Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 2nd, 1991,
The Japanese float the idea of a “Pledge and Review” solution to the climate policy blockage.
Grubb, M and Steen, Nicola (1991) Pledge and Review Processes: Possible Components of a Climate Convention, Report of a Workshop held 2 August 1991, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the negotiations towards the text of a Treaty that could be signed at the June 1992 Rio Earth Summit were basically stalled (thanks primarily, but not entirely, to US intransigence). And so all sorts of log-jam breaking schemes were being proposed.
What we learn is that where we are now, we’ve been before (especially with this – see below).
What happened next. Pledge and Review was dismissed as something that simply would not deliver the required ambition, something that would allow bullshitting and loopholes. Then it was dusted off, twenty plus years later, and became the basis for the “Paris Agreement.” And it turns out it allows bullshitting and loopholes. Who knew?
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.
New minister Josh Frydenberg backs transition to renewables, despite campaign blaming them for price spikes
Slezak, M. 2016. How the campaign against South Australian wind farms backfired. Guardian Australia, 1 August.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 404ppm. As of 2024 it is 4xxppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that South Australia had been edging ahead in the amount of renewable energy in its electricity system because Premier Mike Rann had found a way whereby he made it extremely easy for already profitable (thanks to federal schemes) wind farms to get planning approval in the north of the state.
And this success was making the culture warriors agitated (though to be fair, Australian culture warriors are always finding something to be agitated about). But sometimes their agitation gets a bit much and they start scoring own goals; and so it came to pass.
What we learned is that culture warriors going to warrior.
What happened next is that the South Australian energy transition continued at pace. There was Elon Musk’s big battery and all the rest of it. It’s still unfolding, and you can read about it at places like reneweconomy.
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.
Ten years ago, on this day, July 31st, 2014, an Australian eco-group got its reputation burned.
2014 Planet Ark on the receiving end of criticism about its tie-in with forestry outfit –
The founders of environment group Planet Ark are speaking out about the charity they say has lost its way.
Environmentalist Jon Dee and tennis great Pat Cash founded Planet Ark 20 years ago.
It soon forged a high profile, thanks in part to the backing of celebrities like Olivia Newton John, Kylie Minogue and Pierce Brosnan.
But times have been tough for Planet Ark lately.
It has made substantial losses for three years running, sold some major assets and offered redundancies to staff.
After National Tree Day at the weekend, Mr Dee and Mr Cash have told 7.30 they are particularly upset about Planet Ark’s links with the timber industry.
Planet Ark has allowed its logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA).
It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry [continues]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Australian outfit Planet Ark had been going since 1992 (and set up its website in 1996). And they, like any NGO, needed money, and the people with the money said they didn’t want anything in return, but there’s always strings attached.
What we learn. It suits the needs of organisations with environmental reputations that need a bit of polishing to partner with outfits that have some sort of credibility And so it comes to pass. This tension plays out again and again. Because it’s a market for reputation. There are buyers and sellers.
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.
Forty five years ago, on this day, July 30th, 1979, politicians learn that making synfuels would be a Very Bad Idea.
Panel Warned of Synthetic Fuel Danger By Katherine Ellison, July 31, 1979
A group of scientists, warning of potential ecological imbalances and climatic changes, yesterday urged the government to slow its pursuit of a large-scale synthetic fuels program.
The scientists said the ecological changes could result from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — one assured by product of a switch to synfuel production.
They described the so-called “greenhouse effect” whereby heat is trapped close to the earth by increased levels of carbon dioxide, and predicted some long-term effects might be erratic world food production, severe droughts in some regions and costal flooding in others.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 337ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various US administrations had been quite interested in replacing Middle Eastern oil and making money at the same time. But of course, that came with fairly heavy environmental consequences, which climate scientists were at pains to point out.
What we learn is that national security and energy security can compete with other demands. Real energy trilemma at play. And that’s been going on a long time.
What happened next – the synfuels thing went away, in part because oil prices plummeted. The emissions kept going up though…
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.
Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 29th, 2009, ALL the buzzwords are in play.
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions.”
The key to solving climate change and developing clean energy is technology, and at the center of technology are intellectual property rights. In the Space Race, America had a singular competitor. In the Clean Energy Race to stop global warming, America is competing with the Chinese, Germans, Koreans, and countless others. How these countries and the world deal with intellectual property rights will have a huge impact on whether technology is available and deployed to solve our global problems.
On Wednesday July 29th, 2009 the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions.”
This hearing examined the impact of intellectual property rights on global warming solutions and how to encourage American innovation while spreading climate related technologies globally. Technology transfer and cooperation are part of the international climate regime and have become an important issue regarding negotiations on the future international climate agreement, and in the debate heading into the UN Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen.
WHAT: Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Hearing, “Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global Climate Solutions”
WHEN: Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 9:30 AM
WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Washington DC, and Online
OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey
WITNESS LIST:
Mr. Govi Rao, Chairman, Lighting Science Group Corporation
Mr. Robert T. Nelsen, Co-founder and Managing Director, ARCH Venture Partners
Ms. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director for International Policy & Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund
Dr. Mark Esper, Executive Vice President Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that with Copenhagen COP coming, every man, woman, dog and child, was holding conferences about climate change with all the right buzzwords: science, innovation, technology, mitigation, you name it. And there is a finite number of buzzwords that can be used and you just rearrange them and hope that that exact order hasn’t been used in the last six months. Bish Bosh you’re away.
What we learn is that humans are trapped in a quite finite web of ideas, or rather, the mainstream is; on the margins, there are all sorts of ideas, some of them good, some of them dangerous, some of them stupid, most of them stupid because humans are fundamentally quite stupid. [You can tell an idea is good when I’ve said it, basically.] And the buzzword bingo can be played.
What happened next. Copenhagen was a washout. And then the caravan kept going, and keeps falling over and having to be put back together again. And here we are. The emissions are still 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.
Thirty four years ago, on this day, July 28th, 1990 UK science writer John Gribbin nails the problem.
AT WHAT POINT will politicians take real action to curb the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? A summary of the situation runs as follows: ‘Some blinkered optimists argue that until the case against carbon dioxide is proven, it is pointless to take any action to curb it. But since the only proof will be when the rains start to fail in North America and there is no spare grain to rush to famine regions, this hardly seems sensible.’
Gribbin, J. 1990. Talking Point: Why caution is wrong on global warming. New Scientist, 127 28 July, p. 18.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that John Gribbin had been writing about climate systems as a trained physicist and science journalist for a good 15 years in New Scientist and so forth. He’d written various books and was well qualified to understand what the IPCC was saying in its various reports. By this time Working Group 1 had already reported and the synthesis report was due to happen.
There were by now outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, and World Coal Association trying to play denialist minimalizing games, and Gribbin was speaking out against taking their shit seriously.
What we learn is that by 1990, it was extremely obvious both that the world was going to warm and that denialists – for reasons of their own – would deny. The siren sounds of denial were to be warned against.
What happened next. Look around you. Who won? Who lost?
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 27th, 2001, the international climate caravan is pulled out of its rut, and shambles on.
COP 6 negotiations resumed July 17–27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany, with little progress having been made in resolving the differences that had produced an impasse in The Hague.
“Despite the withdrawal of the US just months earlier, parties convened again for a continuation of COP6 (‘COP-6 bis’) in Bonn in July 2001. To the surprise of many observers, agreement was reached on most outstanding political issues and the conference resulted in the adoption of the Bonn Agreements on the Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Work remained outstanding on a number of operational details which were referred to COP-7 for further negotiation” (source)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that COP6 in The Hague, in late 2000 had ended in disarray. This was the “stitching back together and trying to keep the show on the road” response, especially difficult now that Bush had said the US was withdrawing from the negotiations towards the Kyoto Protocol.
What we learn is that COP is a leaky boat that keeps needing plugs and fixes as it goes along, ever lower in the water…. And this was one of those times.
What happened next? The COP circus carried on and carried on and carried on. And here we are over 20 years later, still failing.
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.
Sixteen years ago, on this day, July 26th, 2008, music was the food of life…
New York’s biggest reggae festival will be held in central New York on Saturday July 26th, 2008 at the Rostropovich Amphitheatre in Gelston Castle Estate.
Reggae festival for climate protection is the biggest party for the environment. Come out and celebrate Mother Earth with great music, food, games and activities.
The festival, an all day event on July 26th, 2008 from 12 pm to 12 am is a fun-filled day of music, games, competitions, cultural activities and international cuisine. Awareness to the environment is the overall theme of the festival and a portion of the proceeds will be donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection to support their efforts.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had come out in 2006. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Everyone is running around talking about climate change. Given that reggae’s roots are in resistance to white people being assholes, it’s hardly surprising that there would be a climate themed reggae concert.
What we learn is that we have been trying to be artistic about resistance to the suicide path we are on, but it doesn’t seem to land because those events can cause a surge of emotion and commitment that will fall on stony ground and sterile soil. If there aren’t effective social movement organisations ready to capture it, the seeds can’t grow. And so it came to pass.
What happened next? More conferences, smoke and concerts. More cons. If you know your history, you will know where you’re coming from.
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.
Twenty three years ago, on this day, July 25th, 2001, the truth is told about Australia’s climate change targets.,
2001 – Then-environment minister Robert Hill admitted on July 25, immediately after the Kyoto Protocol had been further weakened at the UN conference in Germany, that “it could well be possible to achieve our target with the measures we now have in place”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the UNFCCC process was in deep shit. It has ended in acrimony without any closing statement or anything. In November/December, the previous year in The Hague(which is where the climate criminals belong, but, that’s another blog post).
Bush had pulled out of Kyoto. And so, here, in Bonn, they were stitching the pieces back together again. And the Australian environment minister, Robert Hill, said the quiet part out loud when he admitted that Australia had basically carved out such an insanely generous deal in December 1997, that it was going to hit its targets without doing much of anything.
What we learn – if you listen closely, you can figure out what’s going on. It’s not rocket science.
What happened next?
In June of 2002, finally, to nobody’s surprise, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said no to Kyoto, I think simply because he enjoyed “owning the libs.” There was no upside in it for him really. And it would mean that Australia was beholden to future stuff, and he could much more easily stay pals with George W. Bush. I guess ratifying Kyoto would have annoyed Bush since it would have isolated the US even further. So they didn’t do it. Kyoto was only finally ratified by Australia in December 2007 by Kevin Rudd.
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.
Tony Jones speaks with Cathy Zoi, a former environmental adviser to president Bill Clinton and Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a public policy research body, and author of a new book on Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions called Running from the Storm.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Clive Hamilton had returned from Indonesia in 1993 or 1994. He’d set up The Australia Institute. And one of the topics of conversation was writing about climate policy. And he had written the first book about climate policy and Australia. There had been articles, there had been chapters in edited volumes – but this was the first book “Running from the Storm.”
What we learn is that back in the 90s nobody was really paying a lot of attention to climate. It was one of many issues that hadn’t fully emerged for environmentalists aside from a few.
What happened next, Hamilton kept fighting the good fight, naming the tactics and the names. He basically cannibalised that book. And it formed the first few chapters of Scorcher six years later. Both of them are well worth your time.
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.
