Thirty four years ago, on this day, April 11, 1989, the flash-in-the-pan UK environment group “Ark” released a report about potential sea level rise that tanked its credibility
1989 Ark Sea-level rise report, “by 2050″…
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Ark, launched in December 1988, was trying to outflank the existing outfits like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. It needed big claims to grab attention… Ooops.
What I think we can learn from this
It is hard to join a “cartel” and big big claims may grab attention, but they can also come with a big big downside.
What happened next
Ark crashed and sank, within months.
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, April 10, 2013, US companies tried to make it look like they care.
“Thirty-three major U.S. companies, including eBay Inc., Nike and Limited Brands met in Washington DC on April 10th 2013 to unveil the Climate Declaration, urging federal policymakers to take action on climate change and asserting that a bold response to the climate challenge is one of the greatest American economic opportunities of the 21st century.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
On November 20 2008 something called “Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy” had been founded, created by one of these ‘responsible investment’ outfits (wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_for_Innovative_Climate_and_Energy_Policy).
What I think we can learn from this
Companies that sell directly to consumers always worry about their reputations, and “customer sentiment”. Being “out in front” of an issue, especially if the demand is “government do something” is a handy way of having a defense ready if the greenies turn their attention to you.
What happened next
The usual – new ‘ad hoc’ business groups form. Lots of excited, excitable and ahistoric hype gets bandied about. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat…
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, April 9, 2008, a US student saw that his text books were full of crap about climate change….
Talk about a civics lesson: A high-school senior has raised questions about political bias in a popular textbook on U.S. government, and experts say the teen’s criticism is well-founded….
LaClair said he was particularly upset about the book’s treatment of global warming. James Hansen, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently heard about LaClair’s concerns and has lent him some support.
Hansen has sent Houghton Mifflin a letter stating that the book’s discussion on global warming contained “a large number of clearly erroneous statements” that give students “the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain.”
The edition of the textbook published in 2005, which is in high school classrooms now, states that “science doesn’t know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all.”
Student sees political bias in high school text https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24018762
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The US has seen a particularly strong and virulent business obsession with schools for decades, not just back to the Powell memorandum, but back to the early days of the twentieth century (and earlier!). One good book on this was Alex Carey “Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty
What I think we can learn from this
Hegemony is a thing. Capture young minds, miseducate them, undereducate them and the battle is largely won… (Clears throat because about to shout) – THEY WANT US TO BE STUPID BECAUSE STUPID PEOPLE ARE EASIER TO CONTROL AND MISLEAD.
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 three years ago, on this day, April 9, 1990, Australian business tried to get ahead of the ‘green debate’
1990 “Launching its first policy on the environment in Sydney yesterday, the Business Council of Australia lamented the standard of the green debate.”
Lane, B. 1990. Business hitches a ride with green bandwagon. Australian Financial Review, 10 April.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Business had been caught flat-footed and/or complacent about resurgent interest in green issues. They had also perhaps thought that the Liberal National Party would be back in power in 1990 and take care of them, so why make a big effort? It didn’t turn out like that – Labor scraped back in at the March 1990 Federal Election.
So, led by the at-that-time newish and dominant “Business Council of Australia”, industry said all the right platitudes about ecologically sustainable development etc.
What I think we can learn from this
Business is often slow off the mark when facing a new threat, because so many new threats evaporate on their own, (or rather, the problem is real but isn’t turned into an issue.) Combatting advocates of an issue at an early stage may only help turn it into an issue. Better to watch greenies exhaust themselves even getting an issue onto the agenda, and then rely on structural “luck” to contain/constrain/corral it, no?
What happened next
The Hawke Government tried to keep everyone happy, through the promised “Ecologically Sustainable Development” process, with its working groups etc. But in the end, push coming to shove, the ESD was watered down and watered down to the point of nothingness (see here and here and here).
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, April 8, 2013, Margaret Thatcher died. There were, inevitably, a large number of misguided encomia about her “role” in climate advocacy. See for example this.
Well ,two things
Thatcher was clearly aware of climate change as a possible threat as early as June 1979, because she was trying to wedge environmentalists on the question of nuclear power.
Her chief scientific advisor John Ashworth tried to alert her and she responded with incredulity and “you want me to worry about the weather?”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Thatcher’s legacy was and is heavily fought over. In her memoirs she complained that the greenhouse issue had been captured by socialists. Which comes as a surprise to the actual socialists, but there you have it…
What I think we can learn from this
Two things. First, the dynamics of credit claiming (see Jan 1st 1988 post) with Big Brother’s benevolence being retconned
“She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.)”
Second – Those who know better having to keep schtum to maintain access and influence e.g. Tickell, John Ashworth.
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 three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1980, UK civil servant Crispin Tickell had a stonking article in the Times. The conclusion to it (spoilers!”) is below.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Tickell had become aware of the climate issue in a serious way while on a sabbatical year at Harvard in the mid-1970s, and wrote a book on the subject. He had, as a civil servant, tried to get the G7 interested (there had been some mention in Tokyo in 1979, and the upcoming one in Venice had C02 on the agenda), but it wasn’t until the mid-80s that he was able to get any particular traction with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
This particular article in the Times was in response to a February 12th 1980 report in the Times (link) about the first UK government report – “Climatic Change’, which had been grudgingly released the day before.
What I think we can learn from this
There were smart people who knew about this, and who tried to get leaders to take it seriously. That they failed is on the leaders, not them. Chief Scientific Advisor John Ashworth had tried to brief Margaret Thatcher. She said, with incredulity “you want me to worry about the weather?”
What happened next
Tickell kept beavering away (he had another article, in August of 1982 in the Times). Thatcher would only admit that maybe she should worry about the weather in 1988….
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.
Fifty three years ago, on this day, April 8, 1970, Australian academic Charles Birch had an article in the Australian National University publication Woroni about “Pollution.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 328.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
This was all part of the huge rise in awareness of pollution/environment issues from the late 1960s… Birch was an interesting character.
“Louis Charles BirchFAA (1918–2009) was an Australian geneticist specialising in population ecology and was also well known as a theologian, writing widely on the topic of science and religion, winning the Templeton Prize in 1990. The prize recognised his work ascribing intrinsic value to all life.“
What I think we can learn from this
Again, we knew. The people who run the countries of the world, the elites who attend the elite universities and go on to jobs in finance, industry, politics, academia, they were told about this, and that information has continued to be ‘out there’.
What happened next
Birch kept teaching his students about this problem, and writing about it. When I was writing for The Conversation about Australia, people would occasionally leave comments to the effect that he had switched them on to the issue 45 years previously…,
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.
April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…
Twenty eight years ago, on this day, April 7, 1995, the first (of many!) “COP” events ended in Germany. The main outcome, the so-called Berlin Mandate, which meant rich industrialised countries had to come up with an agreement to cut their own emissions….
1995 The first UNFCCC Conference of Parties took place on 28 March – 7 April 1995 in Berlin, Germany. It voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries’ abilities to meet commitments under the Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI (See Flavin, 1995 account).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The UNFCCC text agreed for the Rio Earth Summit had been weak, thanks to the best efforts of the United States and a selection of (hydrocarbon) allies. There was nothing in there about targets and timetables for rich nations to make reductions. Three years later, that question was back on the table…
What I think we can learn from this
The “original sin” – the attitude of rich nations (and esp. Uncle Sam) during the period 1988-1992 – has cast the longest shadow, and one that people who grew up since then don’t even understand, let alone have the vocabulary to name.
What happened next
The Berlin Mandate culminated (if that is the word?) in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Australia gouged out an incredibly generous “reduction” target (de jure 12% increase in emissions, de facto 130% – and STILL did not ratify!).
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.
Seventeen years ago, on this day, April 6, 2006, the Canadian culture wars kept going.
April 6th 2006 “open letter” of “60 experts” to Harper in Financial Post Page 93 of Climate Cover-Up?
“Last week 60 accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines wrote an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister. They wrote to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the […] government’s climate-change plans.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
There was a strong (and ultimately successful) effort to get Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. This sort of thing, with the usual code words “balanced, comprehensive” was part of it.
What I think we can learn from this
Those who want to keep being rich, and don’t care if the planet burns down as a consequence, they’re persistent and skilful.
What happened next
Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, and is in a tussle with Australia for “shittiest climate criminal settler colony”.
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...
Fifty two years ago, on this day, April 5, 1971, a UK scientist gave an overview of “pollution in context to an assembled audience of the great and the good (and the mediocre and middling)
POLLUTION IN CONTEXT by MARTIN IV. HOLDGATE , PhD Director of the Central Unit of Environmental Pollution , Department of the Environment,* delivered on Monday 5th April 1971 Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. 119, No. 5180 (JULY 1971), pp. 529-542
Published by: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce
1. Naturalness One broad classification can be based on ‘naturalness’. Some substances that can be ‘pollutants’ occur naturally, and are widely dispersed in the world. Some are essential to life. Carbon dioxide is a good example: it is the foundation of photosynthesis by which green plants using solar energy create sugars. Without CO2 in the air, life as we know it could not exist on this planet. And much CO2 enters the air naturally through the respiration of living things and organic decay. Since 1890, man, burning fossil fuels (which are themselves a residue of undecomposed organic carbon that escaped conversion to CO2 long ago) has raised the CO2 level of the atmosphere from around 290 to 320 parts per million but in that same period the natural input has certainly greatly exceeded the artificial
(Holdgate, 1971: 530)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 327.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
Everyone was talking about pollution – air, water, noise, you name it. Doomwatch was on the tellie, and the European Year of Conservation had just finished, with the big UN conference in Stockholm just over a year away.
What I think we can learn from this
Again, none of this is a secret. “We” “knew.” And then pushed it out of our minds, and then it had to be pushed back in. Then was pushed out again.
This has a name – the Issue Attention Cycle, as per Downs in 1972. But Robert Heilbroner had predicted this would be the case as early as April 1970…
What happened next
The attention died down, as people got bored/used to things, and then other (economic) problems came along.
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...
