up” is, um, optimistic.
What happened next
Broadcasters kept broadcasting. Four years later, in Toronto, the world did finally wake up…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
January 20, 2011 – Shell tries to change the subject from its own emissions
Twelve years ago, on this day, January, 20, 2011, Shell tried to change the subject.
“After being called by an official from Royal Dutch Shell regarding the April 2011 conference in Banff, Alta., that was to focus on “less controversial” aspects of the climate-change debate, such as energy efficiency and transportation demand management, [Canadian associate assistant deputy minister Mike] Beale felt compelled to state what was missing. “I had to point out – nicely – that the initiative seems to sidestep the gorilla in the room of emission reductions from O&G (oil and gas), but that otherwise, it seems like a great idea,” wrote Beale in the Jan. 20, 2011 email, released to Postmedia News through access to information legislation.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.
The context was that the post-Copenhagen conversation was grinding on (just because Canada had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, that didn’t mean the ant-climate action folks had downed tools).
This should also be seen in the context of Shell’s multi-decade efforts at minimising, distracting and subject-changing (they don’t do outright denial anymore, it’s all about the predatory delay).
What I think we can learn from this
Trying to have an honest conversation about what we are up against and what needs to be done will continue to be difficult when your interlocutors want to derail the conversation, and will use subtle means to do it sometimes….
What happened next
Shell has indulged in all sorts of cool-washing, involving hipster women and also Jean-luc Godard rip offs.
On this day, December 10, 1978 a five day Workshop co-hosted by the CSU and SCOPE
“Workshop on Climate/Society Interface” began in Toronto..
This was (presumably?!) a kind of sequel/follow up to the February 1978 IIASA workshop “Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Society” which had been cosponsored by WMO, UNEP, and SCOPE, February 21 – 24, 1978.
Papers included
Margolis, H. (December 1978) Estimating social impacts of climate change–What might be done versus what is likely to be done.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 335ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
