Categories
Brazil UNFCCC United Nations

June 14, 1992 – Rio Earth Summit finishes

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 14th, 1992, 

Rio Earth Summit finishes 3 to 14th June. Everyone signs the UNFCCC… (except Saudi and a couple of others, who waited until it was inevitable and they’d be left out in the cold if they didn’t).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that in 1968 the United Nations had agreed to a Swedish proposal to host a conference on the human environment. This had happened in 1972 in Stockholm, and one of the few things to come out of it was the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP.  UNEP, the World Meteorological Organisation, and the ICSU, had sponsored various scientific gatherings through the 70s and 80s about climate, and especially carbon dioxide build up, leading to the Villach conference in 1985.

And after Villach in several nations, not so much the United Kingdom, but certainly, for example, Australia and the United States, there had been a concerted push to get politicians aware of/concerned about climate change from CO2 build up.

The specific context was in 1988 the problem had become an issue, and the public were concerned. And perhaps the most important sign of this was Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society in September of ‘88. Then, despite the efforts of the United States to slow things down, or even stop them, there was irresistible pressure for an international climate treaty to be signed at the Rio Earth Summit (kind of a 20 year follow on to the Stockholm conference, but this time, held in the developing world, or third world, or whatever the politically correct term happens to be). 

And there were many books written about the conference, much ink spilled, many protests as there had been at Stockholm. Because guess what? World leaders in limousines with vacuous speeches are not particularly trusted by the rabble because the rabble have been paying attention.

Anyway the crucial insight is that George H W Bush, President of the United States had publicly and presumably privately, vehemently, said that if there were targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries in the text of the climate treaty, he would not sign it. And what’s more, he would not come to the Earth Summit at all

And the proponents of the targets and timetables decided it was better to have Bush at the table than not at all. And there’s an understandable logic to that decision, but what it’s meant is that we’ve spent the next 30 years trying to get targets and timetables for emissions reductions bedded in, and it hasn’t worked, and we’re doomed. 

What I think we can learn is this: That’s all you need to know, is that, thanks to a bunch of stupid white men with ideas above their intellect, we’re doomed. I mean, it’s broader than that, even if we’d taken better decisions in ‘88 to ‘92 the challenges we faced would still have overwhelmed us. I think we’ll never know. 

What happened next: See above. The emissions kept climbing and climbing

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays

June 14, 1993 – International Conference on the Economics of Climate Change – All Our Yesterdays

June 14, 2011 – climate change threat to Australia’s top wines – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United Nations

March 31, 2002 – UN Secretary General again

Four years ago, on this day, March 31st, 2022,


The United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, on 31 March 2022, established a High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities to develop stronger and clearer standards for net-zero emissions pledges by non-State entities – including businesses, investors, cities, and regions – and speed up their implementation. 

With the launch of the report “Integrity Matters: Net Zero commitments by Businesses, Financial Institutions, Cities and Regions” at the UN Climate Conference (COP27) in Sharm-el Sheikh, Egypt, the Group has successfully finalized its work and delivered on its mandate.

“We must have zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing,” said the Secretary-General at the launch event that took place on 8 November 2022. The report provides clarity in four key areas – environmental integrity, credibility, accountability, and the role of governments.   https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/high-level-expert-group#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20must%20have%20zero%20tolerance,and%20the%20role%20of%20governments.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 373ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the United Nations had been wanging on about the environment since sort of 1968-69. A previous Secretary General, U Thant, had even mentioned carbon dioxide build up as a problem in early 1969 and here we are, 33 years after that, and the Warnings Keep Coming. The Warnings Keep Coming.

The specific context   President George W Bush of the United States had pulled the US out of negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, which was the mechanism by which industrialised nations were supposed to commit to reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. So it was pretty obvious that the wheels on the bandwagon were, if not off, then wobbling on their axles and needed alignment.

What I think we can learn from this is that the UN is basically the League of Nations only. It’s gone on for a lot longer. 

What happened next. More Secretaries General, more shit fuckery from the United States under Obama and Biden and Trump. But of course, it’s not like the United States is the only villain here. We all are on a beautiful planet that we are basically destroying. And I look at the swans and the ducks and the moorhens, a moorhen giving itself a good bath here. And I. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the greed and stupidity and selfishness that is a significant part of our species.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

 March 31, 1973 – Protest in Piccadilly Circus

March 31, 1998 – another report about #climate and business in the UK

March 31, 1998 – two business-friendly climate events in UK and Australia

March 31, 2007 – Earth Hour (the most putrid kind of virtue signalling)

Categories
Nuclear Power United Nations

January 24, 1946 – UN resolution on Atomic Energy

Eighty years ago, on this day, January 24th, 1946,

The United Nations General Assembly passes its first resolution to establish the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 310ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that only one nation at that time had actual working nuclear weapons. Though, thanks to Russian scientists and Russian spies the Soviet Union would change that within a few years – “first we got the bomb, and that was good, because we love peace and motherhood.”

What I think we can learn from this  is that the roots of atomic energy are in all sorts of soil. 

And if you can’t face the horror of nuclear weapons, I suppose what you do is you gravitate towards the idea of “electricity too cheap to meter.” And atomic energy allows us to think of ourselves as  being incredibly ingenious, being masters of all we survey, cracking open the secrets of the universe. Blah blah.

Solar and wind are about vulnerability and about begging and taking what’s on offer… but I have digressed. 

What happened next

Commercial nuclear reactors, Windscale, various Soviet disasters, Three Mile Island, battles between nuclear and coal over who would have the power to power houses. And interestingly, by the mid late 1960s nuclear advocates were pointing to carbon dioxide emissions as an argument for rapid massive expansion of nuclear power.

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: 

January 24, 1967 – Senior British scientist says “by no means can (C02) report be dismissed as science fiction”…

January 24, 1984 – Canadian TV documentary and discussion about #climate 

January 24, 2017 – Climate activist is court in the act

Categories
International processes United Nations

December 21, 1990 – UNGA creates “INC”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1990, the United Nations General Assembly, via Resolution 45/212, creates the “International Negotiating Committee”, to negotiate a global climate treaty (what became the UNFCCC).

UNGA Resolution No. 45/212 (Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind) | ADB’s Law and Policy Reform Program

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the United Nations General Assembly had been here before. In 1968 it had said yes to a conference, to be held in 1972. That had given the world (checks notes…) the United Nations Environment Program.

The specific context was that despite the best efforts of the US (and the UK), negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed at the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio were gonna begin. The second world climate conference had just happened in Geneva and now the “International Negotiating Committee” was going to be a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – if enough pressure builds, new organisations/institutions are formed (That is not to say they endure, or are worth a bucket of warm spit, necessarily).

What happened next? The INC met five times from early 1991 to early 1992 – many sticking points (i.e. obstacles thrown up by the US and the oil producing states). George HW Bush repeatedly, and credibly, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the treaty text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions. And eventually, the French blinked and the targets and timetables were taken out.

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: 

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Italy United Nations

October 2, 1961- UNESCO conference on “climatic variations” begins

Sixty four years ago, on this day, October 2nd, 1961,

beginning of UNESCO conference – “Rome (October 2-7 1961), arranged by UNESCO and the World Meteorological Organization, to restrict the interest to climatic variations which have occurred since the latest glaciation, with particular attention to the period of the meteorological record. The reason behind this decision was no doubt the wish to talk about something which might conceivably have relevance to the nature and trends of the arid lands of to-day–relevance on the scale of economic planning, say, for a hundred years. (Sutcliffe, Nature No. 4808 December 23, 1139-40.”

And there was discussion of carbon dioxide build-up, as per this published in the Derry Standard.

“These warm years, with their economic implications, have led to a number of theories, notably one that man is changing the weather by burning fossil fuels and releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately for the theoreticians, this rising temperature curve levelled off around 1940 and has now dipped.”

Behrman, D. 1961. Science Notes. The Derry Standard, November 21, p7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 317ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the International Geophysical year had got everyone thinking about the planet (its purpose) and what humans might be doing/might be able to do (make the deserts bloom etc). There had even been a UN resolution on weather modification and space.

The specific context was that some were beginning to talk about Carbon Dioxide – there had been the New York Academy of Science meeting in January 1961. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we used to believe we could make a better world…

What happened next – Ritchie-Calder got more and more interested in carbon dioxide. He tried to alert people in 1963, and then seems to have put it on the backburner for a few years, before launching a second campaign in 1968…

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: 

 October 2, 1927/64 – Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar die.

October 2, 1942 – Spaceflight!!

October 2, 1994 – twenty years of boredom, for trying to change the system from within (Phillip Toyne becomes civil servant) 

October 2, 2014 – Low emission technologies on their way, says Minerals Council of Australia

Categories
Ozone United Nations

September 16, 1994 – International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer

Thirty one years ago, on this day, September 16th, 1994,

Sept 16, 1994 – Montreal Protocol – To commemorate the signing of the Montreal Protocol on September 16, 1994, the United Nations General Assembly declared September 16 as International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. Since then every year September 16 has been dedicated to the importance of preserving the protective ozone layer.

The ozone layer is a naturally occurring high concentration of ozone chemicals between 15 and 30 kilometers above the Earth’s surface (stratosphere). It covers the entire planet. By absorbing the sun’s harmful ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, it forms an effective shield from the sun, protecting living organisms on earth from excessive UV-B radiation, which is found to cause cancer, cataracts, genetic damage and immune system suppression.

https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/green-business/emas/international-day-preservation-ozone-layer_en

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was there had been concerns about CFCs and their impact on ozone since the early 1970s. Things moved along sharply after the “hole” was discovered in the mid-1980s.  

The specific context was that the first COP was coming up, and I guess everyone hoped the same magic would rub off. But there were a few companies that made CFCs, and these companies were able to switch to similar other products, and get paid handsomely to do so. With carbon dioxide, it’s a little bit more complicated. 

What I think we can learn from this: A false analogy with a hopey-changey hook can blind you to what the actual challenge is.

What happened next  The ozone is recovering, says the UNEP. The carbon dioxide build up? Yeah, let’s talk about something else.

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: 

September 16, 1969 – Aussies warned about carbon dioxide build-up by top scientist – All Our Yesterdays

September 16, 1969 – Nobel-prize winning Australian scientist warns about carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1969

September 16, 2015 – Turns out big companies are ‘climate hypocrites’?

Categories
Renewable energy United Nations

September 12, 2023 – Gone with the wind

Two years ago, on this day, September 12th, 2023,

“No bids were received by offshore wind developers due to what companies said were unrealistically low prices.

Afterwards, wind farm manufacturers said they held positive discussions with Claire Coutinho, the new Energy Security Secretary, but were left bewildered days later by a meeting with Graham Stuart, the Net Zero Minister, who appeared to play down the auction results.

His comments during a meeting on Tuesday [12 September 2023] left some attendees unsure whether the Government was committed to addressing the issues in next year’s auction, multiple sources said. 

Oliver, M. 2023. “Industry on hold after auction flop spooks developers. Sunday Telegraph, September 17”

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QLlam1rJWJ76VZ66kfh81SwlRhxeZwnO8BuxaJj7CxA/edit?usp=sharing

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 376ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that offshore wind was the accidental success story of UK renewable energy policy.  There was a de facto ban on on-shore wind, thanks to the government of David “cut the green crap” Cameron, so offshore began to look attractive….

The specific context was that by this time two years ago (god it feels like forever) the Sunak government had decided that pissing on the environment might be a vote winner.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are stumbling into some very nasty situations. With our eyes open. Oh well.

What happened next

There’s another auction – with results due in December or so (everything’s delayed at present).

UK to Launch Seventh CfD Auction in August, Offshore Wind Has Its Own AR7 Timeline | Offshore Wind

Here’s Reform’s Richard Tice on the latest auction

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: 

September 12, 1958 – Letter in The Times about … carbon dioxide build-up

September 12, 1994 – Greenpeace lays into Keating government over climate failure – All Our Yesterdays

 September 12, 2003 – Newcastle Herald thinks the future of coal looks ‘cleaner’…

Categories
Australia Denmark UNFCCC United Nations

March 26, 2010 – How many Aussie Government types were at Nopenhagen? Lots!

Fifteen years ago, on this day, March 26th, 2010, the Labor government was forced to give details of the size of the (large) Australian delegation to COP-15 in Copenhagen. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 390ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that  Copenhagen hadn’t just been Kevin Rudd tearing up  the speech that had been written for him, rewriting it and delivering it to a total lack of applause. No, Copenhagen had been 70 or 75 officials and experts and so forth, all flying halfway around the world to save the world. And the Liberals were wanting to punch the bruise, and so requested the information in order to have the ammo that to run a one day wonder, “waste of money, pointy headed bureaucrats with their snouts in the trough style” article. And so it came to pass.

What I think we can learn from this

that any international negotiation is going to involve sherpas at the summit and all sorts of other malarkey. And for those who are opposed to the agenda of whatever the summit is, it’s a very easy writes-itself kind of critique. And that’s what happened. 

What happened next

A couple months after this Rudd was gone. The climate issue, however, was not…

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 26, 1979 – Exxon meets a climate scientist

March 26, 1993 – UK government to ratify climate treaty

March 26, 2007 – Lavoisier Group lay into CCS

Categories
United Nations Weather modification

December 20, 1961 – UNGA resolution on outer space and weather modification

Sixty three years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1961 the United Nations General Assembly agreed the following

The General Assembly,

Noting with gratification the marked progress for meteorological science and technology opened up by the advances in outer space,

Convinced of the world-wide benefits to be derived from international co-operation in weather research and analysis,

1. Recommends to all Member States and to the World Meteorological Organization and other appropriate specialized agencies the early and comprehensive study, in the light of developments in outer space, of measures;

(a) To advance the state of atmospheric science and technology so as to provide greater knowledge of basic physical forces affecting climate and the possibility of large-scale weather modification;

(b) To develop existing weather forecasting capabilities and to help Member States make effective use of such capabilities through regional meteorological centres;

1961 UN GA resolution abt outer space and also weather modification (see Zilman 2009)

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/resolutions/res_16_1721.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 318ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Soviet Union and the Americans had been hurling lumps of metal and even living objects such as chimpanzees and cosmonauts into space. And it was clear that both sides were interested in the military applications. The United Nations General Assembly, therefore passed this resolution that was partly about space and also partly about the weather and climate, giving the WMO a bigger remit to investigate – well, you saw what it said.

What we learn is that questions around weather modification – inadvertent and intentional – go back a very loooong way; 63 years in this case.

What happened next. The World Meteorological Organisation got going with GARP – the Global Atmospheric Research Programme. And by 1965-66 people were beginning to look at carbon dioxide and say “you know, we may actually have a problem “

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: 

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989, UK Prime Minister Thatcher speech to UN General Assembly

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 14 months previously, Margaret Thatcher had stunned everyone by making a speech about global warming to a gathering of the Royal Society in Oxford. And this had really moved the conversation on “the greenhouse effec”t and what to be about it onto a much higher level. But she’d actually committed the UK to very little despite her special one day Cabinet meeting about the greenhouse effect April 1989. And here, we have her making nice flowery speeches at the UNGA. 

What we learn is that she was a consummate politician. 

What happened next, a couple of days later, environmental analyst Tom Burke pointed out that there was “a hole in the policy layer”(which is quite a fun title, but you have to put it in the context of the ozone). And he pointed out that the UNGA speech had half an hour of flowery rhetoric, but nothing concrete, nothing specific. And so it came to pass that nothing specific or concrete was done. 

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: 

November 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard