Category: International processes

Categories
International processes IPCC Science Scientists

April 8, 1995 – Fred Pearce writes “World lays odds on global catastrophe”….

Thirty one years ago today, New Scientist lays it out…

Fred Pearce article in New scientist about IPCC World Lays odds… 8-4-1995

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that  the New Scientist magazine had been going since the late 50s, And in an early issue, it had reported on carbon dioxide build up link and through the 70s and 80s, it had been regularly reported on the topic.   

The specific context was that Fred Piearce had been at the Berlin COP which had just finished, and it was clear that progress was going to be much slower than it had initially been hoped and it needed to be. And Pearce was not stupid, and he was not hopeful about our chances of not being incredibly stupid. 

Pearce has a new book out, btw. Despite It All: A Handbook for Climate Hopefuls

What I think we can learn from this is that a decent science journalist is a relatively good guide to life. 

What happened next:  Well, the COPs are still going, but the emissions have climbed and climbed and climbed and the atmospheric concentrations are now climbing very rapidly, and we are in a world of shit of our own devising. What do we do about it? I don’t know that there is much that we can do. To be honest, why am I doing this? Because I can, because it’s a habit, because I don’t know why I’m doing this.

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: 

April 8, 1970 – Australian National University students told about C02 build-up…

April 8, 1980 – UK civil servant Crispin Tickell warns Times readers…

April 8, 1995 – Australian environment minister says happy with “Berlin Mandate”

April 8, 1995 – Journo points out the gamble on climate – All Our Yesterdays

April 8, 2013 – Margaret Thatcher died

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol

April 2, 2001 – Post-”Bush pulling out of Kyoto” joy from various Australian nutjobs 

On this day, 25 years ago, 

A string of federal ministers, led by Prime Minister John Howard, voiced support for the US position following the March 29 announcement by Washington that it would not support the Kyoto Protocol. Federal cabinet decided on April 2 to support the US decision. The government declared that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless the US does.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/canberra-covers-bush-greenhouse

And

The April 2 Age 2001 printed an article by Ray Evans from the Lavoisier Group, in which he stated: “President Bush has shown courage and provided world leadership by announcing that the United States will not support the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. What is baffling, however, is that some senior members of the Australian government do not seem prepared to immediately lend support to Bush. In the interests of good policy and good science, they should do so.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been signed in 1992. In 1995 rich nations had agreed to turn up to the third Conference of the Parties with plans to reduce their emissions (“the Berlin Mandate”). However, in the United States, fossil fuel lobbies and denialists fought tooth and nail, and reduced ambition. Meanwhile, the Americans forced the Europeans to accept all sorts of carbon trading and so-called “Joint Implementation.” That was a recipe for delay in Australia. The Howard government used all its diplomatic weight to try to carve out a special deal for Australia, resulting in an official de jure, so-called reduction target of 108%, i.e. an increase, but de facto, 130% once you took into account so called land clearing anyway, the 

The specific context was that George W Bush had been handed the 2000 presidential election by his dad’s appointees on the Supreme Court, and although Bush Jr W had said on the campaign trail that carbon dioxide would need to be regulated, once in office, he took orders from Dick Cheney and pulled the US out of Kyoto.

So what you see here is the relief and applause from various Australian assholes because they knew that sooner or later, Howard would make the same announcement, (but not until after the Federal Election of 2001 which, of course, he was looking like he would lose). But then, well, the Tampa and the lies and all of that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that these people applauding Bush pulling out of Kyoto are, frankly, the scum of the earth. This is not to say Kyoto was at all adequate, but they’re still the scum of the earth. 

What happened next:  Kyoto ratification became a weird virtue-signalling fetish in Australia, which suited the Labor politician Kevin Rudd, who used it as a stick to beat John Howard, with Australia, did eventually ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was a completely futile gesture.

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: 

April 2, 1968 – Oz Senate debates Air Pollution Select Committee

April 2, 1979 – AAAS workshop in Anaheim begins…

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

March 21,  1995 – Labor versus Berlin agreements

Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1995, the Fin reports, 

FEDERAL Cabinet is today expected to endorse Australia taking a tough stand – at a ministerial meeting on climate change in Berlin next week – against new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s stance against the creation of a new protocol on greenhouse gas reduction was given a strong boost by the failure of a last-minute meeting of 26 countries held in Bonn 10 days ago to reach consensus on the issue.

Dwyer, M. 1995. Australia takes strong line against greenhouse rules.  The Australian Financial Review,  21 March. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that six years previously, Australia had made all the right noises at an international conference in The Hague, but six years and a couple of 100 extra miles make all the difference.

What actually happened?

The specific context was that by 1995 the resources lobby had won all the battles on climate policy, and Australia was the Labour Party was going to fight tooth and nail against any reduction commitments. 

What I think we can learn from this is that a week is a long time in politics and six years is an eternity.

What happened next.  Well, it’s interesting because John Faulkner must have been sent to the Berlin COP with a set of instructions, but ultimately, for whatever reason, he agreed to the Berlin mandate. It would be fascinating to see the cables back and forth between the Australian embassy and Keating’s government and to see what Keating et al said to Faulkner when he returned.  

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 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

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