Category: International processes

Categories
International processes

September 27, 1988 – UNEP should become world eco-regime

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

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Nations

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

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..

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Nations

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

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.

Categories
Denial International processes United States of America

August 16, 2002 – “Oil Lobby Urges Bush to Keep Climate Change Off the Table at Earth Summit”

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.

Categories
Industry Associations International processes

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Thirteen years ago, on this day, August 5, 2010…

A group of academics who have been working with the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) and the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) have called for diplomats attending the upcoming Bonn and Mexico climate talks and summit to take insurance into account.

A policy brief issued by the academic groups calls for insurance to play a key role in reducing climate change risks and influencing climate adaptation projects.

“Our research over the past years has shown that insurance solutions – with coordinated public-private action and some international support – has the potential to help vulnerable countries and people adapt to climate change”, stated Koko Warner (UNU-EHS), lead author of the policy brief ‘Solutions for Vulnerable Countries and People’. “Now it is time to move from knowledge to action. The need to link DRR and insurance and scaling them up is greater than ever to get the critical mass for adaptation”, Dr. Warner continued. 

https://www.artemis.bm/news/academics-say-insurance-could-play-key-role-in-reducing-climate-change-risks/

Home

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Copenhagen gathering had been a complete failure. And so academics thought that if they could geinsurance companies involved, then it might shake loose some of the intransigence. I don’t know if they knew it, but Greenpeace had tried the same shtick 15 years earlier at the first COP, in Berlin, with very limited success. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people always think that there is a button that can be pushed, a lever that can be pulled, to get us out of this fix. But it probably would require Cthulhu pushing and pulling with all of its tentacles repeatedly to make the machine shift. 

What happened next

The insurance companies put out some glossy reports and there was some hand-wringing and 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.

Categories
International processes Sweden United Nations

July 30, 1968 – the UN says yes to an environment conference

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 30, 1968, the top committee of the United Nations says yes to a environment conference, something the Swedes had been pushing for.

1968 July 30 Resolution 1346 (XLV) recommends that the General Assembly consider a conference on environmental problems.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was as per previous blog posts here (May 1968)and here (December 1967). Earlier in the year one of the diplomats had given a speech, which was the first mention of climate change, though it wasn’t, because he didn’t call it that. 

What I think we can learn from this

Regardless of the names/terminology, we have known about this for a long time.

What happened next

In December 1968 , the UN General Assembly nodded it through. And then in 1972 the Stockholm conference happened. 

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.

Categories
International processes Japan United Kingdom

June 29, 1979 – Thatcher uses carbon dioxide build-up to shill for nuclear power

Forty four years ago, on this day, June 29, 1979, at the G7 meeting in Tokyo, new UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a radio interview to journalist Bob Friend where she explicitly mentioned the greenhouse effect, in order to defend/extend nuclear (this during G7 meeting in Tokyo).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 339ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that an interdepartmental committee set up by the Labour government was in process of delivering its findings. The Thatcher government wanted to bury it. Meanwhile Thatcher was a big fan of new nuclear… Thatcher had been briefed about the reality of climate change by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashworth and according to an interview with him she responded with incredulity and the statement ‘you want me to worry about the weather?’

What I think we can learn from this

Thatcher knew about the greenhouse effect and was willing to use it as a wedge issue against anti-nuclear greens.

What happened next

The G7 communique name-checked climate change, which then largely disappeared from these sorts of meetings for ten years. It would be 1988 before she started talking sense possibly after Crispin Tickell finally got through to her.

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.

Categories
Canada International processes

June 28, 1988 – Greenies want deep emissions cuts. Doesn’t happen. #TorontoTarget

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 28, 1988, NGOs suggested deep deep cuts. Ha ha ha

Developed nations should commit themselves to a 50 per cent reduction in the use of fossil fuels by 2015 to slow and then stop the warming of the Earth, a group of non-governmental organizations said yesterday at a conference in Toronto on the atmosphere.

McInnes, C. 1988. Cut use of fossil fuels by half, group urges. The Globe and Mail, 29 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Changing Atmosphere conference was a mix of NGOs and scientists and the engineers were pushing for a very ambitious target, as this press release based report shows, a 50% reduction by 2015

What I think we can learn from this

It was the NGOs who knew what was needed and and were “Demanding The Impossible” or “the necessary,” as you might also look at it

What happened next

The actual target presented at the end of the conference was a watered-down compromise of 20% reduction by 2005.  And this was adopted with caveats by various nations but did not succeed in the United Nations process. which called merely for stabilisation by the year 2000 of rich nations (which none met) – his was of course a farce and a betrayal

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.

Categories
International processes Norway

June 24 1985 – Climate change rears its head at a development meeting…

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, June 24, 1985, the question of climate change was brought to the development table (not for the first time).

The third meeting of the world commission on environment and development began in Oslo today with serious concern over acid rain and greenhouse effects, according to a report from oslo. The seven-day meeting started with two days of public hearings at which non-government organizations testify on marine mammal conservation, possible irreversibility of acid rain effect and greenhouse effect on other energy-related issues. Dr. Irving Mintzer from the World Resources Institute (WRI) reviewed greenhouse effect by which carbon dioxide in the atmosphere impedes the ability of the earth to radiate back into space the heat from the sun. He also warned that other gases like methane and chlorofluorocarbons may amplify the warming effect of carbon dioxide. As an effect of greenhouse, the sea level would rise 70 to 100 cms and cause coastal flooding and salt water intrusion into rivers and ground water reservoirs which would disrupt the life of 40 percent of the world’s population dwelling in coastal areas, mainly in Bangladesh, vietnam, Egypt, the Netherlands and the U.S. gulf coastal areas.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 348.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1983 the World Commission on Environment and Development had been set up kind of a sequel or extension of the Brandt report published in 1980 and is clear from this meeting that climate was already well on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this is that it is now 40 years since international bureaucrats were joining the dots about specific problems that would be faced.

What happened next

The Brundtland report was released in 1987. It gained a lot of traction because the second Cold War was winding down and everybody needed something new to talk about. And the environmental problems were becoming very clear especially thanks to the Amazon deforestation and the Ozone hole… Climate would explode in mid-1988.

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.

Categories
France International processes

June 16, 1993 – Oooh, an international conference….

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 16, 1993, an OECD/IEA conference “International Conference on the Economics Of Climate Change” ended in Paris.

What a doomed species we are.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Earth Summit happened. And now everyone was gonna have to figure out the economics of climate change. The IEA and the OECD were good venues for this, both of them with one foot in the technology. So see for examplethe carbon disposal symposium in Oxford earlier in the year. And IEA had been playing around with the science since well, February of 1981, at the latest. IEA had been looking ideas about what would you do about the economics of climate change? This stuff had been discussed as far back as the mid 1970s by Nordhaus for IASSA 

What I think we can learn from this

And the same sets of ideas get moved around the chessboard. And then a new game starts and they set the chess pieces up. And round and round and round it goes. Questions of political and social cultural power, are, of course, bracketed or sidestepped altogether, because that would be normative and not easily quantified. And might take you towards things like new international economic orders, an old unpopular (with the rich) idea from the 1970s…

What happened next

The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. And the economists and so forth, kept flying from conference to conference. 

See also – Stern admits he under-estimated speed of changes

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.