Category: United Nations

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
United Nations

March 20, 1987 – The “sustainable development” Brundtland Report was released

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.”

Wikipedia

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..

Categories
Denial India United Nations

March 6, 1992 – #survival emissions versus outright denial

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...

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.

Categories
United Nations

February 4, 1963 – A UN conference on technology for “less developed areas” starts

Sixty years ago, on this day, February 4 1963,  a UN conference on technology for less developed areas, starts in Geneva

“United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the Less Developed Areas”

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1485045?ln=en

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.

Categories
United Nations

January 14, 2010 – Investors hold UN summit on #climate risk

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.”

https://www.keywiki.org/2010_Investor_Summit_on_Climate_Risk

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.

Categories
International processes Sweden United Nations

December 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

On this day in 1967, Swedish diplomats proposed a big international conference on the (human) environment. It would happen, 4 and a half years later, in Stockholm…

“It was during this autumn of surging environmental awareness that three influential Swedes engaged with the United Nations—Inga Thorsson, Alva Myrdal and Sverker Åström—concluded that Sweden should pursue a UN conference on the human environment. To this end, a proposal was put forward at the [United Nations General Assembly] on December 13, 1967 by Börje Billner, Deputy Head of the Swedish UN Mission,”

Paglia, E. (2021) The Swedish initiative and the 1972 Stockholm Conference: the decisive role of science diplomacy in the emergence of global environmental governance. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:2 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00681-x

Billner’s statement included this

“The impact of the technological revolution that is taking place around us is felt by all peoples, irrespective of their present technological level. It has far-reaching effects on the environment of man. The human body and the human mind are subjected to serious and ever-increasing inconveniences and dangers. These are caused by air pollution, water pollution, sulfur fall-out waste, etc. – in short by all the secondary effects related to the process of industrialization and urbanization”

The context was this – everyone was starting to get freaked out about possible global (as opposed to ‘merely’ local environmental issues.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 322ppm (it’s now 418ish).

Why this matters

We’ve been talking about doing something for a very long time. It’s almost as if talking and knowledge isn’t the problem…

What happened next

The usual – a gabfest. It gave us UNEP, and also got the climate ball rolling…

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
Science Scientists United Nations

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.” 

On this day, October 23 in 1963, President John F Kennedy gave a speech about what we now might call production science and impact science https://era.org.au/capitalism-and-production-science-vs-impact-science/ – 

At an event commemorating the 100th anniversary of the country’s most esteemed scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, [Kennedy] also conveyed a warning about America’s responsibility to control the effects of scientific study: “For, as science investigates the natural environment, it also modifies it – and that modification may have incalculable consequences, for evil as well as for good. [S]cience today has the power for the first time in history to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical  environment on a global scale.” Kennedy chided the scientists, saying that every time they came up with a  major invention, politicians had to invent new institutions to cope with them.

(Hamblin, 2013: 147)

 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 315.99ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The previous year, Kennedy had read Silent Spring, and been through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both spoke to armageddon (slow and fast). The partial test ban treaty, banning atmospheric explosions of nuclear weapons had, two weeks earlier, become A Thing. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

Why this matters. 

Had Kennedy not gone to Dallas, maybe things would have been different? Or maybe not! Lunchtime counter-factuals, eh…

What happened next?

Kennedy went to Dallas.

Categories
United Nations United States of America

July 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

On this day, July 28 1970 “[Journalist Claire] Sterling began an article in the Washington Post with an air of crisis, reporting breathlessly prior to the Stockholm meeting:

“Scientists still aren’t sure how much carbon dioxide we can inject into the atmosphere before heating it up enough to melt the polar icecaps, how much smog can cut off the sun’s rays without bringing a new Ice Age upon us, how many germs per cubic centimetre of water we can swallow and live, how much better or worse off the human race would actually be for using or banning DDT.”

Sterling, C. 1970. The UN and World Pollution, Washington Post, Times Herald, 28 July

.

I found this quote on page 200 of a rather excellent book called “Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism” by Jacob Darwin Hamblin

Why this matters. 

Yes. 1970.

What happened next?

The 1972 Stockholm Conference did less than it might have for climate science, but the scientists kept going.

Sterling wrote a totally beserk book called “The Real Terror Network”, which influenced the senile Ronald Reagan and the professional paranoids around him –

As per Wikipedia

“The book was read and appreciated by Alexander Haig and William Casey, but its arguments were dismissed by the CIA’s Soviet analysts; Lincoln Gordon, one of three members of a senior review panel at the CIA charged, at Casey’s request, with bringing non-intelligence professional and academic review to the agency, discovered comparing CIA intelligence reports and the book that at least some of Sterling’s claims had come from stories that the CIA itself had planted in the Italian press.”