Category: Swtizerland

Categories
Science Swtizerland

February 12, 1979 – First World Climate Conference opens

Forty four years ago, on this day, February 12th, 1979,the First World Climate Conference began in Geneva.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that all through the 1970s, climatologists have become more and more convinced that climate change was happening, and that carbon dioxide was the principal culprit. And so a proposal had been accepted for the first world climate conference. And it opened at some big hall in Geneva where the World Meteorological Organisation is based.

What we learn is that if you want to have an impact, you need these sorts of conferences. Unfortunately, John Mason, the British head of the Meteorological Office was not helpful. 

What happened next? There was ongoing momentum around the climate issue ‘79-80. And then as Al Gore said, in 1988, it all ended once Reagan became president. Or rather, US political support did – the science kept going, best it could.

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: 

Feb 12, 1958- the Unchained Goddess is unchained…

February 12 1968 – The Motherfuckers do their motherfucking thing, with garbage in New York.

Categories
IPCC Swtizerland

November 9, 1988 – Tolba gives “Warming Warning” speech at first IPCC meeting

Thirty five years ago, on this day, November 9, 1988, the director of the United Nations Environment Program, the Egyptian scientist Mostafa Tolba, gave a stark opening address at the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Tolba, M.: 1988, ‘Warming: Warning’, Opening Speech at the First Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, November 9.

Oreskes and Conway 2010, page 184

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the IPCC had been set up after negotiations, especially with the Americans. They wanted an intergovernmental panel that was frankly dependent, because they didn’t want to get “bounced” in the way they perceived they had been over the question of Ozone, by Bob Watson and his ilk (including Tolba).

What I think we can learn from this is that the institutional settings the terms of reference, who’s going to fund what, who’s going to deliver what and how matter.

What happened next

The IPCC delivered its first assessment report in 1990. Was attacked (see Ted Benton in the Greening of Machiavelli anecdote about Sundsvall).

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 Swtizerland

November 6, 1990 – Second World Climate Conference underway

Thirty three years ago, on this day, November 6, 1990, the consequential bits of the “Second World Climate Conference” began in Geneva. That is to say, the politicians turned up (the scientists had been hard at work for some days already).

[see here for a Conversation article about protests etc]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first world climate conference in Geneva, in February of 1979 had been pretty much scientists and a few policy makers. You can read various accounts of it. But the short version is that those who were wanting a bold statement that said “carbon dioxide is a real problem and we need to start taking action now” were unable to overcome the veto of people like John Mason, head of the UK Meteorological Office who was a long term climate skeptic. 

The following ten years of science and advocacy had pushed climate onto the agenda. The second world climate conference had been pushed back six months so that it could suit political needs because this was no longer purely a scientific endeavour. Since 1985, new climate scientists had been trying to engage policymakers directly and urgently or beginning in late 1985.

The existence of the conference had forced the question of emissions reductions targets onto the table, because no politician wanted to get booed and heckled by their colleagues and the media. So, for example, while Australia had come up with a provisional or Interim Planning Target, as it was called, very few other nations had. There were protests, organised by Greenpeace, very polite, as the Swiss had it, (see my Conversation article). 

What I think we can learn from this

Want to shake loose the bureaucracy? Engineer events as action-forcers I guess? Or rather decision-forcers The action will depend on implementation, which may or may not happen….

What happened next

At the beginning of 1991, pretty much simultaneous with the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait the climate negotiations finally started. 

There was a third world climate conference, but it was a denialist event in Moscow, and no one speaks of 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.

Categories
Swtizerland

January 25, 2013 – Lord Stern admits #climate “worse than I thought”

Ten years ago, on this day, January 25, 2013, one of the white men who has been born with a “safe pair of hands” had the good grace to admit that he’d misunderestimated the speed and breadth of climate impacts. Nick Stern, former World Bank economist, had been tapped on the shoulder by then-Treasurer Gordon Brown in 2005, and had produced a report (“the Stern Review” on the Economics of Climate Change). Interviewed by two Guardian journos at Davos 6 years after its release, he said 

 “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”  (Had I known this), “I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 395.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419.

The context was that the international climate negotiations were beginning to crank up for the next “big” meeting (Paris 2015) and folks at Davos (where the rulers of the world and their consiglieres, lackeys and hangers-on go to be seen) were making the right noises.

What I think we can learn from this

The people with the safe pairs of hands? Always ask yourself – safe for WHO? Safe for WHAT?

What happened next

Davos kept going (everyone should read Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, imo. It’s set in Davos, but with a different cast of characters, different sensibility.). The Paris Agreement happened.  And everyone was saved.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Stewart, H. and Elliott, L. (2013) Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’. The Guardian, 27 January.