Category: International processes

Categories
International processes

July 17, 1991 – G7 DOESN’T talk about climate…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, July 17 1991, the UK is hosting the G7 meeting, but manages NOT to talk about climate change… 

Langsam, D. 1991. Promises, promises. New Statesman and Society, August 16

John Major at G7, which was NOT about climate, when it was supposed to be (see new statesman 1991 08 16 article)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. 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 had had to be dragged kicking and scowling into negotiations for an international climate treaty.

The specific context was that the UK had tried to play “Athens to the Americans’ Sparta”, without success. There was a gang of people within the US administration who knew what they wanted, and knew how to get it….

What I think we can learn from this is that there was a moment when action could have begun. After that, it was too late, really. And that moment was 1989-1991. 

What happened next. The UNFCCC treaty did not contain any commitment for rich nations to reduce their emissions, no targets or timetables. Everything since then has been a (failed) attempt to fix that. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

July 17, 1912 – Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal on climate change

July 17, 2006 – Australian Prime Minister shits on renewables, blah blah “realistic”

Categories
France International processes

July 16, 1989 – Paris Agreement….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 16th, 1989,

33. There is growing awareness throughout the world of the necessity to preserve better the global ecological balance. This includes serious threats to the atmosphere, which could lead to future climate changes. We note with great concern the growing pollution of air, lakes, rivers, oceans and seas; acid rain, dangerous substances; and the rapid desertification and deforestation. Such environmental degradation endangers species and undermines the well-being of individuals and societies.

Decisive action is urgently needed to understand and protect the earth’s ecological balance. We will work together to achieve the common goals of preserving a healthy and balanced global environment in order to meet shared economic and social objectives and to carry out obligations to future generations.

Economic Declaration (16/07/1989) – G7/G20 Documents Database

Paris Declaration!!! At G7 meeting. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 G7 meetings had been happening since the mid-1970s. At the Tokyo meeting, in 1979, carbon dioxide build-up had even gotten a mention in the final communique, and then again in 1985 (merely as “climatic change”). 

The specific context was that the climate issue had broken through, finally, in mid-1988, and everyone was mouthing the platitudes… The G7 was no exception.

What I think we can learn from this is that we had a “Paris Agreement” a good twenty five years before the 2015 one. And they were both essentially meaningless. At a species level, we have failed to do anything about climate change.

What happened next – the climate negotiations did not begin in earnest (after serious opposition from the US) until 1991. A proposal, led by the French, for targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries to be in the text of the treaty, was eventually defeated: Bush said he would not even attend the “Earth Summit” if it was in there. Everything since then has been been a failed attempt to fix that problem.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

July 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

July 16, 1992 – American scientist claims “no firm evidence” of #climate change Australian National Press Club #denial

Categories
Canada International processes

June 30, 1988 – Toronto conference on “Our Changing Atmosphere” ends

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 30th, 1988 

TORONTO conference ends

You can read some reflections on this from 2013 (25 years later) here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a scientific conference in Villach in September 1985 had been the starting gun for atmospheric scientists to push every button/pull every lever they could (at least in Australia and the US) on the question of “the greenhouse effect.”

One fruit of this was the “Our Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, from which the “Toronto Target” – a 20 per cent reduction in human emissions by 2005 – was born.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew almost four decades that there was trouble ahead (really, the awareness goes back to the late 1970s).

What happened next – the Toronto Target was ignored, derided or agreed to with such provisos that it would never be implemented. It did not make it into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Human emissions have gone up by almost 70% since then. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are surging, as are temperatures.  My 2004 decision not to have kids is looking smarter with the fall of each new temperature record. Breeders – wtaf?

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

June 30, 2008 – Judge stops a coal-burning power plant getting built. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes Japan UNFCCC

June 23, 1991 – Japanese propose pledge and review

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1991,

At the start of the Geneva session, a German delegate complained that ‘during the last round of negotiations we used up a great deal of time discussing procedural questions and we were still unable to find answers to all of them “ (quoted in ECO, 20 June 1991). Eco noted that the climate negotiations finally started on 23 June, four days after the session opened. (ECO, 24 June 1991). Page 55 Paterson, M (1996)

On 23 June 1991, less than a year away from the Earth Summit in Rio where the final Climate Change Convention was supposed to be signed, talks finally began on the treaty itself. The first attempt to identify a route to consensus came from the Japanese delegation. They called their new idea “pledge-and-review”. It aimed to try and bridge the gap between the White House, with its ‘Just say no’ approach and the rest of the industrialized world, which sought legally binding commitments on emission, with specific targets and timetables. Under pledge-and-review, states would sign a convention devoid of any commitments at the Earth Summit. They would pledge what they could in the way of targets, and agree to review their commitments, and in the implementation of those commitments, at an interval to be agreed.

Page 39

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the US had been blocking negotiations with adamantine intransigence. The Japanese proposed a way forward, as did others.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “Pledge and Review” that we have – i.e. the Paris “Agreement” was always going to fail. People knew it was going to fail when it was first proposed in 1991.  

What happened next – the US opposition continued, and eventually the rest of the world blinked – the UN treaty signed in Rio had no targets, no timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And guess what – emissions kept climbing, atmospheric concentrations kept climbing, temperatures went up, sea levels went up. Who knew?

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
Australia International processes

June 23, 1997 – Howard vs world, API versus world

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1997,

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases,

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, handshakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

But Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, did not appear. To the disappointment of conservationists, he decided to send his Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill.

On Monday [23rd June], Howard was meeting his hero and mentor, the former British prime minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

Woodford, J. 1997. Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, June 28.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC was due to be held in December. Rich countries were supposed to turn up with emissions reductions pledges.  Liberal Prime Minister John Howard was really not up for that…

What I think we can learn from this is that John Howard is a terrible human being. But one who was enabled by other terrible human beings.

What happened next.  Australia managed to extort an incredibly generous deal at Kyoto, and Howard STILL refused to ratify 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.

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
International processes Italy

June 22, 1980 – G7 meeting in Venice

Forty-five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1980, the Venice G7 meeting happened. Check out this quote by Thomas Schelling.

My first serious acquaintance with the “Carbon Dioxide Problem,” as it was then called, was in 1978. The Chancellor of Germany [Helmut Schmidt] had put the issue on the agenda of a “Summit” to be held in Venice, and the White House asked the National Academy of Sciences for advice. (I believe the Chancellor’s motivation may have been that his nuclear energy programs were being attacked by greens, and he wanted to publicize the perils of coal.) I, utterly innocent of the subject, was made chairman of a committee of twelve, and had to educate myself in a hurry. It is pertinent to report here that among the very few people I found who had a broad background in the subject were Jesse Ausubel and Bill Clark, both IlASA alumni, and of course Roger Revelle, well known to IIASA. I never, at the time, discovered any other research organization that had done integrated work on the subject. Individuals worked on aspects of the subject, at numerous locations; only at IlASA did the topic appear to have organized itself

Schelling T. 1995 Research by Accident. IIASA Working Paper

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meetings had begun in 1975 with a one-off that was so enjoyed it became an annual thing. In 1979, in Tokyo, they’d even name-checked carbon dioxide build-up.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew enough in the late 1970s for action to begin. That it did not is down primarily to Thatcher, and then to Reagan.

What happened next is that in 1985 the G7 again mentioned “climatic change” in passing, but it would be 1988 before the issue broke through, thanks to the long, hot summer and then James Hansen sticking his head above the parapet and saying that it was time to stop waffling…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes

The G7 and climate change – srsly, why is anyone still pretending?

Another G7, and of course, the usual largely presentist/ahistorical “think”pieces about what the G7 can do on climate (see here, here and here).

A few fun facts for you.

Carbon dioxide was first on the G7’s lips at the Tokyo meeting in… wait for it, wait for it… 1979. NINETEEN SEVENTY GODDAMMIT NINE. Which is, (taking off shoes to count), FORTY SIX YEARS AGO.

“We need to expand alternative sources of energy, especially those which will help to prevent further pollution, particularly increases of carbon dioxide and sulphur oxides in the atmosphere.”

And the following year, in Venice? Well, they promised to increase coal production.

Together we intend to double coal production and use by early 1990. We will encourage long-term commitments by coal producers and consumers. It will be necessary to improve infrastructures in both exporting and importing countries, as far as is economically justified, to ensure the required supply and use of coal. We look forward to the recommendations of the International Coal Industry Advisory Board. 

Then in 1985, at Bonn, (then capital of West Germany) in the aftermath of the Ozone Hole discovery, more warm words.

We shall also address other concerns such as climatic change, the protection of the ozone layer and the management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes

Then, in 1989, in Paris, with “the Greenhouse Effect” on everyone’s lips, yet more warm words.

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

Buried at Houston the following year, back on the agenda in London in 1991. And on and on and on it goes.

Seriously, I know we are trained to tug our forelocks to our Lords and Masters, that this is the KEY skill you have to learn if you want to get through the filters of higher education and into one of roles of the punditocracy (be it academic, journalistic, thinkwanky… sorry, tanky… or whatever), but really, when will we stop pretending???

That’s a rhetorical question, btw. “We” won’t. We will cling to our soothing stories of techno(crat)salvation as the waves close over our heads/the fires scorch our skin/choose your own death.

Categories
International processes

 May 31, 1994 – Climate change and Frankenstein Syndrome…

Thirty one years ago, on this day, May 31st, 1994, the chair of the International Negotiating Committee (INC) R Oyela Estrada gave a speech at the Royal Geographical Society 

“In his remarks to the Royal Geographic Society in London on May 31, 1994, INC Chairman Raul Estrada Oyela said that for the time being the Convention process was “waiting for (scientific) inputs from the IPCC but I wonder if they will come in time. Almost one year ago, explaining the needs of the Convention to the IPCC Bureau, I had the feeling that the IPCC was suffering (some) kind of ‘Dr. Frankenstein Syndrome’. After all, the idea of a Convention was nourished by the IPCC, but now the Convention starts to walk and begins to demand additional food, the IPCC answered that it had its own program of work and could not deliver products by client’s request. … We hoped, for instance that the Convention would profit from an IPCC workshop on the objectives of the Climate Convention in Fortaleza, Brazil, in April (1994). However, the workshop was postponed for October (1994), most probably for very scientifically sound motives. The point is that the INC shall meet next August and we are not going to have that input then” (Estrada-Oyela, 1994). London based New Scientist took these comments to make a news story entitled “Frankenstein Syndrome Hits Climate Treaty” marking the first public criticism of the IPCC by an INC official (The New Scientist, 1994).

Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the IPCC had been set up in 1988 and delivered its report in 1990.  The negotiations for a climate treaty began in earnest in 1991, were flummoxed by the United States. No targets or timetables for emissions reductions were included. The rest is history.

What I think we can learn from this – the science and the politics work on different timescales, with different ideas about what success is. 

What happened next  COP 1 took place a year later, and gave us the “Berlin Mandate” which gave us the Kyoto Protocol which gave us (checks notes) nothing.

And the emissions kept climbing. And the concentrations kept climbing. Rather like that pile of wreckage in that note by that Walt Benjamin chap.

xxx

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

Agrawala, S. 1997. Explaining the Evolution of the IPCC Structure and Process. IIASA Interim Report, September 1997 

Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39, 621–642 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005312331477

Also on this day: 

May 31, 1977 – “4 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2027” predicts #climate scientist Wally Broecker

May 31, 1981 – RIP Barbara Ward – All Our Yesterdays

May 31, 1995 – newly-minted MCA meets with Keating… – All Our Yesterdays

May 31 1996 – Rocket Scientist Charlie Sheen uncovers warmist alien conspiracy!!

May 31, 2012, an Australian climate minister makes a song and dance

Categories
Germany International processes

 May 4, 1985 – world leaders promise to solve “climatic change”

Forty years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1985, the declaration at the end of the G7 meeting in Bonn (then capital of West Germany) included this gem,

11th G7 summit – Wikipedia

IV. Environmental Policies

12. New approaches and strengthened international co-operation are essential to anticipate and prevent damage to the environment, which knows no national frontiers. We shall co-operate in order to solve pressing environmental problems such as acid deposition and air pollution from motor vehicles and all other significant sources. We shall also address other concerns such as climatic change, the protection of the ozone layer and the management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes. The protection of soils, fresh water and the sea, in particular of regional seas, must be strengthened.

13. We shall harness both the mechanisms of governmental vigilance and the disciplines of the market to solve environmental problems. We shall develop and apply the “polluter pays” principle more widely. Science and technology must contribute to reconciling environmental protection and economic growth.

14. Improved and internationally harmonized techniques of environmental measurement are essential. We invite the environmental experts of the Technology, Growth and Employment Working Group to consult with the appropriate international bodies about the most efficient ways for achieving progress in this field.

15. We welcome the contribution made by the Environment Ministers to closer international co-operation on environmental concerns. We shall focus our co-operation within existing international bodies, especially the OECD. We shall work with developing countries for the avoidance of environmental damage and disasters world-wide.

Bonn Economic Summit Declaration on Sustained Growth and Higher Employment | Ronald Reagan

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 346ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that carbon dioxide had first appeared on the G7 agenda in Tokyo, 1979. The following year (Venice) the G7 had promised to double coal burning. Go figure. Through the early 1980s though, more and more reports about what was coming came out, and some clearly managed to percolate up to the senior sherpas at these summits.

What I think we can learn from this

Information has not been our problem, for a very long time. Power was our problem, and will – inevitably – be the death of us (Hannah Arendt would say the question is not power but domination. I would point Hannah to her support for segregation and decline to listen to her maunderings on power. But that’s just me).

What happened next Five months later, in next-door Austria, scientists gathered in Villach. From there and then they started to run around pushing every button and pulling every lever they could.It still took until mid-1988, with an enormous drought in the US, for the issue to break through. Then the kayfabe properly started.

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 4, 1990 – coal industry sweats over greenie influence

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

May 4, 2016 – South Australian Premier preening at Emissions Reduction Summit – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
International processes United States of America

 March 28, 2001 – (Vice) President George Bush nixes Kyoto

Twenty four years ago, on this day, March 28th, 2001,

2001 Bush kills US ratification of Kyoto

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that on the campaign trail, George W Bush had promised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. People who wanted to believe that chose to believe that this was a Kyoto ratification promise. It was not. President Cheney told his underling what to say, and the underling said it. For the benefit of short term benefit of oil and gas companies, but also by now, it was entrenched as part of the bigger “culture war.”

What I think we can learn from this

that you can trust people to pursue their material and ideological interests as they understand them in the short term and to hell with the consequences. And if someone gets cold feet, they are replaceable. They’re always replaceable.

See Julian Rathbone’s superior eco thriller The Eurokillers for a fictional representation of this. 

What happened next

To absolutely no one surprised that Prime Minister John Howard pulled Australia out of Kyoto negotiations on World Environment Day the following year, 2002. But nonetheless, Kyoto was finally ratified in 2005 because the Russians wanted membership in the World Trade Organization. Meanwhile, 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: 

March 28, 2010 – protestors block Newcastle coal terminal #auspol

March 28, 2017 – Heartland Institute spamming science teachers

March 28, 2017 – Trump “brings back coal”