Category: Sweden

Categories
International processes Sweden

June 12, 1972 – At Stockholm “development” is challenged 

Fifty-two years ago, on this day, June 12th, 1972, the idea of One True Path To Wealth got questions by Barbara Ward and Margaret Mead.

NGOs, too, soon challenged the U.S. delegation’s platform. In a statement to the plenary session on June 12, a collection of NGOs, led by Barbara Ward and American anthropologist Margaret Mead, strongly criticised existing notions of development. In the development process, there needed to be “a greater emphasis on non-material satisfactions . . . and, above all, altruism in the pursuit of the common good.” Ward and Mead argued that technical fixes – more production – would not solve developmental problems, because a balance between environment and development “can be achieved only if we face honestly the problem of social justice and redistribution.” More concretely, they called for a tiny percent of GNP to be allocated in grants and low-interest for long-term loans for concessionary assistance and for additional flows of capital assistance from the developed nations to offset costs in the developing world. 132 “NGO Plenary Declaration,” Reprinted in Special Issue: The Stockholm Conference, Not Man Apart, 

Vol. 2, No. 7 (July 1972), 8-10. ABOVE IS A QUOTE from page 170 of “Of limits and growth” – phd thesis by Stephen Macekura

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that developing nations had been deeply suspicious of the agenda – in every sense – of the Western nations in calling for this conference on the human environment. They saw it as another way of the West restricting the economic development of what was then called the Third World. There had been a conference in Founex (which is I think, in Switzerland) in 1971 to allay some of these concerns.

Fun fact, only one world leader was there besides Olof Palme, Indira Gandhi of India. And these fights about what development meant and who it was for and who would be in charge of it were turning up of course, both at the conference itself, and at the People’s Conference, and so forth. 

What we learn is that how you see the world very much depends whether you are serving or eating. In the words of Leonard Cohen, homicidal bitchin’ goes down in every kitchen. And the main problem has been a lack of trust. And Western nations have done nothing to earn that trust. 

What happened next? The Stockholm conference gave us some fine words but it also gave us the United Nations Environment Program, headquartered in Nairobi, a lot smaller than was hoped but powerful enough to co-sponsor with WMO a series of meetings about climate change.

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 12, 1992 – Australia refuses to put a tax on carbon: “It’s a question of who starts the ball rolling. We won’t.”

June 12, 2011 – Nazi smears used by denialists, obvs

Categories
Science Scientists Sweden

June 6, 1988 – Scientists say we are entering a new phase

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 6th, 1988 there is a well-publicised warning by scientists in Stockholm (Bolin etc) releasing study.

We are entering a new phase….

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that ever since the pivotal meeting in Villach, in September 1985, scientists had been trying to raise the alarm – briefing senators, writing reports etc etc.

What we learn is that James Hansen’s testimony, on June 23 1988, did not appear in a vacuum. The terrain was being prepared by many others.

What happened next was that Hansen’s testimony – and the Changing Atmosphere meeting in Toronto the week after, at the end of June – set the ball rolling. 

The emissions have kept climbing, of course. As have the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. And here we are.

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 6, 1977 – German scientist Hermann Flohn asks “Whither the Atmosphere and the Earth’s climate?”

June 6, 1978 – Exxon presentation about carbon dioxide build-up

Categories
Sweden

May 12, 1971 – Swedish protest against the culling of Stockholm trees (the “Elm Conflict”)

Fifty-three years ago, on this day, May 12th, 1971, some trees in Stockholm became a focal point

 One Swedish political history was the Almstriden – “the Trees”, in 1971: street demonstrations against the Stockholm park, Kungsträdgarden. “Listen to the hu tree, you who make decisions at city hall and in the future you hear humming there”, the journalist’s words that echo Bob Dylan’s song “The Times They Are A-changing”

Veckojournalen 18 may 1971

There’s a wikipedia page here.

And see also this from “Stockholm Art Walk”.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that this was four years into the Swedish “environmental turn” (Heidenblad), with the big conference on the environment due to happen in another year.

 What we learn is that there are these local flashpoint protests, which in and of themselves, seem insignificant but may have various consequences around radicalising some people (while also perhaps dismaying others so much that they steer clear of action). And these flash points may also reveal the fine words of politicians, just that just fine words.

What we learn is that there are lots of these little “brown m&ms” events where you can – if you want to – see that those in charge of things are not paying attention and not competent. Now, if you’re a rock star, getting on a stage and you’re worried that a spotlight will fall on you or someone else, then you’re highly incentivized to push the red stop button or pull the big lever that says stop. If however, you personally are less likely to suffer consequences, then it’s easier and safer to just go along… (and this is what was good in the neoconservative Robert Kagan’s article in November 2023 about the so called resistance to Trump; that people will make a calculation to avoid trouble and that for bad things to stop, people have to put aside their personal short-term interest and make a bigger longer decision “taking one for the team.”). 

What happened next? I think the tree got cut down. I think it didn’t matter in the cosmic scheme of things except to the tree but it’s a real brown m&m moment,

 and is also the end of Peddler and Davis BrainWrack, which should be worth mentioning. 

sidebar if you can produce all of this for something like all like yesterdays simply by going out and talking with a piece of paper, why can’t you use that exact same habit to get first drafts down have other bigger better things? There’s no reason why. So just get on with 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: 

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

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Categories
Sweden United States of America

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate)

Sixty five years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1959, a popular science journal, Science News, covered the findings of Swedish climate scientist Bert Bolin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Bolin had been paying attention. His boss Carl Rossby was now dead and Bolin was stepping up and had spoken at the AAAS meeting earlier that year. 

What we learn – it wasn’t a big secret or surprise or particularly controversial, that CO2 would increase rapidly. Since Gilbert Plass’s statements in 1953 this was common knowledge. 

What happened next Bolin kept working on it, kept pressing. By the early 1970s had got the United Nations Environment Program, created at Stockholm, on side and then became first IPCC chair. He died in 2007.

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: 

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Sweden

March 13, 1971 – Club of Rome guy’s ethics are clubbed

Fifty three years ago, on this day, March 13th, 1971, one of the Club of Rome’s founders gets measured and found wanting…

“Most of these notes are to Alva’s husband, the economist Gunnar Myrdal. In the spring of 1971, Palmstierna wrote to Myrdal about the state of “the so-called future research”:

“ Dear Gunnar. Sending you a nasty sign of the times. Two gentlemen from this so-called Rome Club showed up at the Board of Research. They come from Boston, where they have established some kind of headquarters. One of them is called Peccei and is the vice president of Fiat. The moral standard is quite clear when you hear him, after two cocktails, say that it would be best if India were freed from people […] so that other people (white?) could take over. To his mind, accumulated DDT in Indians would be a great solution […]. Palme should never have let the rabble into the Board of Research. They represent a kind of sophisticated neofascism […].■. 

Palmstierna to Myrdal, 13 March 1971, Labour Movements Archives, Alva Myrdal’s  archive, vol.5: 066-2 Jenny Andersson Choosing Futures

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Club of Rome was getting a fair amount of attention for its reports and models. There had been a front page leak in the Observer about the Limits to Growth report, though I think it was called that yet. So the Club of Rome founder, the Italian Peccei, he was a big fish and was no doubt visiting Sweden in an attempt to drum up interest, Sweden being one of the well, originators of the “environmental turn” of the late 60s, and, of course, was about to be the host of the Stockholm conference. 

What we learn from this – shock horror, I hope you’re sitting down – is that some of the people in the Club of Rome had some pretty 19th century and all 18th century if you count the end of it, Malthusian views about how the world should be, oh, my goodness. 

What happened next? The Club of Rome’s first report was a huge success in terms of publicity, if not in impact on policymakers. Its second report less so. The Club of Rome still exists, churning out good reports, or reports, but has been joined by many other groups producing similar reports. And the emissions and concentrations keep 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: 

March 13, 1989  – UK Energy Department shits all over everyone’s future by dissing Toronto Target

March 13, 1992 – Australian climate advocates try to get government to see sense… (fail, obvs).

 March 13, 2001 – Bush breaks election promise to regulate C02 emissions…

Categories
Sweden

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

Fifty six years ago, on this day, December 7, 1967, a Swedish television programme puts the seal on that year’s “environmental turn”

The book first entered the public sphere on 7 December through the weekly television programme Monitor. Most of the episode’s 25 minutes were devoted to the new book, and five of the contributors made an appearance in the broadcast. This extensive display on national television was an integral part of the marketing of the book, which was deliberately scheduled to hit the Swedish bookstores on the following day. The broadcast began with three words scrolling over the screen: world conflagration, world famine and world poisoning. This was followed by an array of photographs showing starving, suffering and dead children in Third World countries. The discomforting photographs were ironically accompanied by a sung version of Gud som haver barnen kär [God, who holds the children dear] – the best-known prayer for children in Sweden at the time. 

This explicit opening sequence was followed by a talk by Georg Borgström on the topic of global injustices, malnutrition and overpopulation. Borgström was filmed sitting in a chair in his office with numerous books behind him. He was presented as a world authority and declared that we were on the verge of a monumental crisis. Borgström lamented that we were at the same time being surrounded by storytellers who forecasted an ever-brighter future of technological progress and material affluence. We cannot, Borgström emphasised, trust these storytellers. We must remove our blindfolds and face the facts, that we in the rich world not only have far more resources than the rest of the world, but also plunder their economies through world trade. 

HEIDENBLAD

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 323ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that another book, by Hans Palmstierna had already come out in September 1967 (see link here).

What I think we can learn from this

Co-ordinated media blitzes can create/amplify social concern. We’ve seen it a bunch of times (Silent Spring etc).

What happened next

The most consequential consequence – Swedish diplomats started the work of getting the United Nations interested enough in the problems to say “yes” to an environment conference. This conference would ultimately take place – in Stockholm – in 1972.

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

December 3, 1968 – UN General Assembly says yes to a conference about environment. C02 mentioned.

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 3, 1968, the United Nations General Assembly voted yes to hosting a big, all-singing all-dancing Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. 

The unanimous adoption of Resolution 2398 Problems of the human environment at the twenty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 3rd, 1968 marked the culmination of the first phase of the “Swedish initiative” 

Paglia Swedish Initiative. 

Thanks to work by a Swedish diplomat whose “own reading of media reports on climate change during autumn 1968 concluded that scientific opinion was shifting towards warming as the more likely outcome of human interference in atmospheric processes” things were different.

In contrast to Palmstierna’s memorandum and Åström’s statements at ECOSOC earlier that year—which presented the particle-induced cooling scenario first—the UNGA speech instead foregrounded and explained in far greater detail the potential for a rise in the Earth’s surface temperature caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, which is presented in the speech as a pollutant.1 No other forms of air pollution are mentioned in Åström’s December 1968 speech, including acid rain, which Palmstierna had in his memorandum gone into some detail in describing in terms of the scientific basis, and its environmental and economic effects.16 Paglia 

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 the previous year, Sweden had seen the release of two bombshell books about environmental degradation. Sweden had put the proposal by their diplomats that the UN have a look. And surprisingly quickly, given how the UN usually works this was accepted.

In July of 1968 a Swedish diplomat had even referenced temperature imbalance but with more emphasis on the problem of dust. This was three years after Lyndon Johnson had him and had mentioned carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What I think we can learn from this

Uggh. We knew.

What happened next

The Stockholm conference happened in June 1972. Not much changed (though the UNEP was formed, smaller than its proponents wanted, of course…)

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
Sweden

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

Fifty six years ago, on this day, October 27, 1967, Swedish civil society started to properly switch on to the broad environmental threats…

In the middle of October 1967 the first edition of Hans Palmstierna’s book was released by Rabén & Sjögren, a medium-sized publishing house owned by the Swedish Co-operative Union. It was a short paperback of 129 pages and priced rather steeply at SEK 22.50. Since Rabén & Sjögren was not one of the leading companies on the Swedish book market, the publication did not receive any immediate attention from the media. It was not until 27 October that the book was first noted by the tabloid Expressen who dubbed it ‘one of the most pessimistic books to date’.22 On the very same day Hans Palmstierna also appeared in a seven-minute feature on the televised evening news. 

The book contains some mention of climate change 

“the book mentions it in passing (page 85). It is said to be called the “greenhouse effect” and it is estimated that once all the oil reserves are burned up that the average temperature of the planet will increase by 2-4 degrees (which will result in hardships in arid places, such as East Africa).”

 (via email from Heidenblad)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 322.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Swedish people had been beneficiaries of a nice post-war boom but booms always come with a price. This one, an ecological price that would, according to Palmstierna, start to be paid soon enough.

What I think we can learn from this

There’s always trouble in paradise. You can build the walls, which is what paradise means – a walled garden – but there will always be trouble.

What happened next

Palmstierna’s book caused a sensation. It was serialised, there were TV shows. At the end of 1967 the Swedes proposed to the United Nations that they talk about talking about having a big conference in the future, in the middle of ‘68. The Swedes were successful in getting that on to the provisional agenda. In December ‘68 he UN General Assembly said “yes”, and the Stockholm conference happened in 1972

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
Sweden United Nations

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, July 19, 1968, a Swedish diplomat pointed to the problems ahead.

Demonstrating the cutting-edge nature of the science that underpinned Sweden’s diplomatic intervention, environmental issues that emerged more prominently in the 1970s were foreshadowed by Palmstierna and Åström, including acid rain, eutrophication and climate change. Regarding the latter, for example, Åström stated before ECOSOC on July 19, 1968, “that man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable”. 

Paglia “Swedish Initiative”

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  that global awareness of major environmental problems, including our favourite – population – and water and air pollution get as far as the United Nations because it’s Swedish initiatives. And this was apparently the first time that ECOSOC talks about what we would now call “anthropogenic global warming.

What I think we can learn from this

The UN has been talking about, well, people have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years. Let me say that again. People have been talking at the UN about the dangers of climate change for 55 years.

What happened next

ECOSOC, to which Astrom was talking, agreed to put forward a resolution, the United Nations General Assembly about holding a big environment conference. That UN General Assembly rubber stamp took place in December 1968 (the UK had tried to stop this, but realised it would be futile, so decided to roll with the punches).. And the big conference (with very little high level participation from the Second and Third World)  finally took place in June of 1972. It didn’t really give us very much about climate, but maybe I think you could argue that the science wasn’t yet mature. It gave a bit of a fillip to the World Meteorological Organisation and there was now a venue, the United Nations Environment Programme for further work, so all was not lost. And as I said, it’s really only the late 1970s that you could start to blame anyone for anything. 

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.