Category: UNFCCC

Categories
UNFCCC United Nations

November 25, 2000 – CoP meeting ends in official disarray…

On this day, November 25, 2000, the global climate negotiations in the Hague collapsed without a formal end of the conference, which had to be “continued” in Bonn the following year. You can read all about it here 

COP6 had seen various protests (see here)  by direct action types, who, in those far-off innocent pre-September 11 days even managed to storm the main stage,  and also some of the first discussions of “climate justice”

The Australian business lobby was there in force, of course – 

“Business is scared the Europeans will get their way at The Hague, and that Australia won’t get the sinks or other concessions that would allow it to go on polluting as long as it planted trees or took other measures. Australian industry has a big team at The Hague: on the government delegation will be John Eyles from the Australian Greenhouse Industry Network, and Maria Robertson from Comalco will be on the New Zealand delegation. And there are observers from the BCA, Rio Tinto, ICF Kaiser, Origin Energy, ACL, Woodside Energy, the Australian Gas Association, the Aluminium Council, BHP, Hancock NRG, the ACCI and others.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Taking Care Of Business. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 November, p.15.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 369ppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this. Three years previously rich nations had grudgingly agreed a piss-weak “Kyoto Protocol”, but that still hadn’t been ratified by the USA (was never gonna get through the Senate) or Australia.  Earlier that month George Bush had been selected by the supreme court, after losing the popular vote (who remembers ‘hanging chads’?)

Why this matters. 

It was all clear, and protesters were doing their best, 22 years ago.

What happened next?

The COP circus has kept going (you may have noticed). The Kyoto Protocol finally became live  in 2005, after a Russian quid pro quo for WTO membership.  The follow-up (Copenhagen) went down in flames. Then the French came up with a “pledge and review” compromise. Guess what, nobody is really pledging, and nobody is reviewing…This was all predictable, and indeed predicted.

Categories
UNFCCC United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

On this day, October 27, 1990, the British Magazine the Economist had a cover story about “global warming” and international agreements.

In a cover story, The Economist (“Warm world, cool heads,” 27 Oct. 1990, p. 13) observes that “No country seriously contemplates Toronto levels of self-restraint.” Thus pressures for emission standards come from several European nations that want to hold CO2 emissions steady by the year 2000.

(Ungar, 1992.)

In late June 1988 a conference – of scientists and NGO types had come up with a call for a 20% cut in emissions by 2005 for rich countries. Various nations – including Australia – had by the time of the Economist story – come up with some versions of a pledge, usually with all sorts of get out clauses.

The Economist’s story came out just before the Second World Climate Conference, which was attended by political leaders (including Margaret Thatcher), and was the starting gun for the international process that led to the UNFCCC. Which had various (aspirational) targets – none of which went beyond stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 (which nations did not do, obvs).

What happened next?

Thirty years of pledges and promises, as emissions soared.

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

On this day, October 22 in 1997, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (nasty neoliberal ‘think’tank) hosted a pre-Kyoto spine stiffening meeting.

“On October 22, 1997, the CEI hosted ABARE’s Brian Fisher at a luncheon with the aim of winning over “economic attaches to embassies of developing countries which might prefer differentiation to uniform reduction targets”. The CEI had “recognized the strategic importance of Australia in the climate change gambit” according to CEI research fellow (and Australian national) Hugh Morley. “If Australia sticks to its guns”, Morley said, “there might not be a Kyoto treaty after all.” (Hugh Morley, 1/11/97, “Australia Cool To Warming”, <www.cei.org/gencon/005,01305.cfm>.)”

From Jim Green “WMC Ltd: corporate greenhouse gangster”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 360.98ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm – but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American corporate interests were solidifying pre-existing links with Australian denialists (politicians, corporates, bureaucrats) – these had begun in earnest in 1990 (Tasman Institute hosting various folks) and then gradually strengthened. The “Countdown to Kyoto” conference had already been staged in Canberra, by this time…

Why this matters. 

Think internationally. Those preventing climate action do.

What happened next?

Kyoto was a joke. Not a funny one. And here we are.

Categories
International processes UNFCCC

October 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability…

On this day, October 21 in 1989, the Commonwealth Heads of Government issued a warm-words statement.

“The Langkawi Declaration on the Environment was a declaration issued by the assembled Heads of Government of the Commonwealth of Nations on the issue of environmental sustainability. It was issued on October 21, 1989 at Langkawi, Malaysia, during the tenth Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting(CHOGM).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langkawi_Declaration

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 350.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was making bold statements that Something Must Be Done. It made them feel good. It responded to recent surges in green votes. It amounted to nothing.

Why this matters. 

Let’s be skeptical about the power of a pledge, okay?

What happened next?

The whole UNFCCC process. Oh joy. 

Categories
Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

July 25, 1997 – US says, in effect, “screw our promises, screw the planet”

On this day, July 25  1997 the US Senate unanimously (95–0) passed Senate Resolution 98 (also referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

It said – contra what the USA had already agreed when it ratified the 1992 UNFCCC – that it would sign no deals that didn’t include the developing world making cuts as well. You know, those peoples who had done nothing to cause the problem, and were already on the pointy end.

This was the at the culmination of a very well-funded and well-executed campaign by US corporate interests to reframe international environmental agreements as an attack on US sovereignty, and on the employment prospects of US workers – see for example this and this..

Why this matters. 

Shows you the power of corporate mobilisations, dunnit?

What happened next?

The US negotiated a deal at Kyoto, and signed it, but it was never going to get through the Senate, even if Gore hadn’t had the 2000 election pinched from him by the Supreme Court.  Then George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto altogether, in March 2001. 

And here we are.

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

July 11, 1996 – Celebrity Death Match: Australian fossil fuels industry versus The World (Spoiler: world lost)

On this day, 11 July 1996, at the second “Conference of the Parties”, the fossil fuel lobby started to get up front about being perfectly happy for future generations to fry.

GENEVA, July 11 (Reuter) – Heavy industry groups from around the world Thursday pressed a major campaign to stop moves to cut the amount of carbon dioxide, widely blamed for global warming, pumped into the atmosphere by rich countries.

The focus of the drive, which is getting its major impetus from U.S. energy producers but was strongly backed by an Australian grouping, are warnings that economic disaster would hit developed and developing countries alike if cuts were mandated. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network — which includes coal, aluminum and gas industry associations — is also lobbying hard among delegates, who at the end of next week will be joined by ministers at the key stage of the conference.

The AIGN is distributing a study arguing that cuts in “greenhouse gas” emissions would bring a trade slump to all the countries of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Its stand is backed by the Australian government, whose delegation is opposing agreement on any uniform carbon reduction targets for the developed world alone — the main purpose of the gathering.

Evans, R. 1996. Energy industry fights to block cuts in coal, oil use. Reuters, 11 July.

Why this matters. 

The Hague won’t be above water forever, and trials for crimes against humanity and the biosphere really ought to get going sooner rather than later….

What happened next?

Everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost.

The fossil fuels kept getting burnt, in increasing quantities. The burning of them left a residue in the atmosphere. This was not an accident.

Categories
UNFCCC

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

On this day, 23rd June 1997, world “leaders” gathered in Rio for a meeting packed with self-congratulatory speeches, this one to celebrate (if that is the word), five years since the Rio Earth Summit. (The 1992 Rio Earth Summit is the one that gave us the Biodiversity Treaty and the UNFCCC).


In the US the American Petroleum Institute was taking out full page ads to put pressure on President Clinton. In Australia Clive Hamilton co-ordinated the release of an open letter from 131 economists about the cost-effectiveness of early action.

Meanwhile, this good reporting by an Aussie journo gives you a sense of what happened. (John Howard didn’t go to Rio +5, but then his predecessor Paul Keting had not gone to Rio itself).

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases.

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, hands-hakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

James Woodford, Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June 1997

Why this matters. 

They pile promise upon promise, don’t they? Maybe the promises are what the Angel of History is seeing, as part of the wreckage upon wreckage hurled in front of his feet?

What happened next?

The next big event in the circuit was COP3, in Kyoto. An agreement was made that – as per the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities agreed at Rio – rich countries would go first in cutting emissions. The US and Australia never went with it. The fossil fuel use exploded. The atmospheric concentrations went up and up.

Categories
UNFCCC United States of America

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

On this day, June 1, 1992, President George H.W. Bush, says that a habitable planet is an extremist demand. 

“We cannot permit the extreme in the environmental movement to shut down the United States. We cannot shut down the lives of many Americans by going extreme on the environment.”

George Bush at UNCED, quoted in the Guardian, 1 June 1992 – 

This idea of the US “way of life” as “non-negotiable, or “sacred” has legs. Nine years later George H.W. Bush’s son, “Dubya” had become President after being selected by the U.S. Supreme Court. At a May 2001 press conference his spokesperson Ari Fleischer had the following exchange:

 Q    Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles?  Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

  MR. FLEISCHER:  That’s a big no.  The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life.  The American way of life is a blessed one. 

Why this matters. 

What is sacred is beyond discussion. It’s a classic “de-agendaising” technique, where if you push the issue, you cast yourself into the outer darkness.

What happened next?

The USA government ratified the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit, and has spent the last 30 years rendering it meaningless, and basically doing the bidding of various fossil fuel lobbies (yes, it is more complicated than that, but not MUCH more complicated).

See also my piece in The Conversation about George HW Bush.

Categories
UNFCCC United States of America

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

On this day, May 8 1992, after more tense negotiations in New York, the Americans agreed to a text that would be signed down in Rio at the Earth Summit in June.

All through the “negotiations” had basically played chicken, threatening not to come to Rio if the treaty to be signed there included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries.

So, Michael Howard then the British Environment Minister had flown over to negotiate the surrender by the French/Europeans on the questions of targets and timetables. The text to be ceremoniously sighed would be a framework convention rather than one with any teeth. 

And you could argue that that actually is the end of the international “policy window”, in the middle of 1992. Yes, you have have the flim-flam and the theatre of Rio and you have various states ratifying, speeches but the end of anything substantive was May 8th, a day that would live in infamy if our species had two brain cells to rub together.

Categories
Denial UNFCCC United States of America

May 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

On this day, May 6 1997 25 years ago, the “Cooler Heads – see what they did there? – coalition” was announced, with such noted climate scientists, as Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg. The leader was… Myron Ebell, of Exxon…

Here’s a great summary on DeSmog Blog

The Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) was formed on May 6, 1997, under the direction of the National Consumer Coalition—a project of the now-defunct Consumer Alert—“out of concern that the American people were not being informed about the economic impact of proposals to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The CHC is now backed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), as noted on CHC‘s “About” page which states that the website is “paid for and maintained by” CEI. [1], [18]

Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), was listed as the “group leader” when the the Cooler Heads Coalition was initially formed, and appears to maintain an important role. [18]

The context was that the Kyoto meeting at which emissions reductions for rich countries would be on the agenda – was coming. And CHC would, with an international membership, would enable opponents of it in the United States to point to some sort of international coalition of actors

By calling themselves the “Cooler Heads”, they are claiming the high intellectual ground and instantly mocking their opponents or framing their opponents as hotheads and alarmist – it’s a nicely chosen title. Some PR flak probably got a promotion for it.

Why this matters

We need to think in terms of a constant flux, push and counter push among actors, the actors who were trying to legitimise their own side and delegitimise their opponents, as we saw with the Unabomber thing the Heartland outfit did. This is a battle for hearts and minds and legitimacy.

What happened next

Lomborg kept publishing and having been members of these sorts of coalitions since. And the carbon dioxide continues to accumulate.