Category: International processes

Categories
Canada International processes

October 30, 1972 – Carroll Wilson writes to Maurice Strong, pondering networks

Fifty two years ago, on this day, October 30th, 1972 the Canadian oil baron who had sorted out the United Nations environment conference receives a letter (I know, “hold the front page” right?)

 In a letter to Maurice Strong, the chairman of the Stockholm conference, Carroll Wilson wondered “how and in what ways one might develop a kind of network of the rather limited number of key influential people in a certain number of countries around the world who are globally conscious and who have a vision extending to the end of this century and beyond and who have a deep concern for the environment in its broadest sense.” Wilson to Strong, October 30, 1972, Wilson papers, M.I.T. Archives, Box 44, File 1818.

 (Hart, David, 1992 Belfer thing)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Stockholm conference had happened. And the United Nations Environment Program had been created. There was a broader question of how to maintain or even increase momentum. What sorts of networks and communities might you need? Caroll Wilson, who’d been neck deep in organising the first study of man’s environmental impact in 1970 was clearly pondering the issues. And who better to talk with that Maurice Strong who had shepherded the Stockholm conference. 

What we learn is that in the aftermath of conferences there is talk about, “well, how do we sustain the momentum.” And here we are. And of course, if you try and have those conversations before, people are resistant because they just want their big moment of orgasm. And they don’t want to have to think about what comes next because they kind of on some level know that it will be a bust and you’ll be harshing their vibe, you’ll be spoiling things for them. Let them have their moment of pure, fat free content free reality free, splurge not to be cynical or anything. 

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: 

October 30, 1983 – Carl Sagan hosts ‘nuking ourselves would be bad’ conference.

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review published.

October 30, 2008 – a worker-greenie coalition? Maybe…

Categories
Europe International processes

October 29, 1990 – the Joint Council of Energy and Environment Ministers of the European Community decide to save the world.

On this day 34 years ago,

The Joint Council of the Energy and Environment Ministers of the member states of the European Community (EC) adopted a Council Decision at their meeting on October 29, 1990 concluding that, “the revision of energy and transportation policie1s to curb global carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere  should be one of the priority targets of the world.” They decided that CO2 emissions from the European Community should be stabilized by the year 2000 at 1990 levels, “although the Council notes that some member countries, according to their programmes, are not in a position to commit themselves to  this objective”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the world had “woken up” to the climate threat in 1988. An international treaty was supposed to be signed in mid-1992 at the already-scheduled “Earth Summit” about environment and development. The following week the Second World Climate Conference,, which was to be the unofficial start of the international climate negotiations, would begin in Switzerland, so the European Commission wanted to have some credibility for that..

What we learn

Fine words don’t butter so many parsnips, do they?

What happened next

Super-effective lobbying effort by big biz meant that no carbon tax was instituted. In 2005 a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme got underway.  ETS’s are preferred by bankers and consultants – more fees, more loopholes and dodges etc.  A carbon tax though according to economists, is “inefficient.”  So, there’s that…

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

July 23, 1997 – US climate envoy wonders what Australian leaders are smoking…

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, July 23rd, 1997, Tim Wirth called out the Australians for being bonkers.

Asked about the economic modelling by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) on which the Howard Government’s stance is based, he said he had not seen it.

But he was generally sceptical of industry-funded models and said the US Administration believed modelling around the world showed green-house gases could be stabilised at either no economic cost or an economic benefit – a finding strongly at odds with ABARE’s work.

“I think there are some people who plug their own assumptions into models and then they flog those models as if they are the things that are going to define and predict the future of the world,” Mr Wirth said.

“Anybody who believes that an economic model is going to be able to predict to points of percentage of increase or decrease, I’d raise an eyebrow . . . or look at what those people have been smoking, because I don’t believe there’s any way in the world you are going to get that sort of accuracy.”

The ABARE modelling draws such conclusions and was partially funded by industry. “Industry groups . . . have points of view that they are paid to advocate,” he said.

Taylor, L. 1997. US rejects Aust `differentiated’ greenhouse goal. Australian Financial Review, 24 July, p3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at COP1 in Berlin in 1995, the rich nations had agreed that they would come to the third meeting with plans for their own emissions reductions. That meeting was to be held in Kyoto. International capital, especially oil and gas and coal, had mobilised ferociously against the science – see the attacks on the IPCC’s. second assessment report. And there were also campaigns in the US against Kyoto, Australia’s government, under that thug John Howard, trying to carve out the sweetest deal they could. And that’s what led Clinton’s climate envoy Senator Tim Wirth to say that he wanted to know what the Australians were smoking because he felt that the claims for special treatment were unjustified and demeaning.

What we learn – you can laugh at denialists and obstructors all you like. That doesn’t make them less formidable.

What happened next well, Australia wore down the other nations, it not only got the 108% so-called “reduction” target. But it also managed to insert a so-called “land clearing” clause, which meant in effect, their emissions reduction target was 130%. So, while Tim Wirth’s jibe was a good one, The Last Laugh belongs to Howard. 

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 23, 1979 – Charney Report people meet – will conclude “yep, global warming is ‘A Thing’.”

July 23, 1987 – Calvin (and Hobbes) versus climate change!

July 23, 1998 – denialists stopping climate action. Again.

Categories
Australia International processes Sweden UNFCCC

: July 18, 1996 – Australian Prime Minister snubs #climate talks

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 18th, 1996, John Howard showed his priorities…

Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);

2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;

3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.

AND

“PRIME Minister John Howard yesterday [18th] snubbed the international community, claiming Australia would continue to oppose reductions in greenhouse gases.

“Australia has drawn international condemnation for its refusal to accept legally binding reductions in greenhouse gases now accepted as causing global warming.”

Benson, S. 1996. Howard snubs world / Greenhouse gas call `hurts Australia’. Daily Telegraph, July 19, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 362ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard had come to power in March of that year and took the Keating government’s antipathy to all things climate, and dialled it up from a solid eight or nine to an 11. “This one goes up to 11”. 

What we learn is that the Australian political elite was extremely hostile to anything that would get between them and profits. For coal companies, they could see no other way of being in the world. And they didn’t see the need for that other way, because they didn’t accept 19th century physics {LINK}

What we learn is that we’ve already learned that John Howard is a contemptible climate criminal.

What happened next, Howard dialled up the ante – the international agreement campaign against Australia having to cut emissions was not an 11 but a 12. The following year, he sent diplomats all around the world to try to carve out a special deal for Australia and was spectacularly successful in doing so. 

And here we are almost 30 years later; acts of cosmic vandalism. And you need a heart of stone not to despair. 

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 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

July 18, 2005 – inconvenient energy targets scrapped

July 18, 2012: Climate Justice poem – “Tell Them” by Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – hits the internet

Categories
France International processes

July 16, 1989 – Paris agreement on climate…

The Paris Agreement; World leaders gather in Paris and talk about climate change and make big promises. Am I talking about 2015? No, I’m talking about the G7 in 1989 thirty five years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1989.

1989 Economic Declaration “We believe that the conclusion of a framework or umbrella convention on climate change to set out general principles or guidelines is urgently required to mobilize and rationalize the efforts made by the international community… Specific protocols containing concrete commitments could be fitted into the framework as scientific evidence requires and permits.”

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/paris-economic-summit-economic-declaration

THATCHER GIVES PRESS CONFERENCE, usual warm words https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107731

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meetings had started originally as a one-off at Rambouillet in November 1975 as part of the concern that Western leaders had about stagflation. labour unrest (which is a cute way of setting the slaves aren’t willing to be slaves at the same rate anymore) and general sense of things falling apart. The leaders liked it so much they made it an annual event. And in 1979, carbon dioxide buildup and climate change even been onto the agenda, some vague promises, {LINK]

But then by 1980, Venice, that was all forgotten. And it was more coal all the time [link}. 

Fun fact. The pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference that had happened in 1988, the pivotal one had taken place in the same venue as the G7 meeting.

What we learn is that people like turning up in Paris and making agreements. It makes them feel good and important. So, beautiful city even if it has become a theme park for itself. And here we are.

What happened next? Well, funnily enough, the G7 in Houston next year didn’t mention climate at all. Why could that be? And the climate issue rose to a peak in summer of ‘92. And then it was perceived to have been more or less resolved. Because you know, now we had a treaty, we had some fine words, everything would be fine.

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 International processes Swtizerland

July 12, 1996 – medics slam energy companies for outright denial and obstruction

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, July 12th, 1996, COP2 

GENEVA, July 12 (Reuter) – Top specialists on the effects of global warming on human health on Friday accused energy corporations of working to undermine international efforts to halt climate change.

The attack came amid growing controversy at a two-week United Nations conference on how far to limit “greenhouse gas” emissions, mainly from burning of oil and coal, blamed by key scientists for rising world temperatures.

“The fossil fuel lobby is beginning to behave like the tobacco industry did 30 years ago, as adverse health effects of smoking first emerged,” Anthony McMichael of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said.

“It is using a typical rearguard action, through attempts at distortion, delaying tactics and making enough noise to drown out the arguments for strong moves by the world’s political leaders to cut emissions,” he told a news conference.

1996 – Evans, R. 1996 Doctors hit energy groups over global warming. Reuters News 12th July

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that COP1 had finished with the so-called Berlin Mandate, which meant rich nations were going to have to come to Kyoto with an agreement to reduce their emissions. The new federal government in Australia was distinctly unimpressed. And so was industry, which had seen off a domestic carbon tax and had it replaced with a meaningless Greenhouse Challenge probably saw no reason why that same victory couldn’t be repeated on the international stage. Yes, you’d have to ignore brown people living in low lying countries and islands. But that was hardly difficult. 

What we learn is that fossil fuel interests had had successes domestically, and had every confidence that they could repeat that internationally. And it turns out, sadly, for our species, and all the other species on this beautiful planet, that their confidence was well-founded. They managed to gut the ambition and the Kyoto Protocol. And they’ve managed to keep winning. Now, they were joined in this by inertia, complacency, neoliberalism, whatever set of explanations, nouns you want to use. But they were a key factor in making sure nothing significant got done. And they were very, very good at doing that.

What happened next? Australia carved out an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto in 1997. And then, still refused to ratify. When they finally did in 2007 it was a meaningless gesture. The sort of thing that Kevin Rudd excelled at. Actually doing policy and implementation, he found somewhat more challenging.

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
International processes Italy

June 23, 1980 – G7 in Venice aims to sink Venice…

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1980, the G7 rolled back from previous “concern”

Together we intend to double coal production and use by early 1990. We will encourage long-term commitments by coal producers and consumers. It will be necessary to improve infrastructures in both exporting and importing countries, as far as is economically justified, to ensure the required supply and use of coal. We look forward to the recommendations of the International Coal Industry Advisory Board. They will be considered promptly. We are conscious of the environmental risks associated with increased coal production and combustion. We will do everything in our power to ensure that increased use of fossil fuels, especially coal, does not damage the environment.

23 June 1980 – G7 declaration in Venice (poor Crispin!!) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the year before the G7 had at least paid lip service to the problem of CO2 buildup as something to be remarked on, albeit alongside words about increasing coal production. Here at Venice, the CO2 was absent but the coal was there, bigger and badder than ever. In Venice of all places, which is exquisitely vulnerable to sea level rise. UK diplomat Crispin Tickell must have been heartbroken about it. What can you do?

What we learn is that the fine words are just that – just fine words. You can’t expect anything more of them. 

What happened next? More G7 meetings, more warm words. The next G7 at which climate is a big deal is Paris 1989. It’s not on the agenda at all in Houston in 1990 because Bush, because oil companies of course.

And then again, I think in 91 John Major makes a song and dance about it. And then, really it’s not until it’s not until 2005 Gleneagles that all the bullshit about climate change generally and CCS really gets a boost. 

(Btw, the G7 was never supposed to be a permanent thing. But he gives the leaders a chance to schmooze each other in nice settings and strut and fret, of course, they’re gonna grab it with both hands, and it’s gonna persist.)

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: 

June 23, 1988 – it’s time to stop waffling and say the greenhouse effect is here

June 23, 1997 – RIP Hermann Flohn

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

Categories
International processes Sweden

June 12, 1972 – At Stockholm “development” is challenged 

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1972, the idea of One True Path To Wealth got questions by Barbara Ward and Margaret Mead.

NGOs, too, soon challenged the U.S. delegation’s platform. In a statement to the plenary session on June 12, a collection of NGOs, led by Barbara Ward and American anthropologist Margaret Mead, strongly criticised existing notions of development. In the development process, there needed to be “a greater emphasis on non-material satisfactions . . . and, above all, altruism in the pursuit of the common good.” Ward and Mead argued that technical fixes – more production – would not solve developmental problems, because a balance between environment and development “can be achieved only if we face honestly the problem of social justice and redistribution.” More concretely, they called for a tiny percent of GNP to be allocated in grants and low-interest for long-term loans for concessionary assistance and for additional flows of capital assistance from the developed nations to offset costs in the developing world. 132 “NGO Plenary Declaration,” Reprinted in Special Issue: The Stockholm Conference, Not Man Apart, 

Vol. 2, No. 7 (July 1972), 8-10. ABOVE IS A QUOTE from page 170 of “Of limits and growth” – phd thesis by Stephen Macekura

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that developing nations had been deeply suspicious of the agenda – in every sense – of the Western nations in calling for this conference on the human environment. They saw it as another way of the West restricting the economic development of what was then called the Third World. There had been a conference in Founex (which is I think, in Switzerland) in 1971 to allay some of these concerns.

Fun fact, only one world leader was there besides Olof Palme, Indira Gandhi of India. And these fights about what development meant and who it was for and who would be in charge of it were turning up of course, both at the conference itself, and at the People’s Conference, and so forth. 

What we learn is that how you see the world very much depends whether you are serving or eating. In the words of Leonard Cohen, homicidal bitchin’ goes down in every kitchen. And the main problem has been a lack of trust. And Western nations have done nothing to earn that trust. 

What happened next? The Stockholm conference gave us some fine words but it also gave us the United Nations Environment Program, headquartered in Nairobi, a lot smaller than was hoped but powerful enough to co-sponsor with WMO a series of meetings about climate change.

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: 

June 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

June 8,1991 – UK environment minister Heseltine visits USA, his climate compromise rebuffed

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1991, the UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, went on a (futile) mission to the US to try to get them to be less of a blocker in the negotiations around the climate treaty that had to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992.

You can see lots of gory details here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were upon us in full flow. The UK had just adopted the stabilisation target at least. But it was clear that the administration of George HW Bush was digging in its heels and generally being douchey. Environment Minister Michael Heseltine was therefore dispatched to see what could be done. 

What we learn from this is that even under John Major the UK was trying to be less terrible than the Bush outfit. And they’re always these behind the scenes games. It is actually one of those little incidents that would be nice to cover. Heseltine was fresh from challenging Margaret Thatcher for the leadership and precipitating her departure. 

What happened next? The American anti climate clique went round spreading bullshit about Heseltine and there was actually very unusually a public rebuke of this. See questions in Parliament about the July 12th 1991 article in The Times. For all the good it did. And then less than a year later, the pantomime ended with the British dispatching another envoy, Michael Howard this time, to raise the white flag on behalf of the Europeans. Targets and timetables were dead. A Tale of Two envoys…

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: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973. 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury forced to acknowledge carbon dioxide…

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Kingdom

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1990, the Times ran a big story about Thatcher settling for a “stabilise UK emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels” target, but calling it “tough.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been fights over emissions reductions for rich nations. In 1989, an energy minister, Lady whoever or Baroness whatever had nixed that {LINK}. But the negotiations were coming and the UK would need some sort of position. SDtabilisation target looks like a winner, even if it wasn’t adequate scientifically(that’s never stopped people before and it didn’t on this occasion).

What we learn is that there were intense tussles and battles in that period of the 80s, ‘88 to ‘92. And this was one of them. 

What happened next Thatcher was gone in six months. And the stabilisation target made its way into the UNFCCC treaty.

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: 

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes