Category: United States of America

Categories
United States of America

May 11, 1988 – “Greenhouse Glasnost” USA and USSR to co-operate on climate

On this day in 1988

“a new form of scientific communication between the United States and the Soviet Union was officially initiated in simultaneous opening ceremonies in Moscow and Washington DC. In a one-year bilateral project entitled “The Greenhouse/Glasnost Teleconference”, approximately 25 Soviet and American Scientists will be linked by computer to study the implications of global climatic change.”

The United States-Soviet “Greenhouse/Glasnost” Teleconference Peter H. Gleick: Ambio, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1988), pp. 297-298

By 1988 the Cold War was “over” – the coming of Gorbachev in 1985, the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and so on had meant that the sabre-rattling and terror of the early 80s was slowly receding. The teleconference (for which initial discussions had begun in 1985) was I think supposed to mark new scientific co-operation (the Soviets had been on the ball with awareness of carbon dioxide build-up at pretty much the same time as the Americans, i.e. from the late 1950s).

Why this matters

Good to remember that before Thatcher’s Damascene conversion in September of that year, the climate issue was being pushed up the agenda by decent people

What happened next

The Soviet Union collapsed. The “West” went on a decade-long victory lap of idiotic triumphalism. And here we are, with the atmosphere getting properly full of co2, and the consequences closing in…

Categories
UNFCCC United States of America

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

On this day, May 8 1992, after more tense negotiations in New York, the Americans agreed to a text that would be signed down in Rio at the Earth Summit in June.

All through the “negotiations” had basically played chicken, threatening not to come to Rio if the treaty to be signed there included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries.

So, Michael Howard then the British Environment Minister had flown over to negotiate the surrender by the French/Europeans on the questions of targets and timetables. The text to be ceremoniously sighed would be a framework convention rather than one with any teeth. 

And you could argue that that actually is the end of the international “policy window”, in the middle of 1992. Yes, you have have the flim-flam and the theatre of Rio and you have various states ratifying, speeches but the end of anything substantive was May 8th, a day that would live in infamy if our species had two brain cells to rub together.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

May 7, 1966 – scientist warns public about carbon dioxide build-up…

On May 7 1966, Roger Revelle the noted American scientist had a story in the popular news magazine Saturday Review on carbon dioxide and the oceans.

In it Revelle wrote

“Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment which, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate. We must not forget, however, that even a relatively small rise in the average annual temperature of the atmosphere might be accompanied by other more serious changes, for example, shifts in the position or the width of belts of low rainfall.”

To be clear – he was not yet saying “watch out”, as others soon would be. Just before this quote he wrote

“In general, our attitude toward the changing content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is being brought about by our own actions should probably contain more curiosity than apprehension.”

Why this matters

We need to remember that people have been warning about the build-up of carbon dioxide for an extremely long time as a potential problem.

Revelle, we should say was one of the founders of the climate issue having written with Hans Seuss about the way in which the oceans might not be soaking up as much co2 as the dogma suggested, and having hired Charles David Keelng whom he found very irritating. (see, Joshua Weiner’s book) 

What happened next 

Revelle kept researching and writing. Other people kept researching and writing. The climate issues slowly, painfully, worked its way up the policy agenda, but didn’t really get down until 1988.

Categories
Denial UNFCCC United States of America

May 6, 1997 – The so-called “Cooler Heads” coalition created

On this day, May 6 1997 25 years ago, the “Cooler Heads – see what they did there? – coalition” was announced, with such noted climate scientists, as Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg. The leader was… Myron Ebell, of Exxon…

Here’s a great summary on DeSmog Blog

The Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC) was formed on May 6, 1997, under the direction of the National Consumer Coalition—a project of the now-defunct Consumer Alert—“out of concern that the American people were not being informed about the economic impact of proposals to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The CHC is now backed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), as noted on CHC‘s “About” page which states that the website is “paid for and maintained by” CEI. [1], [18]

Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), was listed as the “group leader” when the the Cooler Heads Coalition was initially formed, and appears to maintain an important role. [18]

The context was that the Kyoto meeting at which emissions reductions for rich countries would be on the agenda – was coming. And CHC would, with an international membership, would enable opponents of it in the United States to point to some sort of international coalition of actors

By calling themselves the “Cooler Heads”, they are claiming the high intellectual ground and instantly mocking their opponents or framing their opponents as hotheads and alarmist – it’s a nicely chosen title. Some PR flak probably got a promotion for it.

Why this matters

We need to think in terms of a constant flux, push and counter push among actors, the actors who were trying to legitimise their own side and delegitimise their opponents, as we saw with the Unabomber thing the Heartland outfit did. This is a battle for hearts and minds and legitimacy.

What happened next

Lomborg kept publishing and having been members of these sorts of coalitions since. And the carbon dioxide continues to accumulate.

Categories
Denial Uncategorized United States of America

May 4th, 2012 – The Heartland Institute tries the Unabomber smear. It, er, blows up in their face…

On this day, May 4th in 2012, the far-right Heartland Institute displayed an entirely sane and rational billboard with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber pictured on it…

Classy, eh?

This met with howls of outrage and probably marks the beginning of the end or the middle of the end for the Heartland Institute as a useful-to-the-right player. Big donors to it fled….

Why this matters

What happens time and again is these right wing flak/flank organisations get overconfident, believe their own publicity get captured by the culture warriors and overplay their hand have to be disowned by the less-swivel-eyed but equally (more) ecocidal outfits.

Then the constituent parts of the machine are broken down and reconstituted. You saw it with the Global Climate Coalition by about 1996 (with their attacks on Ben Santer) – they were becoming a reputational risk for some of the more mainstream and cautious members. You see it with the Tasman Institute in Australia, and other outfits. Culture warrior-dom contains the seeds of its own destruction, to get all dialectical?

What happened next?

Kaczynski is still in jail, will die there.

The Heartland Institute is still around, heckling the Pope and spamming science teachers.

Categories
Australia United States of America

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

On this day, May 3 1990, different things happened around the world that are worth remembering.

First, in Washington DC a whole bunch of legislators had got together and announced that there should be a global Marshall Plan for Climate and Environment blah, blah, blah. It finished on the 2nd, so I am cheating (but already had two posts yesterday, so sue me.) It was reported on the 3rd in the New York Times.

The usual well-meaning words sincerely meant as well, but not connected to a set of social forces that could make it so.

Meanwhile, in Australia, probably more or less the same time, The Primary Industries Minister John Kerin, was telling the Australian Mining Industry Council Annual General Meeting annual that there was a good chance of a of a referendum allowing the federal to Commonwealth Government to gain powers over environmental issues from the States. This would have scared the bejesus out of The AMIC people.

Seccombe, M. 1990. Chance for green referendum, says Kerin. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May. CANBERRA: Public support for Federal Government power to make national environment laws had grown to the point where a referendum could now succeed, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, said yesterday. Mr Kerin raised again the need for the Commonwealth to wrest power from the States – first broached by the then-Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, last year – at the annual seminar of the Australian Mining Industry Council in Canberra.

It was not to be Australia remains a quarry with the state attached.

What happens next?

Well, the global Marshall Plan idea got filed in the circular file. Noise towards a referendum got quietened down, and the whole issue of climate got kicked into the “ecologically sustainable development process” long grass. And AMIC a couple of years later became so toxic that it had to change its leader and rebrand but not until it had helped in defeating another carbon tax proposal…

Categories
United States of America

May 1, 1996 – US Congressman says climate research money is “money down a rat hole”

Okay, on May 1 1996, US California and Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher complained that money spent on climate research was money “down a rat hole.” )Gelbspan 1998 page 76-7) The context was that the Republicans at this time had become significantly sensitised to climate as a “wedge” issue, and were aware that it was a stick they could beat the Democrats with (having defeated the BTU tax a couple of years earlier, and with a Presidential election in the offing.

They had started attacking the IPCC, which was in the process of doing its Fourth Assessment report, second assessment report. And they knew that Clinton’s administration had agreed to the Berlin mandate that was going to mean that in a couple of years time, the US government was going to be proposing some emissions reductions, perhaps over and above what Gore had already suggested.

There is an underlying antipathy, of course, to impact their to impact science – which is science that tells you the consequences of your extraction – and produ. ction science. And, of course, if they can resist money being spent on impact science, they can say that there isn’t enough evidence to do policy to fix a problem because they’re not sure that it exists, so it’s a win-win for them. They also get to harass and demoralise scientists, which they regard as a fun pastime.

Why this matters

The people who made it harder for the species’ to see its mess have faces and names. To the Hague with them.

What happened next

In early 1997 the US Senate voted 95-0 to say “to hell with any climate treaty that doesn’t force China etc to cut its emissions.”

References

Gelbspan, R. (1998) The Heat is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription. Basic Books;

Categories
Ignored Warnings Science United States of America

April 30, 1985 – New York Times reports C02 not the only greenhouse problem

On this day, the 30th of April 1985, The New York Times reported that “Rare Gases May Speed The Warming of the Earth: Rare Gases May Be Speeding Earth’s Warming”

The reporter, James Gleick, opened his story thus

“Tiny quantities of more than 30 rare gases threaten to warm the earth’s atmosphere even more rapidly over the next 50 years than carbon dioxide will, according to a study by a team of atmospheric scientists.

“Their findings reinforce a growing conviction among scientists that the trace gases, many of them industrial byproducts, are playing a leading role in the “greenhouse effect,” the warming of the earth as less and less heat is able to escape the atmosphere.”

This research was then presented at Villach in October of 1985, and helped convince people that climate change wasn’t anthropogenic global warming was not a threat for the relatively distant future, but something that would need a policy response right now. So even before Villach1985 there was a sense that shit was getting real.

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that our problem is not that senior politicians don’t understand the problem. Our problem is that we are unable to keep the problem at the front of their attention and to turn it into a set of policy proposals that are then implemented. 

What happened next?

Well Villach meeting happened WMO. UNDP ICSU. They tried to get the ball rolling that were successful. You got an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And since 1990, we have burned more carbon dioxide, released into the atmosphere, then all of human history to that date, which tells you how successful these international agreements have been.

Categories
Science United States of America

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

On this day, the 29th of April in 1970 a symposium was held in Washington DC on “Aids and Threats from Technology.” One of the topics of conversation was, well “Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change”

PDF here.

The newly minted Council on Environmental Quality would use this (and other research) to include a chapter about climate change in its first report, published a few months later.

Why this matters?

We knew enough to be worried, and to make a SERIOUS effort at research, throwing money and scientists at the problem.

What happened next

The scientists did the best they could. By the end of the decade, we definitely knew enough. Then Reagan and his cronies came and cost us the thick end of a decade. And then, well, the rest is history.

Categories
Denial International processes Kyoto Protocol United States of America

April 26, 1998 – New York Times front page expose on anti-climate action by industry

On April 26 1998 the New York Times ran a front page story. It began thus.

Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science.

Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry‘s views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun’s heat near Earth.

An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together.

Cushman, J. 1998. Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty. New York Times, 26 April, p.1

The context is that the US had signed the Kyoto Protocol (this in itself was a meaningless gesture – it only had force if ratified, and the Clinton administration had no intention of trying to get it through the Senate, especially given the previous year’s Byrd-Hagel resolution, which had insisted the US should not sign any treaty that didn’t put emissions constraints on developing countries (looking at you, China). This was of course exactly the opposite of what they’d signed off on in 1992 (Rio) and 1995 (Berlin Mandate) but hey, consistency and hobgoblins, amirite?

On one level, this was hardly “news” – anyone who had been paying any attention at all from 1989 onwards; the George Marshall Foundation got going on climate, and then the Global Climate Coalition and the “Information Clearinghouse on the Environment” (1991) and the attacks on IPCC second assessment report by various well-connected loons, and THEN the attacks on Kyoto in the run up to the meeting in 1997.

See for example Cushman’s report on 7th December 1997, during the Kyoto meeting – “Intense Lobbying Against Global Warming Treaty: U.S. Negotiators Brief Industry Groups and Environmentalists Separately in Kyoto”

Why this matters

A part of the reason (not the most important part necessarily, and not the part we can do that much about) “we” have done so little on climate change is because of staggeringly successful campaigns of predatory delay.

See also – Ben Franta’s work on the American Petroleum Institute.