Categories
International processes United States of America

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

On this day, May 12th 1989, the Bush Administration of the United States finally reversed its position of opposition to a climate treaty (“too soon, let’s do more research” that sort of thing).

Now it said it would that it would support negotiation of a framework convention on climate change.

Why the end to the foot-dragging? It may have had something to do with the embarrassment of being caught red-handed trying to silence climate scientist James Hansen (something they’d keep trying to do).

See Los Angeles Times article here.

WASHINGTON — 

The White House, in an apparent softening of its position on a major environmental problem, has dropped its opposition to a formal treaty-negotiating process on global warming, it was learned Thursday.

Until now, the United States had been alone among major Western economic powers in opposing such an initiative.

The change of position was outlined in a cable dispatched Thursday to U.S. delegates at an environmental conference in Geneva sponsored by the United Nations.

Saying it was essential for the United States to exercise a leadership role, the cable said, “We should seek to develop full international consensus on necessary steps to prepare for a formal treaty-negotiating process.”

Why this matters

They have to be dragged every millimetre. Stop dragging and they pull back. That’s how it has always been.

What happened next

The US administration – doing what its oil and auto-industry wanted – blocked and delayed, delayed and blocked the start of the negotiations, the negotiations themselves and ever since. And here we are.

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
Australia Ignored Warnings

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

There was a publication in Australia called Women’s Weekly. It came out, well, weekly (when it became a monthly publication in the 80s they, er, kept the name unchanged).

In the May 10 1978 issue they had one of those “what will the world be like in 2000” articles [people much younger than me probably don’t remember they hype and sense of excitement about the turn of the millennium?]

This particular article was by one David Howell, billed as “founder of the US journal “Energy Digest,” editor of “Community Planning Report” and “Energy Planning Report””

It’s worth a read. The bit I would draw your attention to is this-

“Coal will have become the major fuel source, especially for industrial uses and for heating office buildings and very large apartment houses. But society will by then have begun to accept the harsh reality, already posited by several leading scientists, that the carbon dioxide released to the air by the burning of fossil fuels threatens to alter our atmosphere beyond the ability of the human species to survive. By the year 2000 we will be frantically searching for substitutes for the coal which we will have substituted for oil and natural gas.”

“Gasified or liquefied coal – even if by that time it might have proven economic-ally feasible for some purposes – will not be the answer, because it would release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at the same rate….

10 May 1979


What happened next

Australia became the world’s leading coal exporter in 1984. Some people got very very rich and didn’t like the idea of Australia shifting from coal exporting, or from getting its own electricity from other sources. They were supremely effective in defending their interests…

Categories
Australia

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

On this day, May 9 2009, the Australian newspaper carried a report that would surprise no close watcher of climate policymaking at the time.

Kevin Rudd had become Prime Minister of Australia in December 2007 with a promise and a mandate to take action on climate change. There followed a bewildering array of reports and documents (interestingly, economist Ross Garnaut was quickly sidelined because he lacked sufficient enthusiasm for “compensating” industries who were supposed to be changing their ways.

By the end of 2008 it was clear to activists (especially those who interrupted Rudd’s speech at the National Press Club) that Rudd’s basic idea was to give the rich and powerful whatever they wanted. That was the plan. And it got even worse in 2009, when he sent his climate minister on a “charm offensive.”

Steketee, M. 2009. Cool compromise. The Australian, 9 May, p.18.

WHEN Penny Wong did the rounds of environmental and business groups last week, they suddenly found her more receptive to their arguments. What were the key things they needed to be able to support the Government’s climate change package, she asked. The Climate Change Minister had a fair idea because she had heard their demands often enough, but this time she wasn’t fending them off. Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and Wong already had decided on a new strategy to try to get the Government out of the political bunker.

Business demanded – and got – a delay to the start date of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. More was to follow…

Why this matters

In the absence of an enraged and engaged civil society, capable of more than spasms of emotion and outrage, then of COURSE “governance” is going to mean little more than doing whatever powerful industries allow. It’s easy to beat up on Rudd (and, actually, hits that sweet spot of being not only easy, but accurate and deserved), but where is the bold climate movement able to force better? Watch this space – the 2022 Federal elections in Australia may leave a bunch of climate-action-minded independents in a position of strength. Party like its early 2011 all over again!!

What happened next

Rudd couldn’t get his legislation over the line in June. When he came to try again in November he also couldn’t. Surprisingly the Greens weren’t going to vote for something they viewed as worse than useless. And then it all fell apart, with Julia Gillard left to pick up the pieces. And then… oh, it’s so exhausting and outlandish I can’t bring myself to type it up

Categories
United Kingdom

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

Guest post by Roger of superb Green History website.

On this day, May 8, 50 years ago, students at Queen Elizabeth College, London University held a one day “Teach-in for Survival” inspired by the Ecologist publication of the “Blueprint for Survival” special issue in January 1972. They managed to get some quite high profile people to give talks and with minimal publicity the numbers booking to attend snowballed and the venue had to be switched to the Great Hall at Imperial College – over 500 people came on the day. Read the full story below.

Why This Matters

The Ecologist Blueprint had caused quite a stir in the chattering classes and even in the popular press. The students wanted to explore whether technology could reverse the negative trends (pollution, population, resource depletion, and ecological stress leading to human societal collapse) that Blueprint identified, and also to look for opportunities for practical action. In the event it became clear that only bottom up system change driven by grass roots action to transform the social political and economic system could avert the coming disaster.

What Happened Next

After an inspiring day the students returned to take their exams and get on with life. A few spent the next 50 years going on protest marches about this and that, or telling people how the ecological problems were getting much worse, or trying to get elected to get environmental action up the political agenda – completely forgetting the main lesson from the Teach-in and from Blueprint: that the changes needed require a completely different social system, not engagement with the old system.

And here we are, still making the same mistakes and time has so nearly run out.

You can read the full article on which this blog post is based here.

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
Science Scientists

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

On May 5 1953, yes, 1953, The West Australian newspaper had a short piece with Gilbert Plass, warning the American Geophysical Union about the build-up of. carbon dioxide…

Image from Brad Johnson’s excellent site

Plass was a geochemist who had read Guy Callendar and understood what he was talking about.

Why this matters

Let’s not pretend that 1988 was the first time anyone heard about climate change. That said, this sort of “we were warned” thing can be a little bit unfair. Because there are all sorts of potential threats, potential problems in the world. And if we responded to all of them, instantly with alarm, we’d never get anything done.

But certainly, I think by the late 60s, early 70s, we did know enough to be concerned. And we didn’t act in accordance with that concern. And here we are.

What happened next?

Plass kept on for a little while, and even attended the 1963 Conservation Foundation meeting in New York. But he didn’t do further climate work. There’s a good account of him in Alice Bell’s “Our Greatest Experiment,” btw.

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.