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.
Thirty-two years ago, on this day, May 25th, 1992, the Cabinet of new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating discussed the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio. Cabinet was (mostly) not in favour of making any big splash, and Keating himself would not attend the event (the only leader of an OECD country not to go…)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that as early as 1987, there had been an agreement that there would be an Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio. The following year, climate change had exploded onto the public consciousness and the Earth Summit had become the place where the climate treaty would be agreed. Australia had been initially seen as a leader on this, one of its diplomats had helped the IPCC processes as a co-chair on working group one (WM Tegart), and there had been an extremely hedged promise in October of 1990 for a so-called interim planning target.
However, since then, the champion of action Bob Hawke had been toppled. His replacement, Paul Keating was actively hostile to greenies. And Australia was in/emerging from a recession, “the recession we had to have.” And Keating wasn’t gonna go to Rio, (he was the only head of an OECD member who didn’t).
There had also been a successful campaign against introducing a carbon tax. This had been a suggestion as part of the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. So all in all, the Cabinet meeting was just signing off on allowing the environment minister to go. But pretty much saying to her that she wasn’t allowed to be exuberant or make any promises. And so it came to pass.
What we learn is that Australia had an opportunity to behave differently, but the leadership of the time had other plans and other priorities. And we are living with the consequences of that. And future generations will live and die with the consequences of that. And here we are.
What happened next, RosKelly went to Rio, was the ninth person to sign up to some misogynist flak from the denialists, of course. And Australia had another bite at the carbon tax for domestic purposes. This also failed, and then Australia carved out an insanely generous steal at Kyoto, which it then didn’t ratify. Poisonous, horrible, horrible political, economic elite. But what do you expect of an extractive settler state, a quarry with a state attached to it.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone was bummed out, because all the delusional lies that they had been telling themselves about Copenhagen had been exposed. Nobody was saved and art certainly was not going to save the damned planet.
What I think we can learn from this is that there will always be groupies and hangers on and opportunist hacks wanting to say that they’re making some sort of contribution. I don’t want to be more of a philistine than I already am but seriously, fudge that noise.
Am I too cynical?
What happened next
Artsy people have kept artsy-ing. It’s helped a lot.
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.
Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 3, 1968, the United Nations General Assembly voted yes to hosting a big, all-singing all-dancing Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.
The unanimous adoption of Resolution 2398 Problems of the human environment at the twenty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 3rd, 1968 marked the culmination of the first phase of the “Swedish initiative”
Thanks to work by a Swedish diplomat whose “own reading of media reports on climate change during autumn 1968 concluded that scientific opinion was shifting towards warming as the more likely outcome of human interference in atmospheric processes” things were different.
In contrast to Palmstierna’s memorandum and Åström’s statements at ECOSOC earlier that year—which presented the particle-induced cooling scenario first—the UNGA speech instead foregrounded and explained in far greater detail the potential for a rise in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, which is presented in the speech as a pollutant.1 No other forms of air pollution are mentioned in Åström’s December 1968 speech, including acid rain, which Palmstierna had in his memorandum gone into some detail in describing in terms of the scientific basis, and its environmental and economic effects.16 Paglia
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the previous year, Sweden had seen the release of two bombshell books about environmental degradation. Sweden had put the proposal by their diplomats that the UN have a look. And surprisingly quickly, given how the UN usually works this was accepted.
In July of 1968 a Swedish diplomat had even referenced temperature imbalance but with more emphasis on the problem of dust. This was three years after Lyndon Johnson had him and had mentioned carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
What I think we can learn from this
Uggh. We knew.
What happened next
The Stockholm conference happened in June 1972. Not much changed (though the UNEP was formed, smaller than its proponents wanted, of course…)
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..
Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 6, 1990, the consequential bits of the “Second World Climate Conference” began in Geneva. That is to say, the politicians turned up (the scientists had been hard at work for some days already).
[see here for a Conversation article about protests etc]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the first world climate conference in Geneva, in February of 1979 had been pretty much scientists and a few policy makers. You can read various accounts of it. But the short version is that those who were wanting a bold statement that said “carbon dioxide is a real problem and we need to start taking action now” were unable to overcome the veto of people like John Mason, head of the UK Meteorological Office who was a long term climate skeptic.
The following ten years of science and advocacy had pushed climate onto the agenda. The second world climate conference had been pushed back six months so that it could suit political needs because this was no longer purely a scientific endeavour. Since 1985, new climate scientists had been trying to engage policymakers directly and urgently or beginning in late 1985.
The existence of the conference had forced the question of emissions reductions targets onto the table, because no politician wanted to get booed and heckled by their colleagues and the media. So, for example, while Australia had come up with a provisional or Interim Planning Target, as it was called, very few other nations had. There were protests, organised by Greenpeace, very polite, as the Swiss had it, (see my Conversation article).
What I think we can learn from this
Want to shake loose the bureaucracy? Engineer events as action-forcers I guess? Or rather decision-forcers The action will depend on implementation, which may or may not happen….
What happened next
At the beginning of 1991, pretty much simultaneous with the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait the climate negotiations finally started.
There was a third world climate conference, but it was a denialist event in Moscow, and no one speaks of it…
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 6, 1989, an international meeting about climate change began in Norway. It was one of many.in that period. It was to review the progress of the then-new IPCC and have discussions about a possible treaty (opposed by the US).
“Attendees included ministers of 68 countries. The goal of the conference was creating a binding agreement on CO₂ emissions, which almost succeeded. The conference was organized by the Dutch environment minister Ed Nijpels and prepared by climatologist Pier Vellinga.[3]
The United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom did not want to make an agreement about the reduction of emissions. Even discussions about stabilizing emissions turned out to be difficult”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the US had been doing its level best to prevent any discussion of rich nations adopting targets for emissions reductions. Japan and Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also onboard with that. There had been a meeting at The Hague to try to kick this loose. The big nations were not invited. By Nordwijk it was all becoming a bit uncomfortable. But if you read Nathaniel Rich’s version, you get the idea that because Bill Reilly invited the wrong underling it all went tits up. It’s a little bit more complicated than that. And the brutal review of Losing Earth that I mentioned last year, it’s really worth reading.
What I think we can learn from this
Statecraft is statecraft is statecraft.
What happened next
A flurry of meetings in 1990, on climate, environment, development etc. Culminated in the Second World Climate Conference. Then the negotiations for a climate 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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 27, 1988, the USSR’s Foreign Minister gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
“Other prominent politicians also made important statements. Eduard Schevardnadze, then Soviet Foreign Minister, made a stronger speech to the UNGA on 27 September 1988, where he proposed that UNEP should be transformed into ‘an environmental council capable of taking effective decisions to ensure ecological security’.”
Page 35 Paterson, M (1996)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. and
The context was that everyone was talking about climate – it was “one of those moments.” And the issue was still fresh. What shevardnadze was proposing was simply what had been proposed in 1972 for a stronger UNEP rather than a small research and cajoling outfit. It was defeated in 1972, and ignored in 1988. And here we are.
What I think we can learn from this is that the necessary institutions are unlikely to come into existence without out and much bigger bottom-up effort. But it’s hard for the bottom-up people to campaign for a “big institution “which will be faithless and which will treat them like dirt.
What happened next
UNEP stayed small and the United States contained and controlled the treaty process.
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
Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 2, 1994, was the 10th meeting of the outfit that had planned the climate bit of the 1992 Earth Summit and had kept on going afterwards, in the run up to the first “conference of the parties” (to be held in Berlin, in March-April 1995).
Slooooow progress between Rio and Berlin….
Despite the introduction of a formal text into the proceedings which proposed C02 reductions, the session remained deadlocked on the introduction of a protocol such as that proposed by the Germans (Eco, 2 September, 1994: 1). Despite the fact that it was Germany which had proposed it, the EU rapidly said it was not prepared to consider a protocol for COP1, and many developing countries were also opposed, believing it might be a pretext for commitments to be imposed on them, or in some cases even that OECD action itself would hurt their interests. Oil-producing countries often presented their own interests in this way, suggesting OECD action would harm developing countries as a whole e.g. see Al-Sabban, 1991).
Paterson 1996 page 68
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that by this time everyone knew that COP1 was coming (to be held in Berlin) and therefore there would be more and more pressure for something serious to be agreed. But here we were still in the shadow-boxing phase, even though it was obvious that the initial stabilisation targets were not going to be met, and that the science was getting stronger. The IPCC people were working towards their second assessment and the denialists were in their pomp, having defeated Clinton’s BTU.
What I think we can learn from this is that we have been grinding away for over 30 years. And given, the absence of strong social movements (among other significant factors) in the countries that matter – for energy justice, climate justice, intergenerational justice – then you’re going to get these sort of technocratic “lost in the detail” shitshows. And so it has come to pass.
What happened next
At cop1 finally there was the Berlin Mandate forcing rich nations to agree that by the end of 1997 they would agree to cuts. That meeting ended up happening in Kyoto, Japan.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..
Thirty years ago, on this day, August 27, 1993, the post-Rio Earth Summit process was edging forward.
1993 End of INC negotiations at which – first tentative but informal discussions of the adequacy of the commitments contained in articles 4.2(a) and (b) of the convention (Paterson 1996, page 67)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in May 1992, following a prolonged fight, the Americans won an infamous victory by removing target and timetables from the text of the climate treaty. This victory was short-lived however because it was obvious that emissions reductions were going to be needed. And the international negotiating committee saw this by August of 1993 at which point various nations had already ratified the UNFCCC and it was well on the way to meeting the threshold for ratification, and therefore the first “Conference of the Parties” – an international meeting which in the end took place in Berlin in March-April 1995.
What I think we can learn from this is that blocking victories doesn’t necessarily last terribly long – you can take something off the agenda but it will crawl and slither its way back onto the agenda whether it’s good or bad. And therefore the work of containing and corralling and controlling is never-ending. The kind of people who wrote The Powell memorandum, they understand that. And they have to the deep pockets to fund a culture war. Progressive groups, because they tell themselves the myth of the neutral State and of the information deficit, are constantly surprised that they have to keep fighting. Also, they’re also, almost by definition, worse off for funding.
What happened next
At the Berlin meeting in 1995 the Berlin Mandate was agreed, meaning that rich countries were going to have to cut their emissions. Or rather, they were going to have to turn up to the third COP with a number in their heads for emissions reductions. They did this. It was inadequate, and then the USA and Australia walked away.
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.
Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 16, 2002, The Times Newspaper reports
Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.
Browne, A. 2002. USA: Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit ,The Times, August 16
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was it was 10 years since Rio and the United Nations does like a good round number conference. George Dubya Bush had recently been doing some talk about “clean skies” and technology, this and that.
And the anti Climate Lobby groups just wanted to make sure that he didn’t slip. So this was laying down some “suppressing fire” and to force proponents of action to expend energy in simply keeping climate change (literally) ‘on the agenda.’
What I think we can learn from this
What’s interesting, what we can learn is, this is what they do. They’re constantly laying down “suppressing fire”, which didn’t really work as well as they’d hoped. But it makes you feel good when you do it, keeps you in a job, makes you test your ammo, and your guns, so why not? I can say the language is extraordinary, but nothing special. They do genuinely frame it as liberty and freedom and democracy versus the evil globalist at least for public consumption.
What happened next
Climate stayed on the agenda. Bush stayed a prick. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.
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.
