Category: UNFCCC

Categories
Cultural responses Denmark International processes UNFCCC

December 27, 2009 – Art exhibition in Copenhagen saves the world

Fourteen years ago, on this day, December 27, 2009 , an art exhibit closes in Copenhagen blah blah..

https://www.artforum.com/news/in-copenhagen-artists-tackle-global-warming-as-un-climate-summit-continues-24410

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was bummed out, because all the delusional lies that they had been telling themselves about Copenhagen had been exposed. Nobody was saved and art certainly was not going to save the damned planet. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there will always be groupies and hangers on and opportunist hacks wanting to say that they’re making some sort of contribution. I don’t want to be more of a philistine than I already am but seriously, fudge that noise.

Am I too cynical?

What happened next

Artsy people have kept artsy-ing. It’s helped a lot.

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
Europe UNFCCC

 December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

Thirty years ago, on this day, December 21, 1993, 

“the European Union agreed to ratify the FCCC without any commitment to an energy/carbon tax. The debate continues, with all governments increasingly interested in raising revenue from energy consumption in the home and on roads.”

Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 185) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC climate treaty had had far fewer teeth than the Europeans wanted, thanks to the successful resistance of US President George Bush, his Chief of Staff John Sununu and others. There were no targets and timetables for emissions reductions but at least they’d seen the back of George Bush having been defeated in the 1992 presidential election by Bill Clinton of the Democratic party, for what that was worth (not much when it came to climate.)

What I think we can learn from this

This is just one of those moments of history. Thirty years. And what has been achieved since then? Half of fuck all – though the Europeans will tell you that massively reduced their emissions so maybe that’s something I don’t know-  if the cause of that has been the same as in in the UK – deindustrialisation and some uptake of different forms of energy besides coal – that’s a question I could look into.

What happened next

We have kept tipping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow…

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
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
International processes UNFCCC United Nations

September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, September 2, 1994, was the 10th meeting of the outfit that had planned the climate bit of the 1992 Earth Summit and had kept on going afterwards, in the run up to the first “conference of the parties” (to be held in Berlin, in March-April 1995).

Slooooow progress between Rio and Berlin….

Despite the introduction of a formal text into the proceedings which proposed C02 reductions, the session remained deadlocked on the introduction of a protocol such as that proposed by the Germans (Eco, 2 September, 1994: 1). Despite the fact that it was Germany which had proposed it, the EU rapidly said it was not prepared to consider a protocol for COP1, and many developing countries were also opposed, believing it might be a pretext for commitments to be imposed on them, or in some cases even that OECD action itself would hurt their interests. Oil-producing countries often presented their own interests in this way, suggesting OECD action would harm developing countries as a whole e.g. see Al-Sabban, 1991).

Paterson 1996 page 68

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that by this time everyone knew that COP1 was coming (to be held in Berlin) and therefore there would be more and more pressure for something serious to be agreed. But here we were still in the shadow-boxing phase, even though it was obvious that the initial stabilisation targets were not going to be met, and that the science was getting stronger. The IPCC people were working towards their second assessment and the denialists were in their pomp, having defeated Clinton’s BTU.

What I think we can learn from this is that we have been grinding away for over 30 years. And given, the absence of strong social movements (among other significant factors)  in the countries that matter – for energy justice, climate justice, intergenerational justice – then you’re going to get these sort of technocratic “lost in the detail” shitshows. And so it has come to pass.

What happened next

At cop1 finally there was the Berlin Mandate forcing rich nations to agree that by the end of 1997 they would agree to cuts. That meeting ended up happening in Kyoto, Japan.

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 UNFCCC United Nations

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 27, 1993, the post-Rio Earth Summit process was edging forward.

1993 End of INC negotiations at which – first tentative but informal discussions of the adequacy of the commitments contained in articles 4.2(a) and (b) of the convention (Paterson 1996, page 67)

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 in May 1992, following a prolonged fight, the Americans won an infamous victory by removing target and timetables from the text of the climate treaty. This victory was short-lived however because it was obvious that emissions reductions were going to be needed. And the international negotiating committee saw this by August of 1993 at which point various nations had already ratified the UNFCCC and it was well on the way to meeting the threshold for ratification, and therefore the first “Conference of the Parties” –  an international meeting which in the end took place in Berlin in March-April 1995.

What I think we can learn from this is that blocking victories doesn’t necessarily last terribly long – you can take something off the agenda but it will crawl and slither its way back onto the agenda whether it’s good or bad. And therefore the work of containing and corralling and controlling is never-ending. The kind of people who wrote The Powell memorandum, they understand that. And they have to the deep pockets to fund a culture war. Progressive groups, because they tell themselves the myth of the neutral State and of the information deficit, are constantly surprised that they have to keep fighting. Also, they’re also, almost by definition, worse off for funding.

What happened next

At the Berlin meeting in 1995 the Berlin Mandate was agreed, meaning that rich countries were going to have to cut their emissions. Or rather, they were going to have to turn up to the third COP with a number in their heads for emissions reductions.  They did this. It was inadequate, and then the USA and Australia walked away.

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
Australia Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 29, 1998, Australian Environment Minister Robert HIll signed the Kyoto Protocol while in New York.

 As distinct from ratifying it… Robert Hill in New York…

R Hill (Minister for the Environment),Hill signs historic agreement to fight global warming, media release, 29 April, 1998.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had secured an absurdly sweet deal at Kyoto. The so-called reduction target meant it could increase its emissions to 112%, and 130%  once a land clearing clause loophole was taken into account. 

It wasn’t clear at this stage whether Australia would try to ratify the Kyoto Protocol –  a federal election was due relatively soon. And so it was mostly harmless signing. So they did it. And not signing would have caused more trouble than it was worth.

What I think we can learn from this

You have to know the details of a process, so you don’t get over-excited about what (you want it to) mean.

What happened next

In September of 1998 it was leaked that the Cabinet had agreed that Australia would not ratify unless the US did. And the US was very unlikely to do that. In the end, in 2002, on Earth Day, because he has a sense of humour. Prime Minister John Howard, to no one’s great surprise, but many people’s shock and dismay, announced Australia would not, in fact, ratify Kyoto.

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
Business Responses Denial Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

April 26, 1998 – “Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty”

Twenty five years ago, on this day, April 26, 1998, The New York Times runs a story, probably not that different from the one on the 26th of December 1997 in the Washington Post. That, lo and behold, industrial interests, coal miners, auto makers, etc. are going to continue to try to – to use the academic terminology – shit all over climate action. And I think this is front page news but certainly not a surprise. 

Anyone who’s paying any attention knows that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy, and that the ability of powerful cashed up vested interests, to shape policy to prevent policies they don’t like, is enormous. Just because the power is enormous doesn’t mean that they always win all the time. But it means the game is rigged, y’all.

1998 Cushman of NYT breaks story – Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly pp368.8m. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that the US had been at COP-3 Kyoto meeting. I think Al Gore even signed, but it was never going to come to the Senate for ratification. But the danger was that in two years time, if there was a Democrat in the White House, things could somehow change…

What I think we can learn from this

Opponents of action take nothing for granted and are always trying to keep their muscles, their attack muscles fresh, in case they’re needed.

What happened next

Cashed up denialist kept doing their denying.

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
Germany UNFCCC

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, April 7, 1995, the first (of many!) “COP” events ended in Germany. The main outcome, the so-called Berlin Mandate, which meant rich industrialised countries had to come up with an agreement to cut their own emissions….

1995 The first UNFCCC Conference of Parties took place on 28 March – 7 April 1995 in Berlin, Germany. It voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries’ abilities to meet commitments under the Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI  (See Flavin, 1995 account).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The UNFCCC text agreed for the Rio Earth Summit had been weak, thanks to the best efforts of the United States and a selection of (hydrocarbon) allies.  There was nothing in there about targets and timetables for rich nations to make reductions. Three years later, that question was back on the table…

What I think we can learn from this

The “original sin” – the attitude of rich nations (and esp. Uncle Sam) during the period 1988-1992 – has cast the longest shadow, and one that people who grew up since then don’t even understand, let alone have the vocabulary to name.

What happened next

The Berlin Mandate culminated (if that is the word?) in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  Australia gouged out an incredibly generous “reduction” target (de jure 12% increase in emissions, de facto 130% – and STILL did not ratify!).

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
UNFCCC United Kingdom United Nations

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 26, 1993, there was a  House of Commons debate  In reply to a question on the subject, the Government confirmed that they would be ratifying the UNFCCC.- 

“At this week’s [EC] Environment Council [22-23 March 1993] all member states agreed to take the measures necessary to enable them to ratify the convention not later than the end of 1993. This matches the UK’s earlier commitment, along with our Group Seven partners, to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in 1992, nations had come together and held hands in Rio, and signed a massively watered down treaty. John Major had offered to host the follow up to Rio because at this point, it wasn’t clear that the treaty would receive enough ratifications quickly enough to start holding its official meetings. So the UK still wanted to be seen as a leader on international climate policy. 

What I think we can learn from this

Sometimes things happen quicker than people think (like UNFCCC ratification)

What happened next

The Global Forum in Manchester, which was a serious egg-on-face for the Labour Council…

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 Industry Associations International processes UNFCCC United Nations United States of America

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

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.” 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SEPP_and_the_Statement_by_Atmospheric_Scientists_on_Greenhouse_Warming

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.