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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 one years ago, on this day, February 27, 1992, denialists released a denial statement during what were supposed to be the last negotiations before the “Earth Summit”, the one where a text was supposed to be agreed that could then lock-in the attendance of Prime Ministers and Leaders…
In February 1992 the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) published the “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming” objecting to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Earth Summit planned for Rio de Janiero in June 1992.[1]
The signatories to the letter complained that the Earth Summit “aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations. Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The climate negotiations were coming to a crunch. The whole thing might fall over. The US administration, with George Bush senior as the boss, was blocking blocking blocking, but there was always the fear they might – with a US Presidential election pending – make concessions. The denialists wanted to make that more unlikely by making it more costly….
What I think we can learn from this
Those fearful of change will keep pushing even if “their guy” (and it usually is a guy) is ‘rock solid’. They take little/nothing for granted. That attitude, and all their money, and their structural position within the economy, explains why they win so often…
What happened next
Bush held firm. The French blinked on the question of targets and timetables for emissions reductions in the climate treaty. There were extra “negotiations” in May in New York, but they were just really a white flag being run up. Everyone went to Rio for a grip and grin.
The following 30 years have been about trying to claw back a mechanism by which rich countries would actually cut emissions. It was never going to be easy, but the Bush Whitehouse rendered it actually impossible.
Am so very very glad I did not breed, because I’d have had to try to teach my kid a whole bunch of survival skills for a shituation whose particular needs are pretty impossible to specify.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Forty two years ago, on this day, February 26, 1981, science writer John Gribbin had a long detailed piece in the Guardian about the state of the art of climate science, and the geopolitical implications, based on a briefing for Earthscan. “Carbon dioxide, the climate and man“
Read it and weep…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The Carter administration had just ended. The willingness of US politicians to even talk about the climate problem would plummet, and efforts like the “Global 2000” report were on the scrap heap. (The workshop Gribbin mentions will have been organised before Reagan won the November election.)
What I think we can learn from this
We knew a lot quite early. By the late 1970s there was momentum growing. The First World Climate Conference could have been consequential, but people like John Mason (Met Office supremo) played a blocking role. Still, salvageable, if Thatcher and Reagan hadn’t… ach, we’d have pissed it against the wall and still been in the same omni-messes now, let’s be honest.
The lack of any digital record (I could find) about the carbon dioxide workshop of the IEA and OECD is intriguing, and makes me want to know who was there!….
What happened next
It took another seven years for the issue to climb high enough up the agenda for it to be too costly for so-called “conservative” politicians to ignore it.
References
Gribbin, J. 1981. When the climate becomes too hot to handle. The Guardian, February 26
On this day, December 17 in 1989, a big conference on climate change began in Egypt.
“During 17-21 December, the World Conference on Preparing for Climate Change was held in Cairo, Egypt. At the opening address, Suzanne Mubarak from Egypt referred to the ‘grim irony’ of the fact that, while the ‘primary responsibility’ for global warming lay with the industrialised countries, the effects would be experienced ‘mostly in the countries of the South, where the capacity to cope [was] weaker.’”
Paterson, M (1996) p.38
Also http://www.climate.org/about/archives/Cairo%20Climate%20Conference%201989.pdf
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Everyone was running around holding conferences back then. Each one was going to be the one that history remembered as The Moment It All Started To Go Right. Not a single one of them was…
Funny how nobody (that I saw) brought this up during the recent COP27 nonsense. Presumably would raise too many awkward questions about how little has been achieved…?
Why this matters.
It doesn’t, I guess. But good to remember, as we circle the drain, that there was a time when we tried to sort ourselves out. Or gave the impression of trying to, in any case…
What happened next?
More meetings in 1990 and then, finally, the negotiations for a climate treaty began in early 1991. And the US, predictably, did everything it could to slow down/stop progress, with considerable success…
On this day in 1967, Swedish diplomats proposed a big international conference on the (human) environment. It would happen, 4 and a half years later, in Stockholm…
“It was during this autumn of surging environmental awareness that three influential Swedes engaged with the United Nations—Inga Thorsson, Alva Myrdal and Sverker Åström—concluded that Sweden should pursue a UN conference on the human environment. To this end, a proposal was put forward at the [United Nations General Assembly] on December 13, 1967 by Börje Billner, Deputy Head of the Swedish UN Mission,”
Paglia, E. (2021) The Swedish initiative and the 1972 Stockholm Conference: the decisive role of science diplomacy in the emergence of global environmental governance. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:2 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00681-x
Billner’s statement included this
“The impact of the technological revolution that is taking place around us is felt by all peoples, irrespective of their present technological level. It has far-reaching effects on the environment of man. The human body and the human mind are subjected to serious and ever-increasing inconveniences and dangers. These are caused by air pollution, water pollution, sulfur fall-out waste, etc. – in short by all the secondary effects related to the process of industrialization and urbanization”
The context was this – everyone was starting to get freaked out about possible global (as opposed to ‘merely’ local environmental issues.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 322ppm (it’s now 418ish).
Why this matters
We’ve been talking about doing something for a very long time. It’s almost as if talking and knowledge isn’t the problem…
What happened next
The usual – a gabfest. It gave us UNEP, and also got the climate ball rolling…
On this day, November 19, 1990, recently-sacked from the White House official William (“Bill”) Nitze (see here and here) had a letter published in the Financial Times (all the smartest people have, of course).
Sir, The US should join other OECD nations in committing itself to the stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels by 2000 or shortly thereafter, as I have argued at greater length in my report, Greenhouse Warming; Formulating a Convention, (published by Chatham House). Its refusal to do so at the recently concluded Second World Climate Conference makes no sense economically or politically.
Nitze, W. 1990. Letter: Leadership tests for President Bush. Financial Times, 19 November.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Bush was trying to keep the US from having to sign anything that would actually restrict the “freedom” of oil, gas, coal and auto companies having to DO anything. In this he was successful…
Why this matters.
There was a fierce battle. The “good guys” lost. The war went on, but the key battle was lost early on, and we don’t even remember it.
What happened next?
The “targets and timetables in the Treaty, dammit” people lost. Bush and Sununu and that crowd delivered the goods for their mates. The end.
