Categories
Economics of mitigation United Kingdom

October 30, 2006 – Stern Review publshed.

On this day, October 30 in 2006 the Stern Review was published. This had been commissioned by Gordon Brown, the United Kingdom “Chancellor of the Exchequer” (Treasurer) a year previously (see this blog post).

Nick Stern, a World Bank economist who could hardly be accused of being a swivel-eyed Luddite, argued that 

“This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 379.33ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Why this matters. 

We knew. And we knew there was a “business case” for saving life on earth (the very words are bizarre, aren’t they?)

What happened next?

Oh, arguments about the “discount rate” (i.e. Stern was too optimistic)

A variety of “mini-Stern” reports, and for a while everyone using the language. Then nothing.

Fun fact – when Stern visited Australia, Prime Minister John Howard basically dismissed him as “English.”

Categories
Australia

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

On this day, October 29 in 1991, Maurice Strong (the Canadian oil baron who had organised the Stockholm conference in 1972 and was behind the then-impending Rio Earth Summiit) came to the National Press Club in Canberra

Nations, including Australia, that are contributing the most to global environmental degradation must pay the most to save the planet, Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development told the National Press Club in Canberra last week. [29 October]

Anon.1991. Australia must pay, says top UN official. Green Week, November 5, p.7.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 370.93ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The “Earth Summit” was due to take place in June 1992, in Rio. Although the Federal Government had set an “interim planning target” of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2005 (on a 1988 baseline), it hadn’t actually done much to make that a reality.

Slightly green-minded Prime Minister Bob Hawke still  Prime Minister, but his nemesis, former Treasurer Paul Keating was circling.

Maurice Strong was the poster-child of evil for the nutjob denialists, until Al Gore stole that particular mantle.

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, really. Nothing matters except whether we massively reduce emissions and somehow remove absurd quantities of C02 and methane from the atmosphere (spoiler- we don’t).

What happened next?

Rio happened in June. Australia’s Prime Minister Paul Keating did not bother to attend. Australia did nothing to meet its promises, and by 1996 was aggressively and publicly resisting further action. So it goes…

Categories
United States of America

October 28, 1956 – New York Times reports “Warmer Climate on the Earth May Be Due To More Carbon Dioxide in the Air”

On this day, October 28 in 1956, the New York Times carried another story on the build up of carbon dioxide (something it had written about the previous year too).

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 314ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American scientist Gilber Plass had been making noises about this issue, as were the Swedes. The International Geophysical Year was about to start (i.e. Roger Revelle was in the process of hiring Charles David Keeling)

Why this matters. 

We knew enough to worry and watch, back then, and to act if the worries about a build-up were to be proven (as they were, within a few more years of this article).

What happened next?

Roger Revelle hired Charles David Keeling to take accurate measurements of carbon dioxide.

Categories
UNFCCC United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

On this day, October 27, 1990, the British Magazine the Economist had a cover story about “global warming” and international agreements.

In a cover story, The Economist (“Warm world, cool heads,” 27 Oct. 1990, p. 13) observes that “No country seriously contemplates Toronto levels of self-restraint.” Thus pressures for emission standards come from several European nations that want to hold CO2 emissions steady by the year 2000.

(Ungar, 1992.)

In late June 1988 a conference – of scientists and NGO types had come up with a call for a 20% cut in emissions by 2005 for rich countries. Various nations – including Australia – had by the time of the Economist story – come up with some versions of a pledge, usually with all sorts of get out clauses.

The Economist’s story came out just before the Second World Climate Conference, which was attended by political leaders (including Margaret Thatcher), and was the starting gun for the international process that led to the UNFCCC. Which had various (aspirational) targets – none of which went beyond stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 (which nations did not do, obvs).

What happened next?

Thirty years of pledges and promises, as emissions soared.

Categories
Science Scientists

October 26, 1975 – “The Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins…

On this day, October 26, 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere” conference begins in…

It was co-organised by Stephen Schneider and Margaret Mead. 

To quote from the preface of “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering” book that followed – 

“When Dr. Margaret Mead was a Visiting Scholar at the Fogarty  International Center, one of her interests focused on the interactions  between the world society and its planetary environment. She saw a  conflict developing, and yet there was surprisingly little public awareness  of the growing problems and few efforts to develop long-term national  and international solutions to these problems. She therefore persuaded the Fogarty International Center to sponsor a conference on the  atmospheric environment which would explore the ways to maintain it  as a healthy place in which to live. 

An organizing committee planned the Conference, and its members are listed in these Proceedings. We were fortunate in being able to enlist the help of Dr. William W. Kellogg, of the National Center for  Atmospheric Research, to work with Dr. Mead as co-organizer and co-editor of the Proceedings; he is known internationally for his work on  climate change and mankind’s influence on climate. Four able and  dedicated rapporteurs were also enlisted, and this report owes its existence largely to their efforts. They are Mr. Anthony Broderick, Doctors Richard S. Greeley and J. Dana Thompson, and Ms. Barbara West

1975  26-29 “Endangered Atmosphere” conference

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 328.36ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – more and more climate scientists, agronomists, anthropologists etc were getting interested in what would happen if (when) temperatures started to go up.

Mead had known about carbon dioxide build-up as early as 1964 (and probably earlier) – she had been on the atmosphere group of the President’s Science Advisory Committee with Roger Revelle.

Why this matters. 

Good people have been thinking about this for almost fifty years. And here we are…

What happened next?

In 2007 the denialists got hold of it. A terrible article – held up as an exemplar of good practice by the denialists, of course – was published. It’s all Rockefeller’s fault…

Categories
United Kingdom

October 25, 2000 – local authorities in England make #climate promises. Well, that went well… #NottinghamDeclaration

On this day, October 25 in 2000, councils (local governments) in England signed up to one of the many meaningless declarations. Ten years earlier it had been Friends of the Earth’s charter. Twenty years on it would be “climate emergency” declarations. All tosh.

“Although not part of the central government programme, in local government, over 300 councils have signed up to the Nottingham Declaration, launched on 25 October 2000, committing them to work towards reducing emissions”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 367.18ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The UK had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions were still edging down (but coal would come roaring back into the energy mix soon). Various councils had done more or less on climate, but with the coming of renewed interest in “regionalisation” and regional economies, now was a good time to, er, promise the earth.

Why this matters. 

Remember the many broken promises. Be skeptical about the next ones.

What happened next?

Not much, of course. They ‘renewed the pledge, not that anyone believed them. Blah blah.

Now it is all “climate emergency declarations” 

Categories
Uncategorized

October 25, 1982 – Exxon and “Climate Processes & Climate Sensitivity” symposium

On this day, October 25 in 1982, the “Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity” symposium opened in New York.

And Exxon knew about this. How do we know Exxon knew?

Because, um, they sponsored it, and one of their guys gave a speech.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2017/David.E.E.1982.EXXON.EwingSymposium.pdf

First day of Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity . … Biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium held at Palisades, New York, October 25-27, 1982  

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 338.41ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this –  The late 70s effort to get politicians onboard had failed. The work, however, continued.

Why this matters. 

The “we didn’t know” defense is no good…

What happened next?

In 1984 a book of the same name was published https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984GMS….29…..H/abstract

Exxon? Exxon went on to help launch the Global Climate Coalition and to delay action on climate change. Of course it did.

Categories
Science Scientists United States of America

October 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

On this day, October 24  in 1967, folks at a Public Health conference in Miami Beach… got to hear a warning about climate change, from Philip Abelson Abelson was a big fish, the editor of Science. His list of man-made environmental threats was mostly “local” stuff- DDT, smog etc. But then there is this.

“Each year, tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere and the amount is increasing. As a result, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. By the year 2000, an increase of 25 per cent is probable.(7) Such a change would not have much direct effect on human beings, but it might have substantial indirect effects. Many geophysicists believe that such an increase would affect the world’s temperature by what is called a greenhouse effect. The extra carbon dioxide would slow heat loss from the earth, resulting in warmer climates and possibly the melting of polar ice. “

Abelson paper was presented before a Special Session of the American Public Health Association at the Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting in Miami Beach, Fla., October 24, 1967.  https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.58.11.2043

(7)  Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. President’s Advisory Committee. Washington, D. C.: The White House (Nov.), 1965, p. 120. 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 319.39ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

People were beginning to clock to all the different ways we were screwing ourselves. Abelson’s speech was a summary of the state of the art, and included the Revelle warning in the PSAC publication of two years previously.

Why this matters. 

It is via events like this that news percolated out…

What happened next?

By late 1968, various scientific work was more seriously underway, and led to the crucial July 1970 Study of Man’s Influence on Climate workshop in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Categories
Science Scientists United Nations

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.” 

On this day, October 23 in 1963, President John F Kennedy gave a speech about what we now might call production science and impact science https://era.org.au/capitalism-and-production-science-vs-impact-science/ – 

At an event commemorating the 100th anniversary of the country’s most esteemed scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, [Kennedy] also conveyed a warning about America’s responsibility to control the effects of scientific study: “For, as science investigates the natural environment, it also modifies it – and that modification may have incalculable consequences, for evil as well as for good. [S]cience today has the power for the first time in history to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical  environment on a global scale.” Kennedy chided the scientists, saying that every time they came up with a  major invention, politicians had to invent new institutions to cope with them.

(Hamblin, 2013: 147)

 

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 315.99ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The previous year, Kennedy had read Silent Spring, and been through the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both spoke to armageddon (slow and fast). The partial test ban treaty, banning atmospheric explosions of nuclear weapons had, two weeks earlier, become A Thing. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty

Why this matters. 

Had Kennedy not gone to Dallas, maybe things would have been different? Or maybe not! Lunchtime counter-factuals, eh…

What happened next?

Kennedy went to Dallas.

Categories
Australia International processes Kyoto Protocol UNFCCC United States of America

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

On this day, October 22 in 1997, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (nasty neoliberal ‘think’tank) hosted a pre-Kyoto spine stiffening meeting.

“On October 22, 1997, the CEI hosted ABARE’s Brian Fisher at a luncheon with the aim of winning over “economic attaches to embassies of developing countries which might prefer differentiation to uniform reduction targets”. The CEI had “recognized the strategic importance of Australia in the climate change gambit” according to CEI research fellow (and Australian national) Hugh Morley. “If Australia sticks to its guns”, Morley said, “there might not be a Kyoto treaty after all.” (Hugh Morley, 1/11/97, “Australia Cool To Warming”, <www.cei.org/gencon/005,01305.cfm>.)”

From Jim Green “WMC Ltd: corporate greenhouse gangster”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 360.98ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm – but for what it is now, well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

American corporate interests were solidifying pre-existing links with Australian denialists (politicians, corporates, bureaucrats) – these had begun in earnest in 1990 (Tasman Institute hosting various folks) and then gradually strengthened. The “Countdown to Kyoto” conference had already been staged in Canberra, by this time…

Why this matters. 

Think internationally. Those preventing climate action do.

What happened next?

Kyoto was a joke. Not a funny one. And here we are.