Categories
Europe

December 16, 1991 – European Energy Charter becomes a Thing.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1991 the European Energy Charter became The Law,

1991 16-17 European Energy Charter https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Legal/1991_European_Energy_Charter.pdf

The Energy Charter Treaty has been criticized for being a significant obstacle to enacting national policies to combat climate change, and for actively disincentivizing national governments from compliance with recent international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement due to the threat of significant financial loss.

As of 2023, numerous countries have either left or have announced plans to leave the ECT. The European Union and Euratom took the final and formal step of exiting the Energy Charter Treaty, which will take effect one year after the depository has received the notification.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that energy companies were eyeing up a very bright future. Lots of state-owned infrastructure was being sold off. And so there was money to be made. Yes, there was the minor irritation of the greenhouse issue. But the European Energy Charter was at hand. I don’t know who agreed it, whose idea it was, what problem that was trying to solve. What alternatives there were, what battles were fought, I need to find out, this is a research project. 

What we learn is that debates over how to regulate energy have an extremely long history. I’m not talking 30 years, I’m talking 100 and whatever. 

What happened next, well, the Energy Charter shunted along and then, in the early 2020s, the movement grew for it to be abolished. For reasons X, Y, and Zed. And the leading lights in this campaign were x, y, and Zed. And in 2024 the UK pulled out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Charter_Treaty

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: 

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Categories
International processes UNFCCC

December 15, 2007 – Bali COP closes with “Road Map to Copenhagen”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 15th, 2007 Bali COP closed with “Road Map to Copenhagen”… We were finally going to take it Seriously and come up with an all-singing, all-dancing successor to Kyoto, only better. Oh yes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been dealt severe blows in 2001 when newly-selected President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, or rather the people pulling the strings on the meat puppet called George W. Bush had him pull out. The following year, Australia pulled out, to no one’s surprise. And it looked like the whole idea of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC might just fall apart. It didn’t because the Russians ratified it as a quid pro quo for membership of the World Trade Organisation. And so in 2005 the Kyoto Protocol had become a thing. And then it became a question of what’s going to replace it? And there was back and forth and back and forth, as there always is. And then in 2007, everyone went to Bali, with the idea that they were going to produce a “Roadmap to Copenhagen”. And at Copenhagen, they would sign an all singing, all dancing, replacement, or extension, whatever you want to call it, of Kyoto. And so on this day in 2007, the Bali meeting ended with a fair amount of optimism. It was the same year after all, that the IPCC fourth assessment report had come out. Al Gore and the IPCC had won a Nobel Prize. It was a great time for Bert Bolin and William Kellogg to die (as they did), because, frankly, it looked like everything was going to be okay. Or at least manageable. 

What we learn is that the UNFCCC has been through these processes before. There’s been ups and downs and it’s all part of the soap opera. 

What happened next? Well, Copenhagen was a joke. And the pieces of crockery had to be glued back together again. They were and everyone went to Paris. And history repeats itself. We’ve been through tragedy and farce, I don’t really know where we are now.

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: 

December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

December 15, 2009 – Daily Express expresses its irresponsibly idiocy…

Categories
United Kingdom

December 14, 1995 – Monbiot nails it with “it’s happening” article

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, December 14th, 1995, George Monbiot wrote in Guardian “It’s Happening”

As memories of the scorching summer are soothed away by snow, the 600 water tankers trundling around Yorkshire have been all but forgotten.Yorkshire Water regards the situation as exceptional – the Met Office has told them that the drought was a once in 500-year event. The possibility that it might reflect a long-term trend, the company confesses, hasn’t even been raised.

The findings of the world’s foremost climate scientists, officially revealed at this week’s conference in Rome, expose a strange disjunction. We’ve all heard about global warming. Most of us are aware that the world has basked in nine of its ten warmest recorded years since the early 1980s, and everyone knows that our own summers have been exceptional. But these considerations don’t seem to connect in our heads. When two Englishmen meet, they talk about the weather, but somehow they seem to have missed the point.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now agrees that the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate. While they are properly hedged with cautions and uncertainties, its members’ data should be enough – poor thermal insulation notwithstanding – to throw us all into a muck sweat.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the first COP had taken place in Berlin in March/April of that year, and there had been an agreement that rich nations would turn up in a couple of years with proposed cuts to their own emissions, the so-called Berlin mandate. Meanwhile, and this was the hook for Monbiot’s piece, the IPCC had been launching its second Assessment Report and coming under fire from denialists like Jastrow and Singer and so on. They were targeting Ben Santer and so forth. And what Monbiot was doing was trying to say, “hey, we’re in trouble as a species.” 

What we learn is the dynamics of the problem were laid out 29 years ago and here we are having not succeeded in creating social movement organisations and social movements capable of staying in the game. And we’re doomed. So it goes. 

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

December 14, 1988 – Greenhouse Glasnost gets going…

December 14, 1992 – UK “releases “National programme on carbon dioxide emissions”

Categories
United Kingdom

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over”

Forty six years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1978, John Maddox (pictured – editor of Nature and very very much an opponent of the idea that carbon dioxide build up was something to worry about) presented a programme called One Degree Over on BBC Radio, with guests including famed Swedish scientists Bert Bolin.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 335ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the interdepartmental Panel on Climate Change was meeting and was going to really produce a report sometime soon. The World Meteorological Organisation was banging on the drum. The First World Climate Conference was due to take place in another two months, in February of 1979. And so, a radio programme about global warming was a good fit. The producer Michael Bright had already done stuff in the early 70s on “A Finite Earth?”, so was well-informed. 

What we learn is that the Meteorological Office’s John Mason was there being a dick, but Bert Bolin was also being interviewed. And ultimately, people were informed about what was at stake. 

What happened next. The new Thatcher government was uninterested in climate change. There was a discussion among Cabinet members about whether to even release the interdepartmental report. Thatcher used the climate issue to propose nuclear power at the G7 in June of ‘79. The interdepartmental report was finally released in February of 1980, to precisely no one’s interest or concern, except people like Crispin Tickell.

And the emissions kept climbing. 

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: 

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

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Australia

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 12th, 1990,

The Federal Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005 will be investigated by its main advisory body of micro-economic reform.

Treasurer Paul Keating announced on Wednesday[12th] he has referred the plan to the Industry Commission, which must report by September 30 next year.

The inquiry will cover “the costs and benefits for Australian industry of an international consensus in favour of a stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases and a reduction in those emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.”

It will also look at what new opportunities may arise for Australian industry as a result of the reduction, and how Australia could best prepare to respond to the costs and benefits of the plan.

Some scientists believe Australia could become a world leader in environmentally-friendly technology as a result of added research flowing from the government decision.

Anon,1990. Paul Keating refers greenhouse to Industry Commission. Green Week, December 18,p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of the quid pro quo for accepting the Interim Planning Target through Cabinet in October 1990, Keating had managed to extract permission to send the greenhouse issue to one of the pet neo-liberal outposts, the Industry Commission. 

What we learn is that if you want to get anything through a group, there’s always going to be compromises. Some of them consequential, some of them not. It can be hard to tell beforehand. 

What happened next. In September of 1991, the Industry Commission released its report, but basically gave loads of ammunition to the denialists and the delayers saying “nothing to see here shouldn’t take action cheaper not to do anything,” etc, etc. And this was another nail in the climate issue’s coffin. By this time, it was getting harder and harder to sustain interest. There was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process coming to an end, the backwash of the Gulf War, people preparing for Rio. 

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: 

December 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
United Kingdom

December 11, 1969 – Harold Wilson says “let’s have a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution”

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 11th, 1969,

On 11 December 1969, the British Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, announced in the House of Commons that the Queen had agreed to the appointment of a new, standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution….. In his statement, Wilson also announced the formation of a new Central Scientific Unit on Pollution, intended to coordinate action within government;3 the role of the Unit was seen as distinct from that of the Royal Commission, with the latter providing ‘that outside focus of inquiry and information, and that outside stimulus to government’ for which a need was urgently felt.(Owens, 2012: 2)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was for the previous couple of years – especially since the Torrey Canyon in March of ‘67 – the issue of pollution of air, water, etc. was becoming more and more politically salient. In 1968, one of Wilson’s Secretaries of State had proposed a new department, In ‘69 Wilson had given a speech at the Labour Party conference. So no-one was surprised that he stood there in the House of Commons, and said that he was setting up a standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 

In the US the National Environmental Protection Act, pushed by Scoop Jackson, Democrat from Washington State, had been passed so not doing anything in the UK would have been standing still. 

What we learn is that by the late 60s, the issue of the environment had pushed its way to the near the top of the political agenda. 

What happened next. Wilson gave a speech proclaiming that he wanted a new special relationship based on care for the environment and then Wilson got it in the neck in Parliament and from the Conservative Christopher Chataway. Wilson also produced the first ever Environment White Paper was released the following May and it had a glancing mention of carbon dioxide buildup. The first RCEP report chaired by Eric Ashby had a slightly longer but still fundamentally glancing, mention of carbon dioxide buildup. That was published in 1971. 

The RCEP kept producing useful work. In the year 2000, its report Energy: The Changing Climate was crucial in changing the mood music among the British political elite, calling for a 60% reduction by 2050. And then, of course David Cameron, that vandal, abolished the RCEP as part of the bonfire of the quangos. All that expertise, all that credibility, because he didn’t want independent watchdogs, doing the proper joined-up thinking. Anyway, here we are. 

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: 

December 11, 1895 – Arrhenius reads his “Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air” paper to Swedish Academy of Science…

December 11, 1975 – German scientist gives stark climate warning in Melbourne

December 11, 1979 – conference on “Environmental Effects of utilising more coal” in London

Categories
Australia Denial

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1991,

10 December 1991 Professor Robert Balling “Global Warming: The Facts behind the Heat” Tasman Institute seminar.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

denialists douchebag, carefully might still be alive at a think tank that was explicitly created to combat greenhouse issues. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit was coming up in June of 1992. And therefore, the spreading of bullshit lies and doubt among concerned political elites. And of course, the Tasman Institute gives these people a place to congregate, and they can then exchange notes and feel like they matter.

What we learn is that it matters to create doubt and confusion among elites. And it takes money.

What happened next, the denial-spewing of the Tasman Institute was important during the carbon tax battle of 1994-95, or noisy if not necessarily important; it was at least busy setting up rapid rebuttals of what was being proposed. The Tasman Institute was abandoned in 1997, because it was no longer needed, frankly.

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: 

December 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

December 9, 2004 – “Real Climate” hits the web, bless it.

Twenty years ago, on this day, December 9th, 2004, Real Climate is launched..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 378ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that denial of climate change and spurious science to back it up was still a major thing. And this was before social media, before it was very easy for scientists to explain what they were doing, how they were doing it, why they were doing it, and so forth. Real Climate was a real boon to a lot of people who wanted to keep up with what was going on, and to refute the latest denialist talking points.

What we learn is that good scientists have been willing to spend precious time explaining the facts and the theories and the observations and where the facts, theories and observations might not necessarily mesh. And this has, perhaps over time, reduced the confusion. in some people’s minds, maybe. Of course, the simple fact is that a lot of people are choosing not to understand, because if they did understand, it would be pretty bad for their egos and their worldviews. Ignorance is bliss. Alethophobia is a thing. 

What happened next Real Climate still going 20 years later. It’s a solid performance and a solid achievement. 

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: 

December 9, 1974 – UK Department of Energy launches “energy efficiency” programme

December 9, 1998 – Canberra bullshit about environment

Categories
Austria Energy

December 8, 1976 – IIASA holds a workshop on climate and solar energy conversion

Forty-eight years ago, on this day, December 8th, 1976,

IASA workshop on climate and solar energy conversion. Report released in 1977.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that IIASA was a new outfit and needed to get hold of some issues that nobody else was really talking about, and to play to its strengths across the Iron Curtain. Climate was a good choice. They ran with it.

This is also in the context of Kissinger making his speech to the United Nations General Assembly and National Academy of Sciences pushing their Energy and Climate report and so forth. And the meeting in the UEA Climatic Research Unit in 75 that had said “yeah, it’s gonna get warmer.” I mean serious people were not doubting this at this point.

What we learn is that smart people have been thinking about it for a long time.

What happened next? The issue could have broken through in the late 1970s, but it would actually be 1988 before things got real.

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: 

December 8, 1981 – Thames TV shows “Warming Warning” documentary

December 8, 2003 – Chief Scientific Advisor under microscope for Rio Tinto role

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage United States of America

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Thirteen years ago, on this day, December 7th, 2011, one of those technology advocacy network coalitions got going….

Environmental Organizations Announce CCS Network: Groups Support Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a Critical Climate Change Technology

(USA) December 7, 2011 – Today nine of the world’s leading environmental advocacy organizations launch the ENGO Network on CCS (Environmental NGO Network on Carbon Capture and Sequestration), formed to jointly pursue domestic and international policies and regulations enabling CCS to deliver on its emissions reduction potential safely and effectively. http://www.precaution.org/lib/catf_press_release_engo_ccs_network.111207.pdf [DEAD LINK]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that CCS was in trouble – FutureGen was not working, the Australian efforts were coming to naught, the UK first competition was flailing, the European Union stuff not going well. What to do? Click your heels more vigorously and double-down on your public protestations of faith…

What I think we can learn from this: To really understand why stuff gets launched, you have to know what was happening at the time.

What happened next. People are still proclaiming their faith in CCS.

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: 

December 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis