Category: United Nations

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations United States of America

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 18th, 1970, UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson was trying to get some kudos for wrapping himself in the issue of the day…,

In April 1970, Wilson gave a speech to the United Nations Association in York, in which he espoused the virtues of international cooperation on the environment: 

We need a new charter of international rights – and obligations. This is how it might read. All States have a common interest in the beneficial management of the natural resources of the Earth. All States should cooperate in the prevention or control of physical changes in the environment which may jeopardise the quality of human life, and which may endanger the health or the survival of animals or plants.102

102 TNA: FCO 55/429, Prime Minister’s Address to Annual General Meeting of the United Nations Association in York, 18 April 1970

(Sims, 2016: 212)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Harold Wilson had been talking about environmental issues since September of the previous year, at the Labour Party Conference, in  a period of competitive consensus. In January he gave a speech up in New York about a new special relationship on pollution. The Conservatives were yapping at his heels. Wilson in his head was probably thinking about the next election. And the green issue was an important one for voters. This is long before the Ecology party, which later became the Green Party. 

What we learn is that there was a period of alarm and competitive consensus in the late 60s early 70s. And compare and contrast that with what happened in the periods of 2006 to 2008. And the coupled lack of ambition in 2023-4. We’re so doomed.

What happened next? Well, a month later, the first ever Environment White Paper was released. It mentioned carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue. Wilson then went on to lose the June 1970 election. He returned to office in 74 and stepped down in 76. 

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: 

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Categories
United Nations

March 13, 2010 – first UNEP Emissions Gap report

Fourteen years ago, on this day, March 13, 2010 – The first “emissions gap” report was released by the United Nations Environment Program.

These annual emissions gap report started out answering the question “are the Copenhagen accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2c or 1.5c”

(Spoiler – “No.” What are you, on glue or something?)

13 March 2010 https://www.unep.org/resources/report/emissions-gap-report-are-copenhagen-accord-pledges-sufficient-limit-global-warming

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.3ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been supposed to be doing a victory lap about now. With the triumphant Copenhagen Deal to replace the Kyoto deal with increased ambition, on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology transfer. That had not happened. Presumably the United Nations Emissions Gap report had been conceived and researched and planned before the Copenhagen failure; they don’t tend to whip this stuff out in a little over three months, takes more time.

What we learn is that there can be an, er, “gap” between what you think your documents can be and what they end up being, thanks to the environment they are ultimately released into. As the saying goes – how do you make the gods laugh? Tell them your plants. 

What happened next? UNEP, which was set up in the aftermath of 1972 Stockholm conference has released an Emissions Gap report every year since then, In 2017, for the first time, carbon dioxide removals were included. The gap, by the way, just keeps getting bigger and bigger and will because the emissions are climbing. We’re all gonna die. And we’re going to take a hell of a lot of other species down with us.  

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
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
United Nations

October 14, 1977 – a UNESCO education conference mentions climate change…

Forty six years ago, on this day, October 14, 1977, the head of the United Nations Environment Program mentions climate at an UNESCO conference on environmental education.

Tolba at Tblisi UNESCO conference on environmental education 14 Oct 1977 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000032763

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 333.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the United Nations Environment Program, although small and weak compared to other UN bodies, still had some weight. One of its sticks was environmental education. Mostafa Tolba here was well aware of the climate problem and was helping Bert Bolin stitch together the kind of international cooperation and collaboration that you need for an international problem.

What I think we can learn from this is that in the 1970s people were banging on about climate change in the context of Environmental education. 

[insert screen grab of 1983 thesis abstract that you sent Jenna Ashton]

What happened next

Here we are 40 years later and environmental education is still not on the agenda. I think part of this is if you did teach children about the fragility of the planet and and how to do systems thinking then it would be harder to keep them in line as obedient production and consumption units 

see also Noam Chomsky quote on the Kyoto Protocol and what they teach you at university highly educated people is to conform and consume. 

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

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
Energy United Nations

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference.

Sixty two years ago, on this day, August 21, 1961, a United Nations conference on new sources of energy began.

21-31 August 1961 UN conference on new sources of energy (see Ritchie-Calder, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec 1961) 

Also his comments on 1975 30 August Science show. (interviewed by Robyn Williams)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 331ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that new sources of energy especially for countries without their own supplies of oil, coal and gas were going to be needed if the world were going to “develop”. There was also the point that fossil fuel supplies were not going to last forever. Climate change was not an issue, at least not one that was publicly discussed and I doubt it got much traction anywhere, because the science was simply not mature enough or well enough known.

What I think we can learn from this is that questions about energy justice have been around for a very long time and we never quite manage to crack it, really.

What happened next, by 1968 environmental problems were obvious enough that Sweden was successful in getting the UN to agree to hold a conference. And one of the topics was what we now call “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.

References

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3833582?ln=en

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.

Categories
Sweden United Nations

May 29, 1968 – UN body says “let’s have a conference, maybe?”- 

Fifty five years ago, on this day, May 29, 1968, the United Nations said “let’s talk” about a Swedish proposal to have a conference.

On 29 May 1968, the Economic and Social Council decided to place the question of convening an international conference on the problems of the human environment on the agenda for its mid-1968 session. It did so on the proposal of Sweden

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in December of 1967 the Swedes had put forward this as an idea. 

What I think we can learn from this

The wheels grind slowly. And you need to have some people who really know how to navigate the system, which the Swedes had.

This “matters” because climate change gets on the agenda here. Atmospheric global global atmospheric pollution levels are starting to be talked of as something that is going to require international cooperation. By now. Westphalian state is going to be a West failure. If you’ll pardon my terrible pun. 

What happened next

Sure enough, in June of 1972, the Stockholm conference happened. And it was not as much a success as it needed to be. But at least we got the United Nations Environment Programme for what that’s worth. 

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.