Category: International processes

Categories
Australia France International processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
International processes Mozambique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

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

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

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

Categories
International processes United States of America

August 19, 2002 – Bush skips the Earth Summit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on this day: 

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

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

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

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.