Category: International processes

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

On this day, May 12th 1989, the Bush Administration of the United States finally reversed its position of opposition to a climate treaty (“too soon, let’s do more research” that sort of thing).

Now it said it would that it would support negotiation of a framework convention on climate change.

Why the end to the foot-dragging? It may have had something to do with the embarrassment of being caught red-handed trying to silence climate scientist James Hansen (something they’d keep trying to do).

See Los Angeles Times article here.

WASHINGTON — 

The White House, in an apparent softening of its position on a major environmental problem, has dropped its opposition to a formal treaty-negotiating process on global warming, it was learned Thursday.

Until now, the United States had been alone among major Western economic powers in opposing such an initiative.

The change of position was outlined in a cable dispatched Thursday to U.S. delegates at an environmental conference in Geneva sponsored by the United Nations.

Saying it was essential for the United States to exercise a leadership role, the cable said, “We should seek to develop full international consensus on necessary steps to prepare for a formal treaty-negotiating process.”

Why this matters

They have to be dragged every millimetre. Stop dragging and they pull back. That’s how it has always been.

What happened next

The US administration – doing what its oil and auto-industry wanted – blocked and delayed, delayed and blocked the start of the negotiations, the negotiations themselves and ever since. And here we are.

Categories
International processes

April 27, 1987 – “Our Common Future” released.

On this day, April 27 1987, Our Common Future also known as the Brundtland Report, was released, giving the world the term “sustainable development”, (which actually had been used in the Global 2000 report released in April 1980. But that was attached to the Carter Administration, by then regarded as a bunch of hopeless losers). 

The United Nations had created the World Commission on Environmental Development in 1983. And the commission was chaired by Norwegian politician, Gro Harlem Brundtland. The point of the Brundtland Report was to imagine that environmental development and ecological protection were not mortal enemies that you could have when win-win situations.

There was some stuff in there on climate (but not as much as there would have been if it had been published two years later! – they took information that had been produced for the 1985 Villach WMO/UNEP/ICSU conference and shoved it in a chapter.  

Our Common Future - Wikipedia

Why this matters. 

If you’re an apocalypse geek like me, it matters.

What happened next?

The Earth Summit, the WCED proposed for 1992 kind of sort of got overtaken by the climate issue. But biodiversity was also still in the mix, as was “Agenda 21”, which called for all sorts of participatory bottom-up democracy processes which ran into the sand. But the idea is too useful, politically, to be abandoned, so it is constantly rebranded as the Millennium Development Goals, and then the Sustainable Development Goals etc etc

Meanwhile, the UK called its first climate white paper “Our Common Inheritance.” Droll.

And Brundtland decided to throw in her lot with the technocrats rather than the deep ecologists. There’s a good article about that here.  Despite this, she remains a hate figure for the far-right (one world government etc etc).

Categories
Denial International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

On April 26 1998 the New York Times ran a front page story. It began thus.

Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.

Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry‘s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun’s heat near Earth.

An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together.

Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1

The context is that the US had signed the Kyoto Protocol (this in itself was a meaningless gesture – it only had force if ratified, and the Clinton administration had no intention of trying to get it through the Senate, especially given the previous year’s Byrd-Hagel resolution, which had insisted the US should not sign any treaty that didn’t put emissions constraints on developing countries (looking at you, China). This was of course exactly the opposite of what they’d signed off on in 1992 (Rio) and 1995 (Berlin Mandate) but hey, consistency and hobgoblins, amirite?

On one level, this was hardly “news” – anyone who had been paying any attention at all from 1989 onwards; the George Marshall Foundation got going on climate, and then the Global Climate Coalition and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment” (1991) and the attacks on IPCC second assessment report by various well-connected loons, and THEN the attacks on Kyoto in the run up to the meeting in 1997.

See for example Cushman’s report on 7th December 1997, during the Kyoto meeting – “Intense Lobbying Against Global Warming Treaty: U.S. Negotiators Brief Industry Groups and Environmentalists Separately in Kyoto”

Why this matters

A part of the reason (not the most important part necessarily, and not the part we can do that much about) “we” have done so little on climate change is because of staggeringly successful campaigns of predatory delay.

See also – Ben Franta’s work on the American Petroleum Institute.

Categories
Australia International processes UNFCCC

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

On this day, 25th of April 1996 Greenpeace International condemned Australia’s negotiating stance at the climate talks in Geneva.

“Gilchrist, G. 1996. Greenpeace Attacks Global Warming ‘spoiling Tactics’. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 April, p.2. Australia’s spoiling tactics in negotiations on tackling global warming undermined the nation’s “clean and green” international image, Greenpeace International’s top climate campaigner, Mr Bill Hare, said yesterday. He warned that Australia’s diplomatic position on climate change threatened its long-term trade interests.”

The context is that the second Conference of the Parties, following on from Berlin the previous year, was going to be an important to way station on the way to completing the so-called Berlin mandate, which called on rich nations to agree emissions cuts.

It was feared that the Australian Government’s obstruction tactics would move from softly-softly on display at the previous COP to full-on, shameless and unashamed heel dragging (In March of 1996 the Labor government had been replaced by John Howard’s “Liberal National” coalition.) 

And – getting ahead of ourselves (COP2 did not happen till July 1996) – so it came to pass…

“The discussions at the second COP to the UNFCCC in Geneva in 1996 saw Australia establish itself as a climate change laggard. Immediately before the conference the government questioned the science of climate change and opposed the idea of the IPCC’s new conclusions on climate change impacts providing the basis for negotiations.55 Significantly, they were joined in this concern only by OPEC states and the Russian Federation.56 Most importantly, however, the government’s position at the Geneva negotiations was to oppose the idea of legally binding targets on greenhouse emissions.57”

Macdonald, Matt. 2005a. Fair Weather Friend? Ethics and Australia’s Approach to Climate Change. Australian Journal of Politics and History 51 (2): 216–234.

Why this matters. 

We need to prepare criminal briefs for crimes against humanity and other species at The Hague

What happened next?

The Australian Government played a spoiler role as it still largely has, in the climate negotiations, they got a very sweet deal at Kyoto still refused to ratify. And as I may have mentioned, the carbon dioxide keeps accumulating. 

Categories
International processes United States of America

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

On this day, April 21 1992, George HW Bush, President of the United States, speaking at something called the “Young Presidents’ Organization” said “I’m not going to the Rio conference and make a bad deal or be party to a bad deal.”  (full speech here).

The context is that countries, especially France, had been trying to get a stronger deal agreed and then signed at Rio  Bush who was up for re-election that November didn’t want to be seen as going along with what the French and everyone else wanted and being too environmental, and didn’t want to upset his oil buddy mates. His recently deposed Chief of Staff, John Sununu, had successfully blocked/watered down various initiatives.

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that the actions of the Americans in this crucial period have shaped everything that’s happened since.

What happened next?

The French blinked. Michael Howard, as Environment Minister for the UK, was able to come up with the compromise. There was a final special meeting of the international negotiating committee in May in New York, and the deal was set for the big photo op…

There were no targets and timetables in the UNFCCC process, and what we have now, since Paris, is a warmed over version of a “pledge and review” model disregarded in 1991 as inadequate.

Did I mention I didn’t breed and that it’s looking like a smarter and smarter decision?

Categories
Denial International processes IPCC Predatory delay Science Scientists

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

On the 19th of April 2002, the chair of the IPCC, Bob Watson failed to get a second term as chair, even though he wanted one, and (almost) everyone else wanted him to have it. 

As per the Guardian’s coverage

“At a plenary session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Robert Watson, a British-born US atmospheric scientist who has been its chairman since 1996, was replaced by an Indian railway engineer and environmentalist, R K Pachauri.

Dr Pachauri received 76 votes to Dr Watson’s 49 after a behind-the-scenes diplomatic campaign by the US to persuade developing countries to vote against Dr Watson, according to diplomats. The British delegation argued for Dr Watson and Dr Pachauri to share the chairmanship.

The US campaign came to light after the disclosure of a confidential memorandum from the world’s biggest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, to the White House, proposing a strategy for his removal.”

[see also the Ecologist in 2018]

tt’s an example of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works – the word to look for is governmental. 

Why this matters. 

We’re not getting the politics- free science, which the denialists say they want. We’re getting the science that has been deemed acceptable to the politicians who are often little more than Meat Puppets for vested interests.

And this is a very, very familiar story.

What happened next?

The IPCC has kept going. The message hasn’t changed. Except the time horizons keep shrinking (have shrunk to nowt).

Categories
International processes

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

On this day 18th of April 1989. The bigwigs in the “Earth Day 20 Foundation “delivered letters to President Bush, USSR Premier Gorbachev, China Premier Li Peng, and UN Secretary General De Cuellar. “

The letter, signed by Gaylord Nelson, Barry Commoner, Elliot Richardson, John O’Connor (National Toxics Campaign), Gene Karpinski (U.S. Public Interest Research Group), Peter Bahouth (Greenpeace), Cordelia Biddle, and me called on the leaders of the superpowers to convene an environmental summit under the auspices of the UN  (source – Furia, 1990, EPA Journal).

And this is all part of the performative pressure effort, what we would now called virtue-signalling,  Cynically, it’s what you would expect to happen. And this is trying to fill the problem and policy streams and the politics stream and put pressure on people who might otherwise not do as much as they should. 

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, really. “Nothing matters very much, and very much matters not at all” as someone (Arthur Balfour) once said.

What happened next?

We got Earth Day at 20. And lots of old hippies who have made their peace with the system, got jobs had gotten jobs, wishing they were 20 years younger. And here we are. Now. It’s unclear what impact the letterhead if any, the these people who write memoirs don’t admit that they were particularly influenced by this or that And it’s all wishes and begging of Our Lords and Masters.  Building effective movement organisations and movements that grow, learn, organise and win – that’s beyond our wit, it seems.

Categories
International processes United States of America

April 14th, 1989 – 24 US senators call for immediate unilateral climate action

On April 14 1989 24 US senators declared that the US should cut its carbon emissions in advance of any international agreement.

The context was that the new Bush administration was still delaying and trying to resist any move towards negotiating a global treaty. They weren’t alone in this. So were the Australian and UK governments.

Why this matters

We have to see declarations and statements as part of a Forever War between action and inaction. 

What happened next?

A couple of weeks later, having been caught trying to muzzle James Hansen, the Bush administration was forced to say “okay” to an international treaty process. It then, of course, proceeded to stomp on this process as hard as it could…

Categories
International processes

April 11th, 1987 – A matter of… Primo Levi’s death

On the 11th of April 1987. Two things happen worthy of note. 

One, the World Resources Institute released its report “A Matter of Degrees: The Potential for Limiting the Greenhouse Effect”

Second. Primo Levi died either by suicide or accident

So let’s deal with those in turn. The World Resources Institute had been set up in 1982 by Gus Speth, ater his time in the Carter Administration, and the Council on Environmental Quality. WRI had been producing reports and hosting conferences and briefings and so forth. And this report coming in the aftermath of Villach 1985 and before another meeting in Villach and then Bellagio, was intended to throw more for once of a better expression, firewood on the fire, to increase the likelihood of international negotiations. In that, it was a success, and the failure of the negotiations is hardly the fault of people like Irving Mintzer (author of the WRI report). 

Primo Levi was an Italian chemist, and thinker and writer who had survived the concentration camp, Auschwitz and he had famously written “If Not Now, When”, et cetera. Hs body was found at the bottom of the stairwell in his apartment building in Milan. And it’s unclear whether he killed himself or toppled over by accident.

Three months earlier he had written a poem Almanac, which includes the lines 

“The glaciers will continue to grate, smoothing what’s under them” and 

“Earth too will fear the immutable Laws of the universe. Not us. We, rebellious progeny With great brainpower, little sense, Will destroy, defile…” 

It ends 

“Very soon we’ll extend the desert Into the Amazon forests, Into the living heart of our cities, Into our very hearts.”

See this rather excellent blog post by Bridget Mckenzie, @bridgetmck

Categories
International processes Science Scientists UNFCCC

March 29, 1995- Kuwaiti scientist says if global warming happening, it’s not fossil fuels. #MRDA

On the 29th of March 1995, in Berlin at the first “Conference of the Parties” of the UNFCCC, Kuwait, put forward a scientist, who said that if global warming was happening, it wasn’t the fault of coal and oil. Of course, they would say that;  “Mandy Rice Davies applies.” You need to think about Kuwait, as a spoiler in all of this, along with Saudi in the US and Australia. And if you’re looking for the gory details, Jeremy Leggett’s book, The Carbon War is really good on this. 

What happened next?

COP1 ended with the Berlin Mandate – rich countries agree to cut emissions first.  Two years later, in Kyoto, the first agreement to reduce emissions was agreed for what that was worth (not much). Kyoto was not replaced, and eventually a laughable “pledge and review” system got implemented (Paris). And the emissions climb and climb.