Fifty four years ago, on this day, April 18th, 1970, UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson was trying to get some kudos for wrapping himself in the issue of the day…,
In April 1970, Wilson gave a speech to the United Nations Association in York, in which he espoused the virtues of international cooperation on the environment:
We need a new charter of international rights – and obligations. This is how it might read. All States have a common interest in the beneficial management of the natural resources of the Earth. All States should cooperate in the prevention or control of physical changes in the environment which may jeopardise the quality of human life, and which may endanger the health or the survival of animals or plants.102
102 TNA: FCO 55/429, Prime Minister’s Address to Annual General Meeting of the United Nations Association in York, 18 April 1970
(Sims, 2016: 212)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 325ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Harold Wilson had been talking about environmental issues since September of the previous year, at the Labour Party Conference, in a period of competitive consensus. In January he gave a speech up in New York about a new special relationship on pollution. The Conservatives were yapping at his heels. Wilson in his head was probably thinking about the next election. And the green issue was an important one for voters. This is long before the Ecology party, which later became the Green Party.
What we learn is that there was a period of alarm and competitive consensus in the late 60s early 70s. And compare and contrast that with what happened in the periods of 2006 to 2008. And the coupled lack of ambition in 2023-4. We’re so doomed.
What happened next? Well, a month later, the first ever Environment White Paper was released. It mentioned carbon dioxide buildup as a potential issue. Wilson then went on to lose the June 1970 election. He returned to office in 74 and stepped down in 76.
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.
Below is an email interview with Bill Hare, CEO & Senior Scientist at Climate Analytics
You can follow Bill on Twitter – @BillHareClimate
1. When did you first hear about climate change, and how? What was the Australian Conservation Foundation’s early position on it?
I heard about rising CO2 concentrations and climate change in high school from a geography teacher in the early 1970s.
What woke me up to it as a significant problem was an academic at University of Western Australia gave me a paper in nature in 1978 to look at. At first, I was sceptical, but the more I looked into it the more I became convinced it – fossil fuel CO2 induced climate warming – was a serious problem.
When I first joined the Australian Conservation Foundation climate change was not a theme. Stratospheric ozone depletion was an emerging problem, and I was pretty heavily briefed by CSIRO scientist at the time, notably Barrie Pittock. He also brought to my attention, a number of international publications on rising concern about global warming.
By the late 1980s, there were calls for a 20% reduction in C02 emissions by 2005 (the Toronto target). If I recall correctly the ACF lined up behind those calls in various submissions and press commentary.
At the same time, we were also calling for a phase out of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances to combat stratospheric ozone depletion.
2. Australian policy elites first started to have their attention properly drawn to the issue almost 30 years ago, in 1986, with the public following in 1988.
Yes, there was the 1987 CSIRO conference, and that I think marks the beginning of formal attention to this issue
I had a paper at this conference with my colleague at the time Helen Quilligan
Since then, there have been fierce battles over even the most elementary of policy instruments (carbon pricing and support for renewables).
Yes, and at the level of macroeconomic policy, the view by the late 1980s in Australia was that the country had a lot to benefit from exporting coal and other resources to North East Asia, including China.
This became quite a dominant view and provided a justification of much of what happened in the 1990s and beyond.
Hawke in responding to this report, recognised the environmental challenges that would come from a massive expansion of and made the claim that
“And let me make this point. My Government does not accept the simplistic dichotomy – development or the protection of the environment. We must have both. And our record shows that we can have both.”
The ecologically sustainable development process that he set up however, failed to substantially impact the direction and scale of environmental protection in Australia. Paul Keating had a little interest in this when he assumed the role of prime minister and there’s process became completely moribund, under pressure from the resource development lobby and relevant agencies of government.
Climate policy was essentially non-existent, and opposition to action inside government federally was widespread and intensive.
One fairly standard academic view is that this is what you’d expect of a country with enormous fossil fuel reserves and a powerful mining industry.
That is very fatalistic view. Is that what had to be? I’m not so sure – ecological modernisation, under the umbrella of the Ecologic development process was aimed at industrial power. I don’t think it had to end up the way it did.
Looking back at this period, I don’t think the extent of capture of the political parties by the fossil fuel industry was anywhere near as advanced as it is now.
Is that too fatalistic? Does that let the politicians, other business and civil society off the hook?
I think it lets politicians off the hook and does not properly contextualise the rapacious behaviour of Australia is mining, resources industry and fossil fuel industry. I think the Murdoch press played a very significant and destructive roll in all this over the last 20 or 30 years.
It’s hard to comment on the role of civil society.
(And if this academic view is not a good explanation, what is a better one?)
I don’t know how ground breaking it is to describe the blinding obvious in retrospect.
It might have helped if a lot more academics has spoken up about the adverse direction of Australia on climate action over the years.
3. Without getting bogged down, what could and should have been done differently,
Well, it depends on ones view of history. Is it historically determined that in 2013 Australia elected a government that would repeal groundbreaking climate legislation and policies and start a decade of denial?
If this legislation has not been repealed, then I think we would be in a substantially different place. Then we are now, probably one somewhat behind the European Union, but with a range of different policy instruments in place that could be improved.
and – crucially – what could and should ‘campaigners’ (broadly defined so as to include renewables companies etc) do differently in the short-to-medium term to try to accelerate policy and technology change towards something that might be considered adequate.
Well, there are a number of things that need to be focused on, and these include working to establish the right long-term policy frameworks, fearlessly hold government to account on their policies and actions, continue the campaign to convince people of the wisdom and benefits of climate policy action, make sure people understand the risks coming from global warming and to upgrade communication efforts in this area.
It is very important that NGOs and academics are fully independent of government and special or pecuniary interests, particularly in the Australian context interest in offsets. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a pattern of interest that may conflict.
It is also very important that NGOs are brave and fearless, and do not concern themselves overly with the health of the Labour Party internally, nor prioritise, access to ministers over, maintaining a strong and consistent position on the right things to do. In the end, and my experience, mature government will listen even if I don’t like the message they are at first.
4. Personal question – where do you get your hope/tenacity from? (If it’s a special Amazon delivery, what’s the URL for that!!)
One has to have hope, and as soon as one becomes cynical it’s time to leave the field. Surprising as it might seem, I get a lot of energy from the science of this issue. Yes, the news is very depressing, but if one focuses on what can be done and how fast then one can see a way forward. In addition, the massive role out of renewables, electric vehicles and batteries has to give rise to hope that we can bend the curve fast enough. At the end of the day, the problem is too serious to give up and to serious to surrender hope
Forty three years ago, on this day, April 17th, 1981, the alert was sounded. Again.
WASHINGTON – The atmosphere’s carbon-dioxide content has increased 7 percent since 1958, when systematic measurement began. Scientists fear that the continued use of fossil fuel and continued land-clearing and destruction of forests will raise the quantity of CO2 to double the pre-industrial level. We fear that if the theoreticians of climate are correct, sometime in the next 100 years there will be a virtually irreversible shift in the Earth’s climatic pattern; it would be on a scale unprecedented in human history. Such a ”greenhouse effect” could lead to great disruption; there might be benefits, but also costs, such as widespread hunger.,,,
17 April 1981 OpEd in NYT by David Burns of AAAS https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/17/opinion/climate-and-co-2.html
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context is that the push for awareness of action on carbon dioxide had been steadily increasing from the late 70s. You’d had the National Academy of Sciences report energy and climate in 1977. You’d had the Charney report in the aftermath of the First World Climate Conference. You’d had the Global 2000 report. And more recently, the Council on Environmental Quality. There were meetings being organised by NASA IEA, WTF WMO, UNEP, etc. And so although it may seem and James Hansen was beginning to make a noise, and although therefore it may seem early, and the first time I saw this article I thought, “wow, that’s early,” it really isn’t.
What we learn is that this issue has been with us for 45 years, really, as a public policy issue. I mean, yes, it exploded in public attention in 1988. But policymakers were scratching their heads about it in the early 80s, or rather, the decent ones were. The thugs and buffoons were being focused on being buffoons, useful idiots for their lords and masters.
What happened next, it would be another four years before the flow of concern about climate in the problem stream really began to kick off and another three before it breached the dams.
David Burns was there at the AAAS meeting in Washington DC with James Hansen et al in January 1982
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 16th, 2006, The Federal Industry Minister is his inimitable self…
In an Interview with the ABC’s Four Corners in April 2006, the Industry Minister, Senator Ian Macfarlane described State incentive schemes such as VRET as ‘Mickey Mouse schemes.’ (Prest, 2007: 254)
Four Corners 16 April 2007 Earth Wind and Fire
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that that Howard and his pals had been trying to strangle renewables – almost ten years previously they’d been forced to promise a renewables target in the lead up to the Kyoto meeting of the UNFCCC.
What we learn is that opponents of an action can toggle effortlessly between “it’s too much” and “it’s not enough”. So for example, at various points the Howard regime said, “well, Kyoto wouldn’t make a difference, therefore, we’re not doing it.” And here we see an environment minister Ian MacFarlane calling the renewable energy schemes Mickey Mouse.
It’s the classic somebody accused of killing their parents is convicted and before sentencing says to the judge,”well, in mitigation, I’d like the fact taken into account that I’m an orphan.”
What happened next? MacFarlane was dumped as environment minister and replaced by young thrusting or young-ish thrusting Malcolm Turnbull the following year. In November 2007, the Australian Labour Party formed the government did some things to improve renewables (while epically failing on the big picture).
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 five years ago, on this day, April 15th, 1969, a well-known British Scientist was sounding the alarm.
Anon, 1969. Air Pollution Could Cause Flood- Expert. Coventry Evening Telegraph, April 16, p.10
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that more and more senior British scientists were switching on to the danger of carbon dioxide. And Mellanby was one of the first, maybe first, to make a public song and dance about it.
What we learn is that well, whoever went to that event in Coventry in 1969, will have been sensitised to the issue.
What happened next? Mellanby kept talking about it. Mellanby was okay with the Blueprint for Survival of January 1972.
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 four years ago, on this day, April 14th, 1980, the US chief scientific advisor was not happy about people bigging up the carbon dioxide threat…
The following April, Frank Press, the head of the OSTP, reacted angrily to a draft of a Council on Environmental Quality report that he felt greatly overemphasized the dangers and underplayed the uncertainty. “At this moment of great national trauma with respect to energy, inflation, and foreign affairs, I believe it is a serious disservice to the public to raise widespread concern about an issue with hazards, that are, at the moment, so speculative and uncertain.”27
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate Author(s): Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel IN: Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Summer 2010), pp. 318-349
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that American scientists had been banging the drum for a while. And Frank Press had been on the receiving end of this, as Jimmy Carter‘s Chief Scientific Adviser. There’s a memo from 1977. There was the Global 2000 report underway.
This, from the Council on Environmental Quality is a separate issue. The CEQ had been set up in 1970 under Nixon. I think Press was probably worried that too much attention was being paid to what was still possibly regardable as a speculative issue, despite the previous year’s Charney Report.
It was an election year, and anything that could pin Carter as a nervous ninny was to be avoided. This was difficult since the man had already sat there dressed in the cardigan and given a “malaise speech.” But that’s the context.
What we learn is that scientific advice is never just about the science, especially from a political appointee.
What happened next?
Well, I didn’t know how much influence Press had. The CEQ report did finally come out that maybe it was ready before January 1981 when it was released. Maybe it was held back until after the election?
The CEQ report was released in January 1981. But it was a dead duck because the Reagan administration was about to take office.
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.
On 13 April 2011 the company [GE] was joined by a number of others, including AGL, Linfox, Fujitsu, BP and IKEA, in issuing a statement backing the government.
(Chubb, 2014:173)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was this was the middle of a ferocious battle over the Emissions Trading Scheme that the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change had developed and advocated. And the Coalition, then in opposition, was trying to say that all business was opposed because it would mean extra costs, as per their brilliant attack line “a great big tax on everything.”
So the fact that GE and other companies said, “nah, it’ll be fine” should have been far more newsworthy. But it didn’t fit the frame. And also, the companies probably weren’t terribly keen on being dragged into a culture war. And so it never really gained a lot of traction.
What we learn is that “business” is invoked by political parties as if it’s a monolith. And it’s always, almost always far more nuanced than that. But in the words of that sociologist “fuck nuance “.
What happened next, despite the sturm und drang, and the sound and fury emanating from Abbott and the climate denialists, and anti carbon tax people, the legislation passed, became law. And, according to its advocates, it actually started to reduce emissions. (Others say that this was an artefact of extra hydro electricity from Tasmania in the mix.)
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.
Sixty nine years ago, on this day, April 12th, 1955, a regional newspaper in England explained what was coming.
Anon, 1955. Melting Ice Could Menace the World. Coventry Evening Telegraph April 12 p.7
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there was, for many years, a consensus that the world was warming up. It wasn’t quite so clear what was causing it. This article explicitly mentions carbon dioxide as one possible culprit.
What we learn is that the idea of the world warming was not particularly controversial. But the mechanism was, and what Gilbert Plass, drawing on Guy Callendar, did was give a plausible explanation. That’s a really important distinction, something I hadn’t quite figured out.
What we learn is that the British regional press back at this time was still worthy of the name more or less (though I’m sure it didn’t feel to campaigners at the time that it was!). One mustn’t look at the past with rose-tinted glasses.
What happened next The Coventry Evening Telegraph did keep reporting on the issue. There was just a general awareness that things were warming up, and that there might be trouble ahead.
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.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that China was industrialising at warp speed. That of course meant coal and all that that entails, both in local air pollution and also carbon dioxide emissions.
What we learn from this is that outfits like Greenpeace China, my goodness, what a tough environment to be in…
What happened next? China then also overtook the US as number one emitter (but not per capita). And China has continued to be a Rorschach test. You can see whatever you want to see in it
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.
Eighteen years ago, on this day, April 10th, 2006, business groups split on climate action.
New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.
WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.
The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.
“He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn’t saying that as a casual political comment … he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development.”
Snow, D. (2006) Business warms to change The Sydney Morning Herald 10th April , page 10.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified and become international lore, sorry, law. The European Emissions Trading Scheme had come into effect. And the big banks were looking at all the money that might be made from carbon trading, and thinking “we’d like a piece of that.” There was already a failed history of getting a Futures Exchange going or getting Australian Prime Minister John Howard to listen to insurers and banks from like 2003. But it’s always worth another roll of the dice, another go. And that’s what happened here.
What we learn is that a lot of what’s driving their alleged philanthropic efforts is actually about sniffing out new markets, especially if the international environment, for want of a better phrase, is changing.
What happened next, the Westpac thing went nowhere. But it added to the load and in September of the same year, the issue broke through and in November 2006, Howard was forced to create this Shergold Report process to look at emissions trading.
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.
