Category: Netherlands

Categories
Netherlands

December 25, 1988 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands says “the earth is slowly dying”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 25, 1988 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands came out swinging, contradicting what she had had to say three months earlier…

“Together with the publication of the report ‘Concern for Tomorrow’ (Netherlands Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection), the Queen’s 1988 Christmas speech represents a watershed moment for sustainable environmental policy in the Netherlands. Queen Beatrix observed that ‘the earth is slowly dying and the inconceivable – the end of life itself – is becoming conceivable’. Her speech, devoted almost entirely to problems of environmental deterioration, was in open disagreement with her earlier address to Parliament in Sept. 1988. The latter speech, written by the Dutch Council of Ministers, stated that recently ‘the country has become cleaner. This applies in particular to water and air: E. Tellegen, ‘The Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan’ (1989) 4(4)” The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, pp. 337–45, at 337.

van Zeben 2015, p.340 (footnote 1)

“We human beings have become a threat to the planet”

Greenpeace Global Warming Report 1990, p.113, apparently

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in the same way that Australia would sit up and take notice about the ozone hole and skin cancer, Dutch people would sit up and take notice about sea-level rise. But what’s interesting is that the Queen here explicitly went against what the government had forced her to say at the opening of Parliament 3 months earlier – that basically everything was fine and hunky dory. Her statement had a bit of a bombshell impact, at least in the Netherlands.

What I think we can learn from this

That some royals were willing to come out and call it like it actually is. 

What happened next

Dutch academics came up with Transition Management which was basically “let’s get everyone in a room hold hands and then Shell and other big actors can basically take over the process, empty it of all meaning and threat to the incumbency, and then we’ll have to scratch our heads and pretend to do some soul-searching about the role of academia and academics within advanced capitalist States, but we won’t – we will just keep going with the same bullshit because nobody has any other idea, or if they do they don’t know how to implement it.” 

Queen Beatrix abdicated in 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_of_the_Netherlands

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

 van Zeben, J .(2015) Establishing a Governmental Duty of Care for Climate Change Mitigation: Will Urgenda Turn the Tide? Transnational Environmental Law, 4:2, pp. 339–357 doi:10.1017/S2047102515000199

Categories
Activism Netherlands UNFCCC

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

Twenty two years ago, on this day, November 22, 2000, climate protesters stormed the stage at the COP6 negotiations in The Hague.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1036211.stm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that three years after the Kyoto negotiations ITwas obvious that the UNFCCC process was again going nowhere. Bands of climate protesters descended upon the Hague, which had been the scene of a 1989 meeting on climate in order to say “get moving.”

What I think we can learn from this

We’ve been cajoling the UNFCCC for decades. Citizens, arrests, and 7-metre dinosaurs: the history of UN climate summit protests

Does it build movements? Well, does it?

What happened next

The Hague process ended in disarray andwas the first and only time there was no formal end to the meeting. So they had to continue in Bonn the following June or July.

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

Categories
Australia Netherlands Uncategorized

July 22, 1991 – two #climate idiots on the Science Show

Thirty two years ago, on this day, July 22, 1991, the Australian radio program “The Science Show” (ABC Radio) had two climate denialists on. Oh joy.

(See Robyn Williams letter to The Australian, 1991, Dec 6, p.10).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had from its very beginnings been aware of the dangers of climate change. So Ritchie Caleer, who had been writing about the problem emphatically since the late 60s (and had been aware of it since the early 1950s), was a guest in 1975 on the first episode.

In 1991, the politics of it national of climate, internationally and nationally were getting hot. The negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed in June of 92 were going nowhere thanks to the resolute intransigence and blocking of the United States administration. 

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process was reaching its final stages, drafts were being written ahead of release within a couple of months. I don’t know if the Science Show had pro-climate action guests the week before the week after. But on this occasion, they had two idiots. One was Bill Nirenberg, one of the Jasons who you can read about in Merchants of Doubt. He had helped to write the 1983 NAS “changing climate” report, saying, “Oh, it’ll be long term and there’s nothing we can do anyway.” The other guest was Brian O’Brien, one of the more active climate deniers on the Australian scene. He was able to play on the fact that he had been the scientist for NASA, as if this somehow gave him expertise on climate science. O’Brian had written various screeds about climate policy, especially attacking the “Toronto Target”.

What I think we can learn from this is that even the best media has to allow dodgy people on because if you don’t, it is “censorship”. And especially 31 years ago, there was still need to “hear both sides of the argument.” And to be fair, I don’t know how Robyn Williams dealt with that at the time, maybe he did a very good job of sending a public health warning to listeners. 

What happened next

The ecologically sustainable development process was killed off by new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and his henchmen within the Australian Federal bureaucracy. The Rio Earth Summit, rubberstamped a piss-weak climate treaty, i.e. the Americans won. And in long term, everybody lost. 

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 IPCC Netherlands

Feb 10, 2010 – Dutch scientists try to plug denialists’ holes in the dike

On this day, in 2010, 55 leading Dutch scientists wrote an open letter to the Dutch parliament, pointing out that although there were inaccuracies in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, that did not in fact invalidate the basic findings. The reason they needed to even do this was the so-called Climategate hack of late 2009. The theft of emails from a University of East Anglia server was, as the American right-wingers like to say, a “nothing” burger, but one that was briefly tasty to climate denialists. 

Why it matters

Toni Morrison’s astute comment about racism, and racist narratives being there to distract and to exhaust and to prevent you from doing the work that you want to do applies here; white progressives could learn a lot from reading people of colour, who have been putting up with character assassination and – checks notes – actual assassination four hundreds of years. 

The quote is this – 

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”

Listen to Morrison’s 1975 speech, recently digitised, here.]

What happened next, 

The IPCC kept producing assessment reports, possibly with a little more care. The Dutch government got sued by Urgenda [see 2019 judgement] and the emissions kept climbing. And the climate denial people are now mostly doing predatory delay. And hyping the purported costs of transitioning, (not that the costs –  both financial and cognitive – are anything other than enormous).