On this day, 6th June 1977, German climate scientist Hermann Flohn gave a talk entitled “Whither the Atmosphere and Earth’s Climates?” At the “Growth without Ecodisasters?” conference, aka “the Second International Conference on Environmental Future (2nd ICEF), held in Reykjavik, Iceland, 5-11 June 1977.”
Among other gems, this –
“There is no question that the impact of Man on the climatic system has now reached a level near to that of natural climatic fluctuations, and that we are on the fringe of anthropogenic climatic fluctuations on a global or at least a hemispheric scale.” “
And this
“The present situation in the field of climate modelling, and the multitude of (mostly non-linear) feedback mechanisms within the climatic system preclude an early solution to problems concerning the prediction of climatic variations, even if we accept the above-mentioned assumptions without further discussion. In addition to this, the growth-rates of energy consumption,. and of the C02 content of the atmosphere and likewise of other trace-gases, depend on many social and economic developments and on political decisions: they are also largely unpredictable.”
You can get hold of a copy of Flohn’s talk here.
Meanwhile, here’s something he had had published a couple of months prior.
On this day, 5 June, 1993, Green Groups tried to keep the show on the road, despite the evident contempt of Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating for all matters green (because, well, what else can they do?)
Anon. 1993. Top Green Group plans March for the Future. Green Week, May 25, p.3.
The Australian Conservation Foundation public launch of Environment Week at Darling Harbour will feature a March for the Future through city streets on June 5, World Environment Day.
And 18 years later in 2011, on the same day of the year,, Green Groups try to keep the show on the road, because, well, what else can they do. Already sold down the river by one Labor Prime Minister, they try to get behind another minimalist technocratic approach (because, well, what else can they do?)
For more about this, see this news report, from which I grabbed the image above..
Why this matters.
We’re caught in some traps, that are not entirely “our fault,” but we don’t even recognise them as traps. We just see them as normal, inevitable, like a goldfish (is capable of) seeing water…
What happened next?
The people who had to Say Yes – MPs, said yes later in 2011. Then a new bunch of MPs said “No,” and the Emissions Trading Scheme was ended.
So, a slightly different take on “All Our Yesterdays” – I will look at three events that occurred on June 4, but, as per the title, across seven years. These nicely summarise the arc of concern, hedging to effective resistance to action.
First up – in the first flush of newfound concern about The Environment, a “get together” when such satellite link-ups were relatively rare (but by no means unheard of).
Anon, 1989. Environment focus of global TV show. Canberra Times, 4 June p. 3.
SYDNEY: Australians play a part in a television program on the environment to be seen live in almost 100 countries today. Our Common Future, based in New York, will bring celebrities and world leaders together to spearhead the push towards environmental awareness.
The New York Times was lukewarm at best –
The oddest, most incoherent global television broadcast since the 1989 Academy Awards took place on Saturday afternoon. ”Our Common Future,” a five-hour program relayed to about 100 countries, was intended to create awareness of environmental problems and to urge global cooperation. For five hours, broadcast live from Avery Fisher Hall with material from the Soviet Union, England, Australia, Poland, Norway and Brazil, the program mixed musical performances with pro-environmental statements, a format akin to Live Aid, with which it shared a producer (Hal Uplinger) and director (Tony Verna).
Unlike Live Aid, the program was not a benefit, and it was less a live concert than a staged event; the audience was largely an invited one, and many of the performances were on tape. It was also considerably lower in star power than Live Aid, with Sting, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Diana Ross, Joni Mitchell, R.E.M. and Kenny Loggins as its best-known names – although an African tawny eagle stole the show when it flew from the stage to roost on the second balcony.
And three years later, after a global treaty was “negotiated”, we have this –
“Australian signs the UNFCCC Roz Kelly (Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories), Australia signs UNCED climate change convention, media release, 4 June 1992.
Australia’s new Prime Minister, Paul Keating couldn’t be arsed to go (almost all other world leaders attended). Meanwhile, the Liberal National Party were already throwing shade –
“The opposition’s delegate to UNCED in 1992, for example, had criticized the Labor Government’s willingness to give away Australia’s sovereign rights and had emphasized the debilitative economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.48
CPD, Senate, 4 June 1992, p. 3350.Matt McDonald, 2005 Fair Weather Friend
And, sure enough, once they were in charge again, this –
Australian industry has applauded the Federal Cabinet’s decision yesterday to oppose a targets and timetables approach to international climate change negotiations, made on the eve of World Environment Day today.
The Howard Government’s position effectively reaffirms that taken by the Keating government and its minister for the Environment, Senator John Faulkner.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, said in a joint statement: “Australia will insist that the outcome of current international negotiations on climate change safeguards Australia’s particular economic and trade interests.”
Mr John Hannagan, chairman of the Australian Aluminium Council’s major policy group, said industry welcomed this statement, “reinforcing its no-regrets position as its negotiating stand at the forthcoming Geneva talks”.
Callick, R. 1996. Coalition backs industry on climate change. The Australian Financial Review, 5 June, p.2.
Why this matters.
These things follow a pattern – excited/exuberant “we can fix this,” (1989) then some sort of legislation (usually quite weak – 1992), then the pushback even from that…
What happened next?
We went through more waves of excitement, legislation, pushback. On a couple of occasions (2006-2009, 2018-2021). It is connected to what I call “the emotaycle.”
On this day, June 3 1989 the Australian Liberal Party’s environment spokesman told reporters about their ambitious environmental policies for the upcoming Federal election.
THE Federal Opposition is preparing a separate “climate policy” bringing together all issues relating to world climate change.
The document, compiled by a climate policy task force, is expected to be released within a fortnight after endorsement by shadow cabinet.
The Opposition Environment spokesman, Senator Chris Puplick, said yesterday: “The policy will take in the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer, industrial pollution, recycling, tree-planting and climate research.
“At the moment these issues are scattered over a number of policies and it’s an attempt to integrate them and find out where there might be any gaps. Obviously, it will also update things in the light of new standards being set and new technology being introduced.”
Senator Puplick criticised the proposal by the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Graham Richardson, for a referendum to increase the Commonwealth’s powers to override the States on environmental issues.
“I think it is just a bit of very silly kite-flying in the sense that firstly you would have enormous problems in actually drawing up a piece of legislation to amend the Constitution,” he said.
Jones, B. 1989. Libs endorse ‘Climate Policy’. Sun Herald, 4 June, p.5.
The context was that ozone hole/the greenhouse effect had exploded onto the scene the year before. The European elections – and the Tasmanian state elections – of May 1989 had made politicians think that votes were to be had in the green… It did not last very long, of course.
Why this matters.
We need to remember that there was a brief moment of “competitive consensus” way back at the beginning of the climate issue, but it did not last. The pressures pulling apart “right-wing” parties are still there – the need for votes, and the need also to protect continued capital accumulation in the same vein…
What happened next?
The incumbent Australian Labor Party squeaked home at the March 1990 Federal Election, thanks to small-g green voters (the Green Party did not exist yet) preferencing them over the Liberals, despite the Liberal Party’s more ambitious targets. Puplick’s career was toast, and the Liberals decided they had been stitched up by the Australian Conservation Foundation (the largest green group), leading to decades of suspicion and animosity.
(For an account, see Paul Kelly’s “The End of Certainty”)
See also (and thanks to the person who tweeted it! this I wrote for The Conversation.
On this day, June 2nd, 1989 a good article with a bad title was published, summarising then current stances on “the greenhouse threat”.
Hansen, via his testimony almost a year previously, had become one target for those who were seeking to dismiss long-standing ‘greenhouse’ concerns.
Hansen had already been on the receiving end of an attempt to silence him by the Bush Administrations OMB, which had been revealed in May by Senator Al Gore. Hansen had been on the receiving end of this sort of pressure in 1981, and it would continue throughout the rest of his career. That is what happens when you have some inconvenient truths to tell…
Why this matters.
We need to remember that titles are rarely chosen by the author, and that just as you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, an article might be more than what is suggested or (oftentimes) less – the so-called ‘bait and switch’.
What happened next?
Hansen kept doing what a decent scientist should do – researching, reporting on their findings, refusing to be shut up.
On this day, June 1, 1992, President George H.W. Bush, says that a habitable planet is an extremist demand.
“We cannot permit the extreme in the environmental movement to shut down the United States. We cannot shut down the lives of many Americans by going extreme on the environment.”
George Bush at UNCED, quoted in the Guardian, 1 June 1992 –
Q Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?
MR. FLEISCHER: That’s a big no. The President believes that it’s an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one.
Why this matters.
What is sacred is beyond discussion. It’s a classic “de-agendaising” technique, where if you push the issue, you cast yourself into the outer darkness.
What happened next?
The USA government ratified the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit, and has spent the last 30 years rendering it meaningless, and basically doing the bidding of various fossil fuel lobbies (yes, it is more complicated than that, but not MUCH more complicated).
On this day, June 1st 1965, Tom Lehrer sang his song “Pollution” at the hungry i nightclub in San Francisco, as part of his “That was the week that was” gig.
Lehrer had basically “retired” from his tours, when asked to write topical songs for a weekly satirical TV show called “That was the week that was” (the songs were brought together in an album called “That Was The Year That Was”).
The song, picking up on growing concerns about air, water, noise and – well – everything – pollution, contains priceless lyrics such as
If you visit American city,
You will find it very pretty.
Just two things of which you must beware:
Don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air!
YEAR: 1965 Lehrer singing “Pollution” at the hungry i
Columbia University geologist Wallace S. Broecker May 31 said increased reliance on coal for energy might over the next 50 years raise the average temperature on the earth by four degrees fahrenheit. Broecker’s prediction rested on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: CO2 was transparent to incoming sunlight, “but somewhat opaque to outgoing earthlight” (sunlight reflected back out into space, where its heat would be dissipated). Carbon dioxide was produced by coal combustion; burning one ton of coal produced three tons of CO2.
“Coal impact on climate questioned” Facts on File World News Digest July 2, 1977
Four degrees Fahrenheit is just over two degrees Celsius. So, Broecker was wrong, but probably only by a couple of decades…
Broecker had been the first scientist to use the phrase “global warming” in the title of a scientific article. He raised the alarm, kept raising the alarm (see here for his 1980 letter to Democratic senator Paul Tsongas).
Why this matters.
Again, we knew, long before 1988. But it’s a far-off threat, of which we know little, so, you know, life goes on.
What happened next?
We kept on pretending there wasn’t really a problem – or rather, our lords and masters did. Some of us started panicking.
On this day, 31 May, 1996, with the release of the film “The Arrival” the rocket scientist known as Charlie Sheen uncovered a dastardly alien plot to [spoiler alert] accelerate global warming.
No, seriously, spoilers.
My favourite scene by far – Charlie confronts his erstwhile boss in the “Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence” project (obvs the aliens – actually lizards in skin suits – would infiltrate humanity’s advance warning system, to make sure they were not detected.
I don’t have the IMDb to hand, so I am paraphrasing.
Charlie: I have figured it out – you are changing the Earth’s climate with your fiendish alien technology. It’s totally immoral!
Baddie (played by Ron Silver): We are merely accelerating a process that your species started, that you are fully aware of, and are too lazy or stupid to stop. Where’s the immorality?
(Compare Theodore Sturgeon’s short story, “Occam’s Scalpel”)
Why this matters.
There have been interesting cultural responses for a long time. This relatively early one is a goodie.
On this day, May 30, 1990, Australian band “Midnight Oil” held an impromptu concert in New York, outside Exxon’s HQ. You can see the footage here
Exxon were villain du jour because of a certain carelessness the previous spring in Alaska.
We didn’t know then, but Exxon already had a solid ten years of climate knowledge under its belt – they knew that their product would wreck the planet, but why, erm, rock the boat?
You might also like this song, by “Max Q”
Why this matters.
Culturally, we can resist. Economically, persistently, strategically? Not so easy.
What happened next?
Midnight Oil kept burning. They stopped while Peter Garrett, lead singer tried to change the system from within. Have since resumed.
Exxon? Oh, Exxon kept up their boundless love and generosity for future generations by, you know, funding denialist outfits, getting IPCC chairs sacked – the usual.
