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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On this day, 11th May, in 1971 the UN Secretary General U Thant met a group of distinguished scientists who presented him with “A message to our 3.5 billion neighbours on planet earth” – a strong environmental statement raising concerns about environmental deterioration, resource depletion, hunger, and war – which together presented an unprecedented common danger to all of humanity.
During 1970 a small conference had been organised in Menton on the French Riviera. Probably the first “Environmental Conference” in Europe it involved a meeting between the organizer Alfred Hassler of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, Buddhist peace activists Thich Nhat Hanh and Sister Chan Khong, and six other distinguished scientists.
Chan Khong, remembering the event in 2016, said “We met to address the damage that was being done to the Earth through human misuse of technology, the penetration into food-chains of poisonous substances and the mounting exploitation of natural resources.”
Together, through their discussions, they crafted the an open letter. Known as “The Menton Message” or “The Menton Statement” this was widely circulated amongst biologists and environmental scientists. It rapidly attracted over over 2000 signatures, including four Nobel prizewinners and numerous very distinguished and respected scientists of the day.
The following year, on May 11th 1971, in New York a copy of the statement was presented to UN Secretary General U Thant by six of the authors. It was then published as the lead item in the UNESCO Journal “Courier” in the July 1971 issue and reached a wider audience within the UN organisation and beyond.
U Thant responded to the delegation:
“I believe that mankind is at last aware of the fact that there is a delicate equilibrium of physical and biological phenomena on and around the earth which cannot be thoughtlessly disturbed as we race along the road of technological development…
This global concern in the face of a grave common danger, which carries the seeds of extinction for the human species, may well prove to be the elusive force which can bind men together.
The battle for human survival can only be won by all nations joining together in a concerted drive to preserve life on this planet.”
Why it Matters
The Statement concludes with four urgent action points “not as panaceas, but as holding actions to keep our situation from deteriorating past the point of no return”
In summary they called for a moratorium on new technological developments, widespread application of existing pollution control technology, a decrease in consumption by privileged classes, and abolition and destruction of nuclear arsenals and chemical and biological weapons.
So right at the beginning of the modern environmental movement there was seen a strong linkage between ecological issues and peace and disarmament, together with a focus on social issues of equality and rights.
What Happened Next
The message, strongly endorsed by the scientific elite, played a key role in preparing the ground for the UN Summit on the Human Environment which took place in Stockholm the following year in June 1972.
The Stockholm summit lead to the creation of “Environment” ministries in many governments and the establishment of the UN Environmental Program. These lead to 50 years of talking about “the environment” and little real action to address the fundamental issues the scientists were raising.
The scientific community published ever more mountains of papers attracting ever more research funding to describe in increasing detail the complexity of the interlocking environmental problems.
The plain people of the world seeing all this activity assumed that “they” would solve the problems and merrily kept calm and carried on consuming.
Successive generations of environmental activists kept on marching and protesting at this and that and thus many became burnt-out and retired to cultivate their gardens.
Whilst “the environment” became the prime focus of “environmentalism”, the related issues identified in the Menton Message of the problems inherent in technological solutions, the need for peaceful coexistence rather than conflict, and the need for more equal distribution of of societal goods were somewhat sidelined.
Last year (2022) the UN held a Stockholm+50 Intergovernmental Conference hosted jointly by the Swedish and Kenyan Governments. The original Menton Message was updated and reissued as “A Letter to Fellow Citizens of Planet Earth”.
Which gets us to where we are today.
Rinse and Repeat.
(On a personal note U Thant was the only global leader who my teenage self through the 60s regarded as worth anything. Being a dedicated peace activist in a position of power, he was far from the normal self-serving politicians. It is interesting to consider whether the authors of Blueprint for Survival were aware of the Menton Message – it certainly seems likely.
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
