Categories
Kyoto Protocol Russia

October 22, 2004 – Russian Duma votes for Kyoto ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, October 22nd, 2004, 

Russian Duma votes in favour of ratification of Kyoto (Scorcher, page 95)

Just hot air, in every sense…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 original climate treaty, which became the UNFCCC, didn’t have targets and timetables for rich countries to reduce their emissions. This was not forgetfulness, this was the intransigence of the USA, whose President, George H.W. Bush, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the French didn’t take out the targets and timetables. The French did, and then it became a question of how to get some emissions reductions commitment into play. The “answer” was the Kyoto Protocol” – entirely inadequate from a scientific viewpoint, but “at least it’s a start” if you need to believe because you are a breeder, or part of your job description is to believe. But although a deal was created at Kyoto, in 2001 the Americans pulled out followed by one of their satellite states, Australia, the following year.

The specific context was that the Russians wanted in to the World Trade Organisation (this was in the days of cuddly Putin), and the tacit quid pro quo was they’d sign up to Kyoto (which wouldn’t affect them because their emissions had plummeted after the collapse of the Soviet Union) and everyone would be happy.

What I think we can learn from this – you gotta know the history, and you gotta understand that climate policy is a bauble compared to all the other stuff (you can make an argument that “climate policy” doesn’t actually exist, btw).

What happened next – Kyoto became international law early the next year because of Russia saying yes. Australia and the US set up an attempted spoiler/distraction outfit, but nobody took it seriously. There was to-ing and fro-ing- at the COPs, but eventually, in 2007 there was the “Road to Copenhagen” – where a successor to Kyoto would be agreed. Oh yes.

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.

Also on this day: 

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

Categories
International processes

October 21, 1991 – “Environment agencies start to flex their muscles”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 21st, 1991,

An international plan was unveiled yesterday to “harness the total resources of humanity” to improve the global environment by measures which include massive reductions in energy consumption and the use of natural resources in industrialised countries.

The proposals, put forward by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world conservation union (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), envisage the establishment of a new world organisation – probably based on the United Nations – to co-ordinate environmental protection and encourage sustainable development which does not deplete natural resources.

The reports entitled “Caring for the Earth”, suggest that the UN general assembly could coordinate the system through its committees and produce annual reports on the state of the world environment.

Launching the report in London, the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the WWF, warned that unless population growth was halted soon world resources would no longer be able to support humanity’s needs and economies would face collapse. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/cfe-003.pdf

Unknown Author, 1991. Environment Agencies Start To Flex Their Muscles. Financial Times October 22 p.4

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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. I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that many of these organisations had been established in the 1950s or 1960s, when the major issues were habitat loss. Over time the ones that could roll with the punches, adopt new language etc., were able to survive while the small, unlucky or “stuck” with a particular perspective or image stayed small or died. By 1991 the second great eco-awakening was already three years old, and participant fatigue was beginning to set in.

The specific context was that the Rio Earth Summit was just 8 months away, and everyone was hoping that this time they’d all get it right and Save the World. 

What I think we can learn from this – green groups can have hopes, but then, well, there’s always reality…

What happened next. Reader, nobody Saved the World. The UNFCCC was a farce, and the emissions are 60+ per cent higher than they were in 1990.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 21, 1989 – Langkawi Declaration on environmental sustainability… 

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

Categories
Energy United States of America

October 20, 1970 – Memo about energy research required because power sector too fragmented

Fifty five years ago, on this day, October 20th, 1970, 

Dr Edward David memo to Nixon about federal government funding for energy research being necessary because power industry too fragmented. 

See Speth Ch 1 of They Knew

This isn’t the memo (I think), but gives the same flavour.

“On the other hand, in some cases projects are so large and the industry involved so fragmented that they are really unable to come to grips with big, expensive efforts where the risks are high and the payoff far in the future. Furthermore, many industries don’t have the R&D tradition. The tradition of R&D and the peculiar culture that surrounds it are necessary for its existence and its effectiveness. Some industries have not cultivated and have never had this tradition. It’s difficult and, indeed, almost impossible for them to begin R&D on a large scale successfully and without great waste of resources. In the next few years the nation is going to be faced with many problems concerning government action in certain R&D fields. The President decides whether a development is potentially so important that if industry doesn’t pick it up, then the Government must. He has made a number of those judgments, particularly in the environmental area. And we are doing a great deal of environmental research, for example, the unconventional automobile propulsion work at the National Air Pollution Control Administration. The question arises: Why should the Government be developing unconventional automobile engines why not the industry itself? Well, there is a delicate judgment there as to whether the Government ought to be doing such work. In this instance, we had judgments from many people both in and out of the industry that if the Government augmented the work, it would go forward a great deal more rapidly. I don’t see us taking over automotive R&D, however.”

Source – ED053968.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 326ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 there were (as always) fierce debates going on about the “energy mix” (coal, nuclear, oil etc etc) for the US. Each had its proponents and opponents, with their varying tactics. But doing any sort of co-ordination/planning or even research is problematic in fragmented/privately owned situations.

The specific context was Nixon’s government was aware of climate change (Moynihan memo and response) and had been warned about it in the August 1970 CEQ report. But it was not high on the agenda.

What I think we can learn from this – that fragmented is not good, but centralised isn’t perfect either. Look at the UK, which at this time had the Central Electricity Generating Board, an “opaque behemoth.” 

Whatever system you have, you need an active/engaged/irrepressible civil society, of which social movements are a subset. Absent that, some brand of Bolshevik/Hayekian is going to pick your pocket and loot your future.

What happened next – the Bolsheviks and Hayekians continued to pick pockets and loot futures. And the emissions kept climbing, regardless of various “eco-awakenings.”

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.

Also on this day: 

October 20, 1977 – Australian petition on solar energy and carbon dioxide build-up…

October 20, 1983 – The Australian says “‘Dire consequences’ in global warm-up”. 

October 20, 1997 – Greenpeace tries to give John Howard solar panels

October 20, 2001 – Greenpeace nails Howard government over Kyoto and general climate assholery – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

October 19, 1993 – Clinton handwringing

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 19th, 1993, 

“We simply must halt global warming. It is a threat to our health, to our ecology and to our economy. The problem frankly affects every sector of the economy.” Clinton, William J. 1993. Remarks at the White House Conference on Climate Change, October 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 had gutted the UNFCCC (insisting that targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations be removed or else) and then ratified it quite swiftly in December 1992. Al Gore, Clinton’s veep had published “Earth in the Balance” the previous year. Ah, such sweet and innocent times.

The specific context was that Clinton had already by this time had his ass handed to him over the BTU tax, so all this was compensatory bollocks.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lot of what comes out of politicians mouths is just PR blandishments designed to distract you while your pocket is picked and your future is looted. 

What happened next – Clinton’s emissions got him into trouble a few years later (i.e. he abused his position of power, for the umpteenth time). Nothing meaningful was done about US emissions. And the future continued to be looted, and the present started to catch up with the future, until we entered the Fafocene.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank 

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Categories
Europe

October 19, 1972 – EC handwringing about the environment

Fifty three years ago, on this day, October 19th, 1972,

The Heads of State or Government of the Member States met in Paris on October 19-20, 1972. They declared inter alia that “economic expansion is not an end in itself.” Economic expansion, they noted, “should result in an improvement in the quality of life as well as in standards of living.” Stressing the importance of a Community environmental policy, they called upon the Community institutions “to establish before 31 July 1973, a programme of action accompanied by a precise timetable.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 European Conservation Year had taken place in 1970, and “the environment” had been flavour of the month for a while now. The UN conference on the Human Environment had taken place in Stockholm in June and given us… er… checks notes… the United Nations Environment Program.

The specific context was – the European Community was trying to carve out some useful positions, amidst a possible thaw in the “Cold War” (detente and all that).

What I think we can learn from this – the bland technocrats have been bland technocratting (1) for a long time. The emissions don’t seem to have plateaued very much.

What happened next – lots more warm words and bland technocratting.

(NB I am not sure Maoist adventurism and Great Leaps Forward are preferable, tbh). “There’s gotta be another way” …

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.

Also on this day: 

October 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank 

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial United States of America

October 18, 1991 – American denialist in Australia….

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 18th, 1991,

Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

Not his first rodeo…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 carbon dioxide build-up had broken through as an issue in 1988. By 1989 the George C Marshall Institute (set up to shill for Reagan’s Star Wars bullshit) had entered the fray and was enabling denialist efforts, alongside the Global Climate Coalition etc. Australia was one market for its shite.

Singer – Singer had been a semi-respected scientist and bureaucrat from the 1950s onward. But at some point he had jumped the shark. Here, he was fresh from warping the words of a dying Roger Revelle, who had known that many people did not think Singer was much of a scientist…

The specific context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was coming to an end and the moment of maximum danger – where the government might actually take on some of its recommendations – was about now. If you were going to bring out some idiot not very good scientist (as per Roger Revelle) now would be a good time. And so it came to pass…

What I think we can learn from this – evil people aren’t necessarily stupid or incompetent. (And conversely, the “good” guys aren’t all smart and competent.)

What happened next – The ESD got thrown in the bin by Paul Keating, who toppled Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke a couple of months later. The Tasman Institute kept up with the tours, economic modelling etc.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
United Kingdom

October 18, 1984 – Nature reviews four climate change books

On this day forty one years ago, American scientist John Perry reviewed four books about climate change for Nature.

Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and Climatic Change: A Review of the Scientific Problems. By P.S. Liss and A.J. Crane. Geo Books, Regency House, 34 Duke Street, Norwich NR3 3AP, UK: 1983. Pp.127. Hbk £8.50, $17;pbk £3.95, $7.80.

Carbon Dioxide — Emissions and Effects (Report No. ICTIS/TR18). By Irene M. Smith. IEA Coal Research, 14–15 Lower Grosvenor Place, London SW1W 0EX: 1982. Pp.132. £10 (IEA countries), £20 (elsewhere).

Climate and Energy Systems: A Review of their Interactions By Jill Jäger. Wiley: 1983. Pp.231. £19.95, $39.95.

Our Threatened Climate: Ways of Averting the CO2 Problem through Rational Energy Use By Wilfrid Bach. Reidel: 1983. Pp.368. $29, Dfl. 95, £24.25.

Perry, J. Much ado about CO2. Nature 311, 681–682 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1038/311681a0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 345ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 by the early 1980s the evidence was basically in, as far as the scientists were concerned.

Carbon dioxide trapped heat.

Carbon dioxide was building up in the atmosphere.

More heat would be trapped.

You can make it more complex if you like…

The specific context was that the climate issue wasn’t going away, just because Reagan and Thatcher were ignoring it…

What I think we can learn from this – we knew plenty.

What happened next – 

See Lord Ashby in House of Lords a few days later (am blogging it)

Also on this day

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?” 

October 18, 1974 – Weinberg’s “Global Effects of Man’s Production of Energy” published 

 October 18, 1983 – All US news networks run “greenhouse effect” stories

October 18, 1983- US news networks tell the truth about #climate. Yes, 1983.

Categories
United States of America Weather modification

October 17, 1963 – Weather Modification report released

Sixty two years ago, on this day, October 17th, 1963,

17-18 Oct 1963 TRANSMITTAL The Honorable Leland J. Haworth Director National Science Foundation Washington, D. C. Dear Dr. Haworth: It is an honor to transmit herewith to the National Science Foundation the report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification, authorized by the National Science Board at its meeting on October 17-18, 1963, in accordance with Sections 3(a)(7) and 9 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and appointed by you on June 16, 1964. The Commission was requested to examine the physical, biological, legal, social, and political aspects of the field and make recommendations concerning future policies and programs.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 319ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 weather modification experiments had been going on since the late 1940s (mostly attempts to make rain). (There’s a long history – firing cannons at clouds etc.)

There had been a UN resolution on this in 1961 (Kennedy – link).

The specific context was that the US and the USSR were deep into their scientific/military/technological dick-swinging contest, which had a year previously brought us all to the edge of armageddon.

What I think we can learn from this – that those who are banging on about the government controlling the weather are wrong, but they are in fact understandably wrong – HAARPING on about the weather.

What happened next – weather modification continued (Operation Popeye is an eyepopper) but by the late 1970s, thanks to – er, physics and international agreements – was on the backburner.

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.

Also on this day: 

October 17, 1973 – the coup at the Australian Conservation Foundation

October 18, 1973 – “how on earth do you stop using fossil fuels?”

October 17, 1987 – CHOGM meeting at which Margaret Thatcher has climate “brought home to her” – All Our Yesterdays

October 17, 2009 – Maldives cabinet meets underwater

Categories
Academia Propaganda

“Books, books, and more books”: a key climate delayer technique

The battle for the public mind is never-ending. And one of the key weapons remains… wait for it… books.

This below is inspired by reading Royce Kurmelovs’ review of a new tiresome pronuclear abundance tome that makes utterly baseless allegations about the funding behind “Friends of the Earth.” (Full disclosure, Royce is a friend, we’ve collaborated in the past and I had a very minor role in the research of this review).

A book is a “hook” – the author(s) get, er, booked, to appear on radio shows, tv programmes. The book is excerpted in newspapers, which are then quoted by columnists in papers and by politicians in parliament. The book can be the excuse for a tour of cities. The book gets you on podcasts. The book can get turned into instagram posts and tiktok videos.

None of this is new, but it is worth remembering.

Two particular (albeit American) examples should be part of any intelligent media-observer’s toolkit.

The first is the statement by Julian Simon about what the “conservative” movement needed. This from Jane Meyer tells you what you need to know.

His father evidently lost his mother’s fortune, motivating Simon to make his own. On Wall Street, he became a hugely successful partner at Salomon Brothers, where he was an early leader in the lucrative new craze for leveraged buyouts. But what neither Olin nor Simon had was influence over the next generation. “We are careening with frightening speed towards collectivism,” Simon warned.
Only an ideological battle could save the country, in Simon’s view. “What we need is a counter-intelligentsia. … [It] can be organized to challenge our ruling ‘new class’ — opinion makers,” Simon wrote. “Ideas are weapons — indeed the only weapons with which other ideas can be fought.” He argued, “Capitalism has no duty to subsidize its enemies.” Private and corporate foundations, he said, must cease “the mindless subsidizing of colleges and universities whose departments of politics, economics and history are hostile to capitalism.” Instead, they “must take pains to funnel desperately needed funds to scholars, social scientists and writers who understand the relationship between political and economic liberty,” as he put it. “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”
Under Simon’s guidance, the Olin foundation tried to fund the new “counterintelligentsia.” At first, it tried supporting little-known colleges where conservative ideas — and money — were welcome. But Simon and his associates soon realized that this was a losing strategy. If the Olin foundation wanted impact, it needed to infiltrate prestigious universities, especially the Ivy League.

Mayer 2016 (emphasis added).

    The second is the Joan Peters debacle. Somebody wrote a book, published under her name in 1984, about how there weren’t any Palestinians in the 19th century – “a land without people for a people without a land” stuff, and the US academics lapped it up. Then along came Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky… I URGE you to read Chomsky’s account, here.

    The beauty of the book technique is that – if it comes from a ‘reputable’ publisher – it gives any old bullshit argument a heft, a solidity, it doesn’t deserve. It sells copies (publisher happy) and the author gets exposure, and bandwidth gets taken up, nonsense talking points get repeated and regurgitated, no matter how many times the book is “demolished” (see Chomsky above)

    See also

    “Why are they lying to our children?” – what a 40 year old propaganda campaign can tell us about today (and tomorrow’s) cultural battles. #Climate #CorporatePropaganda
      Categories
      Coal United States of America

      October 16, 2001 – Clean coal blah blah. 

      Twenty four years ago, on this day, October 16th, 2001 

      Washington, DC – With many areas of the country still facing tight electricity supplies in coming years, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today announced more than $110 million in new projects to apply leading edge clean coal technologies to improve the reliability and environmental performance of the Nation’s coal-burning power plants.

      Abraham announced that the federal government will share the costs of outfitting eight power plants to become “showcases” of ways coal plants can continue generating low-cost electricity with better performance and in compliance with tight environmental standards.

      http://www.fe.doe.gov/techline/techlines/2001/tl_ppii_sel.html

      October 16, 2001 Abraham Announces Projects to Bolster Electricity Supply from Coal Plants “Power Plant Improvement Initiative” is Precursor to President’s Clean Coal Technology Program

      The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 371ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. 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 was in one of its periodic phases of announcing “energy independence” (see also Nixon in late 1973).

      The specific context was Dubya Bush on the campaign trail had said that carbon dioxide would need regulating. After his daddy’s Supreme Court picks gifted him the White House, his boss (Dick Cheney) kibboshed that.

      What I think we can learn from this – they lie, they lie, they lie.

      What happened next – most of the power plants never got built (in part thanks to the Sierra Club, with a $50m donation from Michael Bloomberg).

      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.

      Also on this day: 

      October 16, 1956 – will H-bombs knock the world off balance!?

      October 16, 1979 – Exxon memo on the potential impact of fossil fuel combustion – All Our Yesterdays

      October 16, 1990 – Green groups say yes to “Ecologically Sustainable Development”

      October 16, 1997 – Australian businessman declares climate change “no longer an issue”