Category: International processes

Categories
Australia International processes

March 1, 1989 – “Environment pact backed” by Australian government

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1989,

Federal Cabinet is set to back calls for an international treaty to protect the environment, a move which could drastically alter the nation’s future pattern of trade and the development of its resources.

Australia would support an international treaty to guard against potentially dangerous shifts in the earth’s climate and atmosphere, under a submission expected to go before Cabinet’s structural adjustment committee today.

[The Hague]

Dunn, R. 1989. Environmental pact backed. Australian Financial Review, 1 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that Australia had been warned about climate change build up repeatedly by scientists, the CSIRO had been beavering away on it since the early 70s. There had been a secret report called Fossil Fuels and The Greenhouse Effect in, or done by the Office of National Assessments in 1981. There had been Barry Jones, Minister of Science, organising the Greenhouse Project between the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future. And the issue had exploded into public awareness. In ‘88 there had been the “greenhouse 88” conference, linked by satellite to 10 towns and cities in Australia, everyone was holding hands and saying, “We will deal with this problem.”

The specific context is that the idea of an international treaty to deal with climate was high on the agenda because the ozone problem had had an international treaty, and then protocols were underway, So there was a meeting at The Hague without the big beasts deliberately. I should look into why the Dutch called it. Anyway, Australia, under Bob Hawke, was going to take a positive and proactive role. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Australia, at the outset, was not what it is now. And this is in part because I think the business groups were caught on the back foot, as they often are at the beginning of a window of concern, and just assumed that it would all blow over – they weren’t pushing hard back. And so the pro action forces had kind of an open goal. 

What happened next is that business did indeed wake up, and the pushback against any meaningful climate policy kicked into gear in late 1989 early 1990. Perhaps business had thought that they didn’t need to do much because a Liberal government was coming back, and despite the fine words of people like Chris Puplick, a business friendly Liberal government could be relied on to prevent meaningful climate action. That’s just speculation on my part. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
International processes United Nations

December 21, 1990 – UNGA creates “INC”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1990, the United Nations General Assembly, via Resolution 45/212, creates the “International Negotiating Committee”, to negotiate a global climate treaty (what became the UNFCCC).

UNGA Resolution No. 45/212 (Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind) | ADB’s Law and Policy Reform Program

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the United Nations General Assembly had been here before. In 1968 it had said yes to a conference, to be held in 1972. That had given the world (checks notes…) the United Nations Environment Program.

The specific context was that despite the best efforts of the US (and the UK), negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed at the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio were gonna begin. The second world climate conference had just happened in Geneva and now the “International Negotiating Committee” was going to be a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – if enough pressure builds, new organisations/institutions are formed (That is not to say they endure, or are worth a bucket of warm spit, necessarily).

What happened next? The INC met five times from early 1991 to early 1992 – many sticking points (i.e. obstacles thrown up by the US and the oil producing states). George HW Bush repeatedly, and credibly, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the treaty text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions. And eventually, the French blinked and the targets and timetables were taken out.

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: 

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 8, 1997 – Gore and Hill at Kyoto

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1997,

Al Gore, then Vice-President of the United States, there at Kyoto. And on the same day

“Senator Hill’s entrance was a bit rockier, with a smaller Australian demonstration led by Greens’ Senator Dee Margetts jostling him on his entrance to the main summit hall. Two hours after Mr Gore, Senator Hill rushed through his speech – the 16th out of 67 – in front of a half-empty hall.”

Lunn, S. 1997. US juggernaut swamps small beer at Kyoto. The Australian, December 9, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been kneecapped at birth by the US refusing to allow targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries into the treaty’s text. George HW Bush said he’d boycott the Earth Summit if they weren’t removed from the draft text – and the French blinked. Everything since then has been an attempt to get some targets in. The Paris farce is the latest and the last (presumably).

The specific context was in the run up to Kyoto there were fierce public campaigns, funded by the oil companies etc, against Kyoto. Meanwhile, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had been trying to get people to accept the ridiculous position that Australia deserved special treatment (he succeeded).

What I think we can learn from this – we were doomed a long time ago.

What happened next – The US pulled out of Kyoto negotiations at the beginning of 2001. Australia followed the next year, despite having extorted an insanely generous deal. 

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: 

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
France Industry Associations International processes

November 14, 1984 – first World Industry Conference on Environmental Management begins in Versailles, France.

On this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.

“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.

The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.

What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.

What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.

Also on this day: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

November 14, 1997 – Aussies want WTO to scupper UNFCCC

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,

The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.

According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.

“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.

More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.

An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”

While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.

McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.

The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.

Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.

What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.

What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify.  Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way –  In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.

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: 

 November 14, 1977 – Met Office boss forced to think about #climate change – first interdepartmental meeting…

November 14, 2005 – Downing St blocked with coal – All Our Yesterdays

November 14, 2013, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s 50th #climate speech

November 14, 2014 – US and China sign climate deal, in part to troll Australian Prime Minister – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes Soviet Union United States of America

October 28, 1968 – Los Angeles Times report on the possibility of an environment conference

Fifty seven years ago, on this day, October 28th, 1968

“Both the United States and the Soviet Union have privately expressed a strong interest in the project.

Foell, E. 1968. Sweden to Ask U.N. for World Pollution Talks: Parley in 1972 Urged . Los Angeles Times; October 28, pg. 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 323ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Sweden had had its “environmental turn” in late 1967, and some Swedish diplomats had begun to push for the UN to hold a conference on the environment.

The specific context was that after lots of fancy footwork, and ultimate buy-in from the US and USSR (though they would later boycott it), the conference was about to get the go ahead.

What I think we can learn from this – Sweden punched above its weight for a while there.

What happened next – the conference took place in June 1972. Very few world leaders attended and the only really substantive thing to come out of it, afaik, was the creation of the United Nations Environment Program. UNEP and WMO co-sponsored, along with ICSU, various scientific meetings about the atmosphere and pollution, including the pivotal one in Villach, Austria in October 1985.

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 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air” 

Categories
International processes

October 21, 1991 – “Environment agencies start to flex their muscles”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1991,

An international plan was unveiled yesterday to “harness the total resources of humanity” to improve the global environment by measures which include massive reductions in energy consumption and the use of natural resources in industrialised countries.

The proposals, put forward by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world conservation union (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), envisage the establishment of a new world organisation – probably based on the United Nations – to co-ordinate environmental protection and encourage sustainable development which does not deplete natural resources.

The reports entitled “Caring for the Earth”, suggest that the UN general assembly could coordinate the system through its committees and produce annual reports on the state of the world environment.

Launching the report in London, the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the WWF, warned that unless population growth was halted soon world resources would no longer be able to support humanity’s needs and economies would face collapse. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/cfe-003.pdf

Unknown Author, 1991. Environment Agencies Start To Flex Their Muscles. Financial Times October 22 p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that many of these organisations had been established in the 1950s or 1960s, when the major issues were habitat loss. Over time the ones that could roll with the punches, adopt new language etc., were able to survive while the small, unlucky or “stuck” with a particular perspective or image stayed small or died. By 1991 the second great eco-awakening was already three years old, and participant fatigue was beginning to set in.

The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit was just 8 months away, and everyone was hoping that this time they’d all get it right and Save the World. 

What I think we can learn from this – green groups can have hopes, but then, well, there’s always reality…

What happened next. Reader, nobody Saved the World. The UNFCCC was a farce, and the emissions are 60+ per cent higher than they were in 1990.

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 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability… 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia France International processes

October 11, 2000 – Aussies want to mark their own homework

Twenty five years ago, on this day, October 11th, 2000,

“At a UN climate change conference in France in September, the Australian delegates argued that countries should monitor their own progress on greenhouse gas emissions rather than establishing an international monitoring body. An Australian delegate objected to a proposal to establish a consultative process to ensure continuity of information exchange, to facilitate international cooperation and to contribute to the assessment of demonstrable progress.

If such a body was established, Australian delegates argued, it should be prohibited from responding to questions about a country’s performance except for questions posed by the country in question.

An Australian delegate also opposed proposals for financial penalties, or any binding consequences whatsoever, for countries failing to meet their targets.”

Green, J. 2000. Greenhouse sceptics lose the plot. Green Left Weekly, 11 October.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/greenhouse-sceptics-lose-plot

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australia had been nakedly criminal on climate policy since 1996 (before that they tried to cloak it). Although they’d extorted a fantastically generous deal at the Kyoto Conference (COP 3) and then signed it, they had not ratified. And everyone knew that if he could avoid ratifying it, Prime Minister John Howard would.

The specific context was that Australia was once again trying to find ways to carve out even more generous conditions…

What I think we can learn from this is that once an untrustworthy and thieving asshole, always an untrustworthy and thieving asshole.

What happened next – in 2002 John Howard went public with the not ratifying Kyoto thing, to nobody’s surprise.

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 11, 2006 – “Climate Institute” begins tour of rural Victoria 

Categories
International processes Mozambique

 September 2, 2002 – Blair in Maputo, wittering about Climate Technology 

Twenty three years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 2002, soon-to-be-obvious-war criminal Tony Blair was blathering on about “sustainability”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Blair was in full messianic mode (a frightening thing to behold) and behind the scenes involved heavily in the plan to attack Iraq.

The specific context was that it was ten years since the Rio Earth Summit, and Johannesburg was the place to be (unless you were George Bush, obvs).

What I think we can learn from this is that messianic sorts like Blair are very happy to bullshit on about technology. It’s part of their “I am a god” complex.

What happened next – Technology saved us about as much as Bush and Blair “liberated” Iraq.

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: 

September 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth” – All Our Yesterdays

September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change

Categories
International processes United States of America

August 19, 2002 – Bush skips the Earth Summit

Twenty-three years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2002, Dubya shows his priorities….

August 19th, 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell will lead the American delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 through September 4. President George W. Bush made the announcement late today, giving no explanation as to why he will not be attending the summit to join 106 other world leaders on the speaker’s podium.

USA: Bush Turns His Back on Earth Summit https://corpwatch.org/article/usa-bush-turns-his-back-earth-summit

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the US writes the (unwritten) rules, it doesn’t obey them. The laws are there to protect the rich and constrain the weak, not the other way round – that stuff is just for the academic theory books and the propaganda aimed at the credulous (there is a distressing amount of overlap between these two categories. Meh, it is what it is).

The specific context was that Bush was simply reminding everyone who had the nukes and the hegemonic status. Much as his dad, George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush, had done in 1991 and 1992, threatening not to attend the Rio Earth Summit if the text of the Climate Treaty included targets and timetables for emissions reductions.

What I think we can learn from this- the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Also, all the liberal and conservative whining about Trump not obeying international law, international norms. Please – bite me.

What happened next – the US kept on being a rogue state, because that what suits those in charge of it. And the emissions kept climbing.

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: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live – All Our Yesterdays