Category: International processes

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

September 22, 1992 – “Greenhouse beyond Rio”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 22nd, 1992,

 Greenhouse Beyond Rio: A Two-day Conference on the Greenhouse Effect ;  Sir Robert Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, London, 22 – 23 September 1992 ; 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2026, 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 greenhouse effect problem had become an issue in 1988. And the politicians had wrangled. And, ultimately, the United States’ position of “no targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations or we are boycotting the Earth Summit” had prevailed. The UNFCCC text was a slow-motion suicide note.

So people were holding post-Rio Earth Summit meetings and putting on a brave face, wanting to believe, wanting to pretend, wanting other people to believe that an important landmark had been passed, and that there was going to be actual climate action.

But anyone who had witnessed previous rounds of the kayfabe will have known that this was all bullshit. I doubt many people were willing to say it out in public because that’s career-limiting or career-ending, and why piss on everyone else’s chips, I guess? Let them believe whatever deluded shite they want to believe. It doesn’t really matter anymore. 

What I think we can learn from this the kayfabe caravan must roll on…

What happened next. Well, you’re living with the consequences, consequences of it, 34 years of increased emissions, and therefore increased atmospheric concentrations, and therefore heat trapped, and therefore extreme weather events, and therefore climatic changes. Welcome to the Fafocence, I hope you enjoy the show.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 22, 1955 – a General Electric scientist warned about carbon dioxide build-up

September 22, 1971 – Australian communist talks about climate change

September 22, 1991 – ESD RIP. Australia’s chance of a different future… squashed flat.

September 22, 1994 – another “sky will fall” report

September 22, 2005 – IPCC CCS special report

September 22, 2014 – “We Mean Business” coalition formed

Categories
International processes Science World Meteorological Organisation

September 21, 1978 – Draft Agreement between WMO and ICSU

Forty eight years ago, on this day, September 21st, 1978,

Draft Agreement between WMO and ICSU re: climate research programme

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/toward-a-u-s-climate-program-plan-comprehensive-review-and-recommendations-from-the-1978-workshop/289538439#88

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 335ppm. As of 2026, 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 World Meteorological Organisation had been beavering away on any number of issues, but a subgroup had in 1976 come out in favour of a warming world, because of carbon dioxide build up. This had been reported in the Times, and here we see the agreement for a kind of successor programme to the GARP in the lead up to and to be agreed at the first World Climate Conference to be held in Geneva in February of 1979.

The specific context was that the reports and conferences about carbon dioxide build-up were beginning to come quicker.

What I think we can learn from this is that the wheels of the bureaucracy go round and round, they grind very fine, but you’re not going to get big research programmes funded unless you do things like this, draft programmes, revised drafts, etc.

What happened next. The First World Climate Conference happened. It was not the pivotal moment it could have been. The problem did not become a public issue until 1988.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

September 21, 1958, LA Times runs a Greenhouse Cartoon

September 21, 1990 – Stabilisation in 2005, says the UK

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

September 21, 2014 – big #climate march in New York. World saved.

Date for your diary – Sun Day, Sept 21st 2025

Categories
International processes UNFCCC

September 20, 1991 – End of the INC negotiations in Nairobi

On this day 35 years ago, the “international negotiating committee” (INC) meeting in Nairobi finished.  The progress towards the text of a sign-able international treaty on climate change remained painfully slow. 

Below are some clippings from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegram from someone who was there. (FCO 33/6909)

Summary

  1. A Workmanlike session which has carried discussions some way forward. Some hope of achieving an agreed negotiating text at the next session. But no movement on most difficult issues and little expectation of any until much closer to the Rio Conference. 

The United States delegation has continued to play a positive role on minor matters while remaining entirely inflexible on the key issues. In private, however, they are aware that the time when they can simply stonewall on finance and emissions is coming to an end, and that work will shortly have to begin in Washington on more constructive positions to which they can move.  [This is wishcasting by the author]. Soviet delegation uncertainties about the position at home (and indeed their future jobs) have prevented their generally benevolent approach to the negotiation from being trated into an ability to agree to anything. The G77 remain massively split with saudi Arabia marginalised on the negative wing, the small islands stridently, but lilliputianly, positive, India pulled forward by a wish to exercise influence, and backwards by a visceral mistrust of the west, most of the latins quietly constructive, Mexico mischievous and China showing signs of awareness that its present remote stance may require some reexamination. (It was the shared judgment of a number of western delegations that the Chinese position is now a key obstacle which has somehow to be tackled.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 there had been warnings about carbon dioxide build-up – serious warnings – from the mid-1960s.  Occasionally the US had mouthed some of the right pieties, but this was a fantastically complicated problem (a wicked problem) and nothing substantive got done, repeatedly.

The specific context was that in 1989 the US had been forced to move from “no treaty, piss off you commie greenie assholes” to pretending to play along. The hard deadline for a treaty was early 1992, ahead of the “Earth Summit” in Rio in June 1992. 

What I think we can learn from this is that previously classified diplomatic cables are fun to read.

What happened next  The US did not, in fact, shift on the question of emissions targets and timetables, and everyone else blinked first. The UNFCCC text was a very long suicide note for a slow self-immolation. And here we are.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day:

September 20, 1848 – the AAAS is born…

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits theroad.

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

September 20, 2023 – Geo-engineering or (well, and) die

Categories
International processes

September 2, 1992 – US negotiator concedes that the public knew what was needed 

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1992,

State Department participant in the negotiations, Dan Reifsnyder, offered the view that the concept of targets and timetables “captured and riveted the public’s imagination. It provided a simple litmus test of a country’s environment commitment. It required no painstaking feasibility analysis or tedious review of specific mitigation measures. It was political genius.” Speech to 1992 Seoul Symposium on ‘UNCED and Prospects for the Environmental Regime in the 21st Century’, September 2, 1992, Seoul, Korea. 

Hecht, A. and Tirpak, D. 1995. Framework Agreement on Climate Change: A Scientific and Policy History. Climatic Change, 29, 371-402. 

Reifsnyder, D. 1992. “The Policy of the USA on the Climate Change Convention,” unpublished presentation at the 1992 Seoul Symposium on UNCED 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 States, under George H. W. Bush, had spent the period from 1989 to 1992 resolutely opposing a climate treaty that included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. His spine was stiffened by the usual suspects of oil companies, automakers, etc. organised partly within something called, the Global Climate Coalition. And their intransigence and their plausible threats to boycott the Earth Summit were successful, The proposal for targets and timetables were withdrawn. The Americans agreed to sign. 

There was a calculation – perhaps correct, we’ll never know – at the time that a climate treaty without the United States was worthless, and if the price of the US’s signature was no targets and no timetables, it was a price worth paying, because you could get targets and timetables in via negotiations later. Some people will agree, others will disagree. For what it’s worth, I think I disagree, because it has caused havoc and mayhem and delay, but it was always going to be like that, I guess.

What I think we can learn from this is that there were multiple efforts to get binding emissions reductions targets. See, for example, Kyoto. It’s clear that the Americans would never agree to that. The Senate under the thumb of vested interests would never agree to that.

What happened next emissions have climbed, atmospheric concentrations have climbed, and we are completely and utterly fucked. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

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, 1999 – Bob Brown bill

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

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

Categories
International processes Science Scientists

August 30, 2010 – InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Sixteen years ago, on this day, August 30th, 2010,

2010 InterAcademy Council report on IPCC

Microsoft Word – IAC Review of IPCC_prepub.doc 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 390ppm. As of 2026, 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 efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change had been going on for quite a while. See, for example, the spectacular efforts around the second assessment report and the work of Ben Santer.

The specific context was that in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference of the Parties in 2009 there had been a hack, presumably by Russians or paid Russian hackers of the University of East Anglia’s emails. This was the so-called “Climategate” scandal, an enormous nothing burger where individual comments were taken out of context. Meanwhile, efforts were made to go through all of the IPCC reports and find whatever weaknesses and errors could be found, this all pushed the Inter Academy Council to do an assessment of the IPCC, which was released on this day.

What I think we can learn from this is the attacks on science by people who proclaim the importance of the scientific method and Western civilization, blah blah, are unrelenting, sometimes quite sophisticated, and – for those who want to believe them – quite effective. 

What happened next Attacks on the IPCC still happen, but frankly, the IPCC will go on producing assessment reports until the waters close over our heads, apparently the seventh assessment report is finally going to have some social science in there. Whoopsie do, because most of the social science around climate change that I’ve read is frankly misbegotten, which raises the question, Why aren’t I writing some of it myself, and then heading off to Stockholm for my Nobel prizes?

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 30, 1971 – Bob Carr (ex- NSW premier) ‘gets’ climate change

August 30, 1975 – The Science Show does climate change…

August 30, 1986 – Adelaide warned about climate change by Environment Minister Don Hopgood 

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

August 30, 1990 -Australian diplomats (probably) tried to water down IPCC recommendations

August 30, 1998 – Fourth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

Categories
International processes Sweden

June 10th (ish) -1972: Frank Fraser Darling says we’re all doomed.

On this day (give or take),54 years ago at the Big Save The World conference in Stockholm, illusions were being shed, by Scottish biologist and all-round smart guy Frank Fraser Darling.

“At the UN conference at Stockholm, ten years ago, I remember between two sessions seeing Sir Frank Fraser Darling sitting by himself on a chair in a corridor adjoining the conference hall. I remember too sitting down next to him and asking him what he thought of the proceedings. He shook his head and looked thoroughly miserable. “We are doomed” he said. At the time, I did not really believe him. Perhaps, I was still (relatively) young and naive. Today, after having attended these three meetings, I know that he was right.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that the costs of industrialisation and population growth could not easily be ignored anymore (though the blame could be -and was – consistently misplaced). The Swedes proposed an international conference on ‘the Human Environment’ in 1968, and hosted it.


Meanwhile, Frank Fraser Darling had been aware of the carbon dioxide issue since – at the absolute latest – 1963, when he attended the Conservation Foundation meeting.  He had devoted a portion of his 1969 Reith Lectures to the question of carbon dioxide build-up (name-checked in a 1969 editorial in The Economist).. 

The specific context was that it was clearly going about as well as the pessimists said, and FFD could not pretend to himself….

What I think we can learn is this: the  smart people, biologists more than climatologists, could tell where this was all headed.

What happened next:  Stockholm gave us UNEP. The carbon dioxide question grew through the 1970s. By the late 1970s plenty of scientists felt we had enough information to start acting. It took another ten years, until 1988, for the problem to properly become an issue. At which point, the games of kayfabe began.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Of Cliff Richard, a 60 year old #climate meeting and the grim meathook future…

March 12, 1963 – first scientific meeting about C02 build-up

I haven’t done a post about FFD’s Reith lectures yet?!!

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 10, 1961 – Nature report on “Solar Variations, Climatic Change and Related Geophysical Problems” – All Our Yesterdays

June 10, 1966 – Seaborg’s commencement address – All Our Yesterdays

June 10, 1986 – scientist tells US senators “global warming is inevitable. It is only a question of the magnitude and the timing.” – All Our Yesterdays

 June 10, 2015 – Abbott and Jones versus windfarms – All Our Yesterdays

June 10, 2019 – a booming market for hydrogen…. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 10, 1989 – Bush announces conference

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 10th, George Bush says he will hold a conference.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was thatAmerican politicians had been warned about the climate threat since the late 70s. Under Reagan/Bush between 1981 and 1989 these threats had been largely ignored until it was no longer politically feasible to do so on. 

The specific context was that in August 1988 on the campaign trail, George H.W. Bush,feeling vulnerable on environmental issues, because his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, had a record to stand on, proclaimed that he would call an international conference on climate change in his first year in office. 

The other specific context is that – he – Bush had been caught trying to suppress the scientific and alter the scientific assessment of a NASA scientist, James Hansen, and so was needing to do some reputational repair. 

What I think we can learn from this is that when leadership was needed, we got Bush instead.

What happened next. The conference was finally held in 1990 and somebody somehow “forgot” in inverted commas, to invite the head of the IPCC, Bert Bolin. 

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 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse…. – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned… – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

May 10, 2007 – Future Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan “punches the Liberal bruise” on climate and emissions trading 

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

May 9, 1989 – the Brits want a global climate pact. The US? Not so much…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989, Crispin Tickell tried to move things along. 

Boston Globe, May 10 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tickell was a career diplomat. In 1975 he had done a sabbatical at Harvard University and wrote his thesis on Climatic Change and International Affairs. He could see what carbon dioxide build-up would do to geopolitics. He tried repeatedly to get Margaret Thatcher to be concerned about the question. Eventually, in 1988 he succeeded.

The specific context was that in the second half of 1988 the problem had become an issue. Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Society in late September 1988 that was, in effect, the starting gun for international diplomacy. The administration of George H.W. Bush, however, was dragging its heels.

What I think we can learn from this. There was a chance to fix this – or if not actually fix it, then manage it. To buy us extra time. Instead we went lead head and lead foot off the cliff. Oh well.

What happened next. The US threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries was in the text of the Climate Treaty. This threat worked, the targets and timetables weren’t in, and we have spent the last 34 years trying to get them in. 

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 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 1989- Tony Blair says market forces can’t fix the greenhouse effect…

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

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