Categories
Ignored Warnings

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

On this day, the 25th of April 1974, German climatologist Hermann Flohn is flown –  see what I did there? – to Stockholm (well, maybe he took the train who knows?) to brief the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme on the build-up of carbon dioxide. in the atmosphere This was at the behest of Swedish scientist Bert Bolin, and part of the Swedish government’s increased awareness of environmental issues including climate change.

www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/HFlohn/fotflo...
Hermann Flohn

 

Palme apparently listened carefully and intently – he was a serious character. One of the things you’d do on Alternative Earth is have him NOT getting assassinated in 1986, so he was able to be a key player in the 1988-1992 policy window…

How do I know this – as usual with this site, thanks to the hard work of climate historians, in this case Kristoffer Ekberg and Martin Hultman…

“Amid the oil crisis and with raised critique against nuclear power, the issue of climate change was presented to Swedish politicians. On 25 April 1974, meteorologist Bert Bolin and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had in Hermann Flohn from Bonn to Stockholm to talk before the government’s advisory board on research. Flohn was a climate scientist who had already in 1941 published a paper discussing anthropogenic climate change. The reporter  present at the time, Tom Selander,46 wrote that Prime Minister Palme listened  ‘thoughtfully’ during Flohn’s exposition.”

(Ekberg and Hultman 2021)

Why this matters. 

We need to know that in the 1970s people with in positions of power, senior politicians and policymakers, were well aware of the co2 buildup 

What happened next?

Flohn keep kept alerting people. His name pops up at all sorts of important events throughout the 70s…. Olaf Palme was assassinated in February 1986. And therefore he wasn’t there to push the issue along during the 88-92 big wave, so it goes. 

Categories
Australia

April 24, 1994 – a carbon tax for Australia?

On April 24 1994, the Australian environment minister John Faulkner starts to fly a kite, as they say in the politics business.. The kite have a small carbon tax to help Australia stabilise its emissions, and have some sort of diplomatic cover when the UNFCCC started its meetings.

This is the opening of a policy stream or the continuation of a politics stream depending on which bit of John Kingdon you care to follow

Less than a year later, the effort was defeated. Australia never gets an effective long-term price on carbon dioxide and therefore (but not only for this), the emissions basically keep climbing

{Not the the carbon tax would have on its own being a solution. 

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that policy proposals that are relatively innocuous and minor will be treated as an existential threat by specific industries who will then respond accordingly and effectively.

And here we are. With the atmospheric concentrations climbing, human emissions climbing, temperatures, climbing, death rates going to climb. we had a slender chance to fix this – or at least give our wisdom a chance to catch up with our technologies.. Now it’s too late. And everything is fucked. 

What happened next?

The tax proposal got shot down in February 1995.  The idea of a tax was replaced with an emissions trading scheme, and that got shot down on multiple occasions. Finally became law in 2012, then repealed in 2014 by Tony Abbott.

Categories
Denial United States of America

April 23, 2009 – denialists caught denying their own scientists…

On this day, the 23rd of April 2009 journalist Andy Revkin broke a story in The New York Times about the Global Climate Coalition.

The Global Climate Coalition – cuddly-sounding name aside – was an industry pressure group that had between 1989 and 2002 been a major player in stopping any meaningful international action on climate change.

Revkin’s story – you can read it here – was that the head honchos at the Global Climate Coalition got given the truth about climate change by their own scientists,, and they chose to ignore it because it didn’t fit their in needs for predatory delay and doubt

Why this matters. 

We need to know in the words of Nick Tomalin, the British journalist who died in 1973, that “they lie, they lie, they lie”. If the truth is going to get in the way of their profits, they will lie. And these lies will be repeated by time policy wonks to create a “common sense” that maintains the status quo. Nothing that Gramsci would be surprised that nothing that you or I should be surprised that

What happened next?

People forgot because that’s what people do. 

If you want to know more about the GCC, check out the recently published article in the journal “Environmental Politics” by Robert Brulle.

Categories
United Kingdom

April 22, 1975 – UK Civil Service scratches its head on #climate

Blah blah Earth Day 1970.

On this day 22nd of April 1975, a meeting of the World Trends Committee of the Cabinet Office had an (inconclusive) discussion about climate change. A very small number of people within the UK state (as distinct from the government) was beginning to pay attention to the build-up of carbon dioxide doing nothing particularly was happening in public.

“Warren, who was one of its two secretaries, suggested putting a position paper on climatological research to the World Trends committee.36 The Met Office provided a paper that covered climate change for discussion in 1975.37 The ‘conclusion of the paper was that it was all very difficult and that ‘‘fundamental understanding has not reached a stage which permits a reliable computation of future climate. Moreover, natural climate time-series can give no useful indication of future trends’’’.

38 NA CAB 134/3974.  Sawyer, ‘Problems of assessing the future climate’, WT(75)7, 4 April 1975. 

The paper was discussed at WT(75)2nd meeting, 22 April 1975.”

Source – see brilliant paper by Jon Agar here).


Why this matters. 

We have to remember that there was a significant but largely ignored history before Thatcher gave her speech at the Royal Society in September of 1988. And this has been excavated by Gabriel Henderson and Jon Agar, among others.

What happened next?

The Civil Service bureaucracy did produce a report,  that was finally released in 1980. And when the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK, John Ashworth, tried to brief Margaret Thatcher in 1980 she said apparently “incredulously” “you want me to worry about the weather?”

Categories
International processes United States of America

April 21, 1992 – President Bush again threatens to boycott Earth Summit

On this day, April 21 1992, George HW Bush, President of the United States, speaking at something called the “Young Presidents’ Organization” said “I’m not going to the Rio conference and make a bad deal or be party to a bad deal.”  (full speech here).

The context is that countries, especially France, had been trying to get a stronger deal agreed and then signed at Rio  Bush who was up for re-election that November didn’t want to be seen as going along with what the French and everyone else wanted and being too environmental, and didn’t want to upset his oil buddy mates. His recently deposed Chief of Staff, John Sununu, had successfully blocked/watered down various initiatives.

Why this matters. 

We need to understand that the actions of the Americans in this crucial period have shaped everything that’s happened since.

What happened next?

The French blinked. Michael Howard, as Environment Minister for the UK, was able to come up with the compromise. There was a final special meeting of the international negotiating committee in May in New York, and the deal was set for the big photo op…

There were no targets and timetables in the UNFCCC process, and what we have now, since Paris, is a warmed over version of a “pledge and review” model disregarded in 1991 as inadequate.

Did I mention I didn’t breed and that it’s looking like a smarter and smarter decision?

Categories
Greenwash United Kingdom

April 20, 2006 – David Cameron does “hug-a-husky” to detoxify the Conservative “brand”

On this day, April 20 2006, David Cameron, newly-minted opposition leader in the UK, the head of the Conservative and Unionist Party, had his photo op with a husky in the Arctic. The context was that Cameron needed to detoxify the Conservative brand. And he’s chosen environmentalism as the way to do that, in much the same way that Kevin Rudd would use climate and environment as a wedge issue against John Howard a year or so later in Australia.

Why this matters. 

We really, really really need to learn not to take anything a politician, any politician says at face value. And we need to help other people understand that – or rather, we need to get beyond information deficit and deference, to a sense of the power that (potentially) rests in social movements. Or did. Probably too late to do anything now.

What happened next?

Gordon Brown became Labour Prime Minister, and bottled calling an election in 2007. The global financial crisis hit and then there was an air of inevitability around Cameron becoming Prime Minister which he did, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in May of 2010. In 2012

In January 2012 the Guardian reported that

“The head of the charity that helped to arrange David Cameron’s memorable husky photoshoot in the Arctic, launching the Conservatives’ rebranding as the nice-not-nasty party, has warned that the PM’s lack of leadership on environment issues risks “retoxifying” their image.”

In 2013, Cameron infamously commanded “get rid of all the green crap”. Which is costing ordinary people money now.

History does not record what happened to the husky.

Categories
Denial International processes IPCC Predatory delay Science Scientists

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

On the 19th of April 2002, the chair of the IPCC, Bob Watson failed to get a second term as chair, even though he wanted one, and (almost) everyone else wanted him to have it. 

As per the Guardian’s coverage

“At a plenary session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Robert Watson, a British-born US atmospheric scientist who has been its chairman since 1996, was replaced by an Indian railway engineer and environmentalist, R K Pachauri.

Dr Pachauri received 76 votes to Dr Watson’s 49 after a behind-the-scenes diplomatic campaign by the US to persuade developing countries to vote against Dr Watson, according to diplomats. The British delegation argued for Dr Watson and Dr Pachauri to share the chairmanship.

The US campaign came to light after the disclosure of a confidential memorandum from the world’s biggest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, to the White House, proposing a strategy for his removal.”

[see also the Ecologist in 2018]

tt’s an example of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works – the word to look for is governmental. 

Why this matters. 

We’re not getting the politics- free science, which the denialists say they want. We’re getting the science that has been deemed acceptable to the politicians who are often little more than Meat Puppets for vested interests.

And this is a very, very familiar story.

What happened next?

The IPCC has kept going. The message hasn’t changed. Except the time horizons keep shrinking (have shrunk to nowt).

Categories
International processes

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

On this day 18th of April 1989. The bigwigs in the “Earth Day 20 Foundation “delivered letters to President Bush, USSR Premier Gorbachev, China Premier Li Peng, and UN Secretary General De Cuellar. “

The letter, signed by Gaylord Nelson, Barry Commoner, Elliot Richardson, John O’Connor (National Toxics Campaign), Gene Karpinski (U.S. Public Interest Research Group), Peter Bahouth (Greenpeace), Cordelia Biddle, and me called on the leaders of the superpowers to convene an environmental summit under the auspices of the UN  (source – Furia, 1990, EPA Journal).

And this is all part of the performative pressure effort, what we would now called virtue-signalling,  Cynically, it’s what you would expect to happen. And this is trying to fill the problem and policy streams and the politics stream and put pressure on people who might otherwise not do as much as they should. 

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, really. “Nothing matters very much, and very much matters not at all” as someone (Arthur Balfour) once said.

What happened next?

We got Earth Day at 20. And lots of old hippies who have made their peace with the system, got jobs had gotten jobs, wishing they were 20 years younger. And here we are. Now. It’s unclear what impact the letterhead if any, the these people who write memoirs don’t admit that they were particularly influenced by this or that And it’s all wishes and begging of Our Lords and Masters.  Building effective movement organisations and movements that grow, learn, organise and win – that’s beyond our wit, it seems.

Categories
United Nations

April 17, 2007 – UN Security Council finally discusses the most important security issue of all…

On April 17 2007, the United Kingdom Government managed to get climate change onto the agenda of the United Nations Security Council. I haven’t bothered to check, but this probably didn’t particularly please the George W. Bush administration. Bush by then, thought  was a lame duck, and had been really, ever since the utterly ineffectual response to Hurricane Katrina had crashed his credibility. 

Stepping back, it’s hilarious (if you are mordant enough) that the global body designated as being  about concerned about security, should not talk about climate change until 2007, 20 years after the issue broke through into the world stage.  But then, really the United Nations Security Council is nothing more than a Polaroid of the world in 1945 And would need a serious overhaul, but that’s not gonna happen.

Why this matters. 

The question of climate change, forever in the too-hard basket, is routinely kept away from the agenda, if it possibly can be. The (shit)show must go on, eh?  Anyone who has any faith in our Lords and Masters has either not been paying any attention, is as thick as mince, or is doing some motivated reasoning. These are not mutually exclusive categories…

What happened next?

Nothing, except more carbon dioxide.

Categories
Ignored Warnings United Kingdom

April 16, 1980 – “a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning”

On April 16 1980, John Ashworth, then the Chief Scientific Adviser of the UK,, wrote to another senior figure, Robert Armstrong (Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary) on the question of preparing people to accept nuclear in order to drive down fossil fuel emissions. A few days later, Robert Armstrong wrote back saying this needed some further thinking. 

Where do I get this info? From a wonderful article by Jon Agar, from 2015 ‘Future Forecast—Changeable and Probably Getting Worse’: The UK Government’s Early Response to Anthropogenic Climate Change

As John Ashworth wrote, his personal view was” that the nuclear waste problem is manageable whilst the CO2 problem is not and therefore that a risk averse society might prefer nuclear power generation to fossil fuel burning if it were offered the choice. A rational risk averse society, of course, might prefer energy conservation to either….”

86  86 TNA CAB 184/567. Ashworth to Robert Armstrong, 16 April 1980. Armstrong replied that the idea of inducing the public to go along with nuclear energy by frightening it with global warming ‘would need much thought’. Armstrong to Ashworth, 21 April 1980 

Why this matters

We need to know that the UK Government was, well, portions of the bureaucracy of the UK Government, were well aware of the issue. It became impossible, however, for this policy discussion to proceed, because Thatcher wasn’t interested (when Ashworth briefed Thatcher on the issue in 1980, she replied incredulously “you want me to worry about the weather?”

What happened next?

Well, the nuclear lobby in 1988/89, would try to use climate change as a spur to more nukes. And failed. And tried again from 2006. And failed. And, as we have seen in the recent “Energy Security Strategy”, it continues to do so down unto this day.