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..
Thirteen years ago, on this day, May 20, 2010, a bunch of scientists had to waste more of their time answering questions about the theft of emails from a computer server.
2010 The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.
On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” featured prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing explored scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.
WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena
WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC
OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey
WITNESSES:
Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council
Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego
Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University
Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 393.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 420 ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that shortly before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, somebody broke into the University of East Anglia servers, downloaded an enormous tranche of communications between various scientists, and then released these as the so-called Climate gate emails, trying to insinuate that there was some scandal. There had been significant fallout. And these hearings were politicians trying to show that they were concerned and figuring out what hadn’t hadn’t happened. By then, though, and this is the beauty of a smear, the work is actually done. A lie can be halfway around the world, but for the truth has got its boots on.
What I think we can learn from this
Smearing climate scientists is easy. Nobody is able to live their life without making slips that can be magnified, exaggerated truths distorted, etc.
What happened next? The climategate emails still get trotted out by denialists as proof of the malfeasance of climate scientists and the “corruption” of the science.
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.
Forty nine years ago, on this day, April 15, 1974, war criminal, sorry “Secretary of State” Henry Kissinger gave a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. It used a security frame around climate change (which at that stage was not ascribed just (or even at all) to carbon dioxide build-up – plain old dust was also seen as a culprit).
Kissinger Speech at 1974, the sixth special session of the General Assembly (which called on WMO to undertake a study of climate change). “The poorest nations, already beset by man-made disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes in the monsoon belt and perhaps throughout the world.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The US had been trying to use environmental concerns as a way of distracting from or re-dressing (but not redressing) concerns about its military activities (a euphemism for napalming babies). So, Nixon had tried to get NATO to look at environmental problems – see Hamblin’s book “Arming Mother Nature.”.
And here we still were, with Nixon mired in the Watergate scandal that would force his resignation within months, with Kissinger trying a different angle.
What I think we can learn from this
“Climate change” was, is and will be a political football. That does not mean it is not real and very deadly.
What happened next
One amusing outcome was that Kissinger’s speech was used as ammunition by Nugget Coombs, Australian civil servant (retired by this stage) to get the Whitlam Government to request the Australian Academy of Science to look into the issue. The AAS did this – holding a conference of experts, including Hermann Flohn.
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, March 30, 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment findings publicly launched at press conferences and seminars in London, Tokyo, Beijing, Delhi, Cairo, Paris, Nairobi, Washington DC, Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Stockholm, Rome and Lisbon.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that biodiversity is often the poor cousin, the Cinderella, compared to climate. A cynic would argue that who really cares about charismatic megafauna and non charismatic megafauna. We can just eat Soylent Green, whereas if the climate goes chaotic, then it might affect rich people.
What I think we can learn from this
We need to remember that there is a shifting baseline. We need to remember that we keep making these promises about changing our ways that mysteriously we never quite do
What happened next
The sixth great extinction has continued, accelerated. My money is on it continuing to accelerate.
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
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
Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 20, 1987, the report that popularised “sustainable development” was launched.
“Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of the Stockholm Conference which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere. Our Common Future placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone had been wringing their hands about the “North-South” divide in the 1970s. The New International Economic Order did not materialise. Then in 1980, Willy Brandt, north south report had been produced to little apparent effect. And I don’t know a cynic might argue that the Brundtland process was set up by well-meaning technocrats in the North, under pressure from people in the South who genuinely wanted a different world, give them opportunities to hold hands and sing Kumbaya and talk about how much change was needed. The question of how this cat would be belled, less evident.
Through the Brundtland process, which culminated in the release of Our Common Future, there had of course been talk about climate, including in a meeting in Norway in 1985, which we will come back to.
What I think we can learn from this
We need to remember that the dreams of redemption and sustainability of sustainable development as Brundtland put it, have been around forever. It’s now called Net Zero. When Net Zero dies it’ll be called something else. And it’s interesting that net zero isn’t even about justice. It’s about technocracy. But that’s for another day.
What happened next
The big meeting that was scheduled to talk about the Brundtland report and its implications in 1992 kind of got dominated by the climate treaty negotiations. (Climate change burst onto the agenda, the public agenda in 1988. And then despite the best efforts of the Americans, by 1991 negotiations for a climate treaty, we’re underway.)
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..
Thirty one years ago, on this day, March 6, 1992, US Public Radio had a segment with polar opposite views on its environment segment with Fred Singer (denialist idiot) and Anil Agarwal, of the Center for Science and the Environment, in New Delhi [link]. Agrawal made the point that while the West was talking about its luxury emissions, the mere survival emissions of poor people were being ignored, or worse, thrown into the mix as something that must be reduced. Oh how times have changed…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that negotiations for the text of a climate treaty were entering the end game, centred on US intransigence on the question of targets and timetables versus the desire of the Europeans to have a stronger treaty.
Singer had just orchestrated an open letter (see Feb 27 1992)
And National Public Radio was trying to educate people about all aspects of the debate, the science, the policy, etc. Agrawal made the point that there are such things as necessity, “survival emissions” versus “luxury emissions”, and that countries like India should have capacity to increase their emissions. Singer was just spewing the usual shite.
What I think we can learn from this
We should remember that what we now see, as a matter of fact, text of a climate treaty has been, from the beginning, intensely fought over. And the battles that were won by the evil bastards in 1992 have made it much easier for the opponents of climate action to continue to win, though they have never, to my knowledge, rested on their laurels, or taken their ongoing victory for granted.
What happened next
The French and Europeans blinked. There were no targets and timetables in the treaty. And here we are 31 years later.
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...
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.”
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The United Nations was still regarded as a serious player, and “development” for the newly decolonized countries was a hot topic, whereas climate change caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide was most explicitly not. This was due to relatively easy to understand reasons – the idea of heating the world because of industrial gases was new (if you don’t count Arrhenius and Callendar), we just didn’t have good enough measurements. Meanwhile, cold winters were still very much a thing (and the cooling effect of dust and sulphur very much in play.)
What I think we can learn from this
We endlessly talk about what the world needs to be doing, but it takes longer than you think. We end up doing something different, usually less than we originally wanted.
What happened next
The attempt to “develop” has industrialised the world, but largely in the interests of the super-rich and the rich, (which probably includes you and definitely includes me, looking at things globally).
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, January 14, 2010 various investors met for the fourth meeting sponsored by the usual suspects, at the United Nations HQ in New York.
The Summit brought together more than 520 financial, corporate, and investor leaders with more than $22 trillion in combined assets. Speakers from the investment community, business, labor, and government highlighted the fact that private investment in climate change solutions is crucial for addressing the climate crisis and will not happen at the necessary scale without strong climate and energy policies that limit emissions and put a price on carbon.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was – a “Bali Roadmap” had been agreed for negotiations to culminate in a post-Kyoto Protocol deal at the December 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen. This meeting of investors will have been put in everyone’s diary months earlier, in anticipation of sunny uplands and money-making opportunities. In the event, Copenhagen ended in farce, and so the mood was probably quite downbeat. So it goes.
What I think we can learn from this
The investors won’t save us. They will talk among themselves and cling on to the trappings of power, influence, intelligence, but none of it amounts to a bucket of warm spit. They have to delude themselves, but we don’t have to fall for the same delusions…
What happened next
They kept holding conferences. New buzzwords are invented, tossed around, age out, and are replaced by new buzzwords… Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
