Forty six years ago, on this day, November 15th, 1979, the FT reports
“West Germany is to set up a study which could have a serious impact on its future energy policies, which at present stress the central importance of coal. The investigation is into the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.”
Boyes, Roger, 1979. Germany Probes Fossil Fuel Effects. Financial Times, November 15, p. 2
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the Germans had been worrying about carbon dioxide for a little while by now (Hermann Flohn’s influence, possibly?).
The specific context was by the mid-1970s meetings were being held at IIASA and elsewhere about the problem. German scientists, and some politicians, were on the case. The first World Climate Conference, hosted by the WMO, had taken place in February 1979 in Geneva. In June 1979 Helmut Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine where he explicitly mentioned carbon dioxide build-up. The G7 meeting (in Tokyo) had namechecked the issue.
What I think we can learn from this – plenty of people knew. But what are you going to do if you run on coal and nukes?
What happened next – the emissions kept climbing, of course. At the G7 in Bonn in 1985, the climate issue got namechecked again.
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 this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.
“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.
The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.
What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.
What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.
Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, November 14th, 1997,
The Federal Government is growing concerned about the threat of trade sanctions against Australia should it refuse to sign the global deal aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the world conference on climate change in Kyoto next month.
According to a confidential Australian Government briefing paper in the hands of The Australian Financial Review, the Government is seeking to have the World Trade Organisation treaty override any agreement reached by nations signing the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention that aims to significantly curb CO emissions, which many believe cause global warming.
“Australia’s proposed language also sends a message to parties that efforts to include trade measures against parties as possible penalties for non-compliance would be subject to strict disciplines,” the briefing paper says.
More specifically, the paper proposes that the Kyoto agreement should “not derogate from the rights and obligations of parties under existing international agreements and, in particular, shall not derogate from the provisions of the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation or affect the rights and obligations of members of the WTO”.
An official has commented in handwriting beside Australia’s proposed text: “This is the most powerful safeguard we can devise to preclude or make it very difficult for parties to use the protocol to invoke trade sanctions on non-parties or non-complying parties who might very well be energy exporters [and] exporters of energy-intensive products.”
While the official Australian position is that it wants to play a leading role in the deliberations over the climate change convention, the briefing paper is a further sign that Australia is preparing the ground for opting out of the Kyoto agreement.
McCathie, A. 1997. Australia heating up over trade threat. The Australian Financial Review, November 14, p.3.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that Australia had been a foot-dragger or worse on climate negotiations for several years now.
The specific context was Prime Minister John Howard was trying to get other nations to agree Australia was exceptional and should not be under the cosh for emissions reductions at the upcoming Kyoto conference.
Here he was clearly thinking about plan-B, in case things went wrong at Kyoto.
What I think we can learn from this – everyone “venue shops”.
What happened next – Australia got its sweet sweet deal at Kyoto. Still refused to ratify. Meanwhile, the WTO became instrumental in climate policy in an unusual way – In 2004 Russia agreed to ratify Kyoto in (tacit) exchange for membership of the WTO.
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 this day 41 years ago, a 3-day hold-hands-and-BELIEVE-in-the-cleansing-and-redemptive-power-of-technology-and-markets event begins.
“No one doubts that the world environment is in a parlous state. With millions threatened, and thousands dying from starvation in Ethiopia as a consequence of drought and an eroded soil, with tropical forests still being obliterated in the face of a woeful ignorance as to the effects on world climate, with equally serious problems arising in the northern hemisphere because of acid rain, and with concern over the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is clear that mankind must again come to appreciate the integral role that the environment plays in his survival. No one doubts either that industry and the process of industrialization together comprise a major factor of change in the environment, bringing more and more of the earth’s surface under the domain of man and his artefacts.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 344ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The longer-term context is that industry had been making promises about cleaning up its act for a good decade now.
The shorter-term context is that there had been the 10 year anniversary of the Stockholm conference a couple of years before, and rumblings and mumblings about carbon dioxide build-up were growing. The French were/always are in the market for hosting this sort of tosh.
What we learn – talk has been cheap for a very long time. These events serve an important social function, allowing people to believe that our Lords and Masters are more than fearful greedy meatpuppets.
What happened next – the climate issue broke through a few ppm later – in 1988. For all the good it did us. Oh well.
Twenty five years ago, on this day, November 13th, 2000,
According to Graeme Pearman, Australia’s senior climate scientist and head of its greenhouse research effort, not much. On ABC `7.30 Report’ last night (13th) he concluded –
Dr Graeme Pearman: “The reality of the protocol as it is at the moment, is even if all of the nations were able to achieve those targets, it would hardly make any difference.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 369ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the UN negotiating process around climate was, as had been predicted, a total clusterfuck. Targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries had been kept out of the initial treaty by the US threatening to boycott the Earth Summit.
Graeme Pearman, by this stage, had been studying C02 build-up for almost 30 years, and had advised Keating’s cabinet (in 1994).
The specific context was Australia had extorted an astonishingly generous deal, and had signed, but was still not moving to ratify, and it was pretty obvious (see leak from September 1998) that it would only do so if the US ratified.
What I think we can learn from this – international climate “policy” is basically make-believe, kayfabe.
What happened next – Australia finally ratified Kyoto, under Kevin Rudd, who then refused to set ambitious targets for further action.
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 seven years ago, on this day, November 12th, 1998,
“equally surprising was the last-minute volte-face by the United States at Kyoto by agreeing to 7 percent emissions cuts by 2008- 2012 instead of its previous, deeply entrenched position. Eleven months later, while public predicating U.S. commitments on “meaningful participation” from developing countries, the Clinton-Gore administration nevertheless went ahead and formally signed the Kyoto Protocol on 12 November 1998”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 367ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that the US administration of George HW Bush had prevented targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries from being included in the text of the Climate Treaty. From 1995 there had been a process to get them in (“The Berlin Mandate”).
The specific context was the Kyoto meeting had taken place in December 1997. Clinton-Gore could sign it all they liked, but the chances of getting it through the US Senate were approximately zero.
What I think we can learn from this – politicians virtue-signal/cross their fingers/hope something will turn up.
What happened next – Gore probably won the 2000 election, but it was handed to George “Dubya” Bush by the Supreme Court. Bush (well, Cheney really) then pulled the US out of the Kyoto negotiations.
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 November 11, 1965 America received the first hint of what was to become a reality. On that night, there was a power failure. As a result, the entire Eastern Seaboard became dramatically aware of how dependent it had become on electrical energy. Shortly afterward, smaller blackouts and brownouts began to occur frequently.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 320ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was grids are higgedy-piggedythings – kludges and palimpsests, and prone to overload…
The specific context was – accidents will happen…
What I think we can learn from this – sometimes a good blackout can concentrate people’s minds? Maybe… It can also stampede them back into outdated thinking and technologies…
What happened next – more blackouts at various points. And rising emissions, obvs.
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 six years ago, on this day, November 10th, 1969, climatologist Kenneth Hare gave a talk titled “Carbon Dioxide and All That”.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 324ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was a much younger Kenneth Hare had been there that day in 1938 when Guy Callendar addressed the Royal Meteorological Society in London, about carbon dioxide (Callendar had got a relatively polite but dismissive hearing).
The specific context was by 1969, carbon dioxide was the “in” gas – people were coming out and saying it would be a problem. Hare wasn’t yet so sure.
What I think we can learn from this – the awareness and concern is there from the late 1960s. Our governance systems failed us (mostly because they were about capital accumulation and protecting incumbents, not doing any horizon-scanning). Oh well.
What happened next – it would take another twenty years (1988) before politicians would be forced to start paying serious lipservice. Funnily enough, a big conference in Toronto was part of the irresistible pressure.
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 one years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1994,
A DOCUMENT leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has revealed the department’s strongly critical view of business and farm lobby concerns over international environment treaties now being negotiated by the Government.
The document, a minute written by First Assistant Secretary, Mr W.N. Fisher, to the department head, Mr Michael Costello, reveals a DFAT institutional view that is highly critical and dismissive of business and farm lobbies.
The minute will gravely embarrass the Federal Government, which has undertaken to improve consultation with business and farm groups over treaty negotiations. The minute reveals DFAT’s conviction that consultations are a waste of time because, ultimately, the Government knows what is best for business.
In it, he calls DFAT contacts with business “despairing” and “pretty appalling”. He says Mt Isa Mines Ltd salesmen are “incompetently briefed” by the company on a climate change convention now being negotiated.
“You would think that MIM, with a multi-million dollar export contract at stake, would at least have the wit to brief its salesmen on the contents of the framework convention so that if they have to confront these arguments they would know what they are talking about.”
“Too much to hope for, apparently. MIM salesmen must be a pushover for the Germans and the Japanese to deal with,” the minute says.
Barker, G. 1994. Govt leak scorns business lobby. The Australian Financial Review, 9 November.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 359ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that there had already been fierce fights within the federal policymaking machinery about climate change. Problem was, the bad guys were winning.
The specific context was – the first COP was coming up (Berlin, March-April 1995) and Australia wanted to get its position straight. Meanwhile, there was a fierce campaign for (and a fiercer campaign against) a carbon tax.
What I think we can learn from this – states are not monoliths. There are all sorts of fights going on about turf, but also direction of travel. And industry has its meatpuppets within the official bureaucracy, as well as lots of zombie think tanks etc.
What happened next – the Department of Climate Criminality and Assholeness continued to win all the important fights.
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 eight years ago, on this day, November 9th, 1987,
Senate hearings sponsored by Tim Wirth In November 1987 Colorado senator Tim Wirth had sponsored a hearing on climate in which Hansen had testified, but it had been widely ignored by the nation’s media establishment. Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 184 [Took place on November 9th, 1987]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.
The broader context was that from the mid-1960s there had been Senators (Democrat but also Republican) who took an interest in carbon dioxide build-up.
The specific context was that the October 1985 scientific meeting in Villach, Austria, had – in some countries (esp US and Australia) lent some urgency and power to scientists efforts to get politicians to push harder.
What I think we can learn from this – it can take ages for a problem to become an issue.
What happened next – the following year more hearings with Hansen took place, but this time during a heatwave and with an international conference about to take place in Toronto. That straw broke the camel’s back.
Wirth was Clinton’s climate emissary, and had some entertaining things to say about Australia’s stance in the run up to 1997’s Kyoto COP.
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.
