Categories
Activism Brazil

December 22, 1988 – Chico Mendes murdered

Thirty-six years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 1988, Chico Mendes was murdered

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Chico Mendes had been a bit of a folk hero in the mid 80s, leading the rubber tappers union in the defence of the Amazon. And he had pissed off the wrong people. 

What we learn is that if you piss off the wrong people in many parts of the world, you will end up with a bullet in your head. In the West, they simply de-fund you and invisiblise you and deprive you of livelihood. Far more civilised here. 

What happened next? 

According to Wikipedia –

“In December 1990, Silva, his son Darci, and their employee Jerdeir Pereira were sentenced to 19 years in prison for their part in Mendes’ assassination. In February 1992, they won a retrial, claiming that the prosecution’s primary witness – Mendes’ wife Ilsamar – was biased. The conviction was upheld, and they remained in prison. In 1993, they escaped from jail, along with seven other prisoners, by sawing through the bars of their prison window. All were recaptured, including Darly Jr., who served the remainder of his sentence with the other killers before returning to Xapuri.”

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: 

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…

Categories
Australia

December 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

Thirty two years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating went to the provinces…

“Adopting clean production methods which minimise waste and pollution and maximise efficient use and recycling of resources is essential to the success of our manufacturing industry. The market is there for cleaner industries and cleaner products. It is also there for environmental management systems and technologies. Australians are developing those things. The drive for environmentally friendly industries and the protection of our natural environment is, in short, part of the economic drive, part of the international competitive drive in which Australia is engaged.” (Paul Keating: Statement on the Environment 21 December 1992) 

Also – The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, will announce today the ratification of two international treaties that will extend Federal Government powers over the environment.

Garran, R. 1992. Keating to flag new environmental leap. Australian Financial Review, December.21

And 

The Prime Minister’s Environment Statement, released in Adelaide on December 21, last year, was weighted heavily towards water and air quality.

It was noticeable for its lack of any of the most contentious of the pressing environmental problems, such as the setting of firm greenhouse-gas reduction targets; any attempt to implement the recommendations of the ecologically sustainable development working groups; the introduction of effective national endangered species legislation – to name just some. 

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Keating had come to power exactly a year previously. He had inherited an Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process, which neither he nor the federal bureaucrats were at all fond of.

Keating had not gone to the Rio Earth Summit, the only one of the OECD leaders not to do so.

The bureaucrats had spent a year shoving it into 17 committees and just generally killing it off (though they were too blatant and caused a bit of a storm…See August 6, 1992 – Australian environmentalists and businesses united… in disgust at Federal bureaucrats)

There had been a National Greenhouse Response Strategy released a couple of weeks before early December

This was him, probably through gritted teeth, having to talk about stupid green issues. And as Toyne said, it was silent on the all-important question of greenhouse targets.

What we learn is that in the same way that in nature, you’ll find the cubs and babies of another father getting unceremonious killed by the new father (and this being genetically the smart thing to do) you’ll find policies – good, bad and indifferent – that were put forward by the previous person, whether they’re in your party or on the opposition party, unceremoniously wiped out and that’s what happened here. Though you can overgeneralise this, it was simply that Keating was in thrall to the neolibs, who had hated and still hated environmentalist issues which they regard as silly green irrelevant externalities and a Trojan horse for SOCIALISM.

In 1994 Keating would chide environmentalists for their focus on the “amorphous” issue of greenhouse gases. https://allouryesterdays.info/2022/08/01/august-2-1994-australian-prime-minister-paul-keating-says-greenies-should-ignore-amorphous-issue-of-greenhouse/

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: 

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
United States of America

December 20, 1969 – AGU on climate change…

Fifty five years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1969,

By contrast, the first reference to “global warming” doesn’t appear in Google’s archives until the end of the next decade. This Dec. 20, 1969 story by United Press International headlined “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution” is the first in Google News’s archives to unambiguously use the phrase “global warming” to describe the phenomena. https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0908/why-are-they-calling-it-climate-change-now

On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:

J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had held a seminar in 1968. And the American Meteorological Society held one in October 1969. The RAND Corporation had done a piece on fossil fuels, and that was being reported at this meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which readers will remember, is the same place that Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass made his bombshell announcement in 1953. It was one of the first times (and probably the first) that “global warming” was referred to in the press. 

What we learn is that there is a finite number of venues for influential commentary on the science of all this. The AGU was one AAAS was another. 

What happened next? As the 60s turned into the 70s it became less surprising to find carbon dioxide build-up mentioned as a potential environmental problem. Already in the same neck of the woods in San Francisco 9 months earlier there had been “teach-ins” about the issues – about ecology, People’s Park and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, we 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.

Also on this day: 

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
United Nations Weather modification

December 20, 1961 – UNGA resolution on outer space and weather modification

Sixty three years ago, on this day, December 20th, 1961 the United Nations General Assembly agreed the following

The General Assembly,

Noting with gratification the marked progress for meteorological science and technology opened up by the advances in outer space,

Convinced of the world-wide benefits to be derived from international co-operation in weather research and analysis,

1. Recommends to all Member States and to the World Meteorological Organization and other appropriate specialized agencies the early and comprehensive study, in the light of developments in outer space, of measures;

(a) To advance the state of atmospheric science and technology so as to provide greater knowledge of basic physical forces affecting climate and the possibility of large-scale weather modification;

(b) To develop existing weather forecasting capabilities and to help Member States make effective use of such capabilities through regional meteorological centres;

1961 UN GA resolution abt outer space and also weather modification (see Zilman 2009)

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/resolutions/res_16_1721.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 318ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Soviet Union and the Americans had been hurling lumps of metal and even living objects such as chimpanzees and cosmonauts into space. And it was clear that both sides were interested in the military applications. The United Nations General Assembly, therefore passed this resolution that was partly about space and also partly about the weather and climate, giving the WMO a bigger remit to investigate – well, you saw what it said.

What we learn is that questions around weather modification – inadvertent and intentional – go back a very loooong way; 63 years in this case.

What happened next. The World Meteorological Organisation got going with GARP – the Global Atmospheric Research Programme. And by 1965-66 people were beginning to look at carbon dioxide and say “you know, we may actually have a problem “

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: 

December 20, 1983 – Documentary on “the Climate Crisis” shown

December 20, 2007 – UK opposition leader David Cameron gives clean coal speech in Beijing…

Categories
Australia Industry Associations

December 19, 2017 – BHP exits World Coal Association. 

Seven years ago, on this day, December 19th, 2017,

Australian mining company BHP releases review of industry associations report, pulls out of World Coal Association and puts Minerals Council of Australia “on notice.” (See this report in Financial Times (paywalled).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 407ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the World Coal Association had been trying to talk up high emissions, low efficiency coal, (or maybe the other way around, it’s hard to tell) and generally being pugnacious in the culture wars. BHP no longer needed that because frankly, it had gotten out of thermal coal. And so, quitting a toxic trade association makes you look responsible. Especially since you can wag your finger at the Minerals Council, and hopefully get some of the activists off your back or at least pointing somewhere else for a little while. 

What we learn is this is pretty standard behaviour of individual companies to try to signal their virtue by leaving especially toxic trade associations. They usually don’t do it till they’ve divested. 

What happened next? As of December 2024, BHP is still a member of the MCA.

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: 

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

December 19, 1991- Will UN negotiations go as usual and “commit us to global catastrophe”?

December 19, 2010 – CCS dies in Queensland

Categories
Australia

December 18, 1996 – Australian greenhouse emissions sharply UP.

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, December 18th, 1996,

AUSTRALIA’s greenhouse gas emissions will blow out by almost 50 per cent by next century, according to a Federal Government report to be released today.

The document, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, reveals that a 42 per cent increase in energy demand by Australians by 2020 will result in a similar increase in carbon dioxide emissions.

Benson, S. (1996) Power surge to hit greenhouse. Daily Telegraph, December 18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that despite the so-called National Greenhouse Response Strategy and the Greenhouse Challenge and all the other piss-weak national announcements, coal-fired power stations were still getting approved, built, expanded and extended. And therefore you could see that any hope of hitting carbon targets around reduction would be blown out of the water. It was a relatively simple set of mathematics.

What we learn is that coal has been enormously beneficial to some people and is going to destroy us all because as of 2024 coal use is still expanding. (see here).

What happened next. The report had precisely zero impact. The lies and bullshit around the greenhouse kept going. 

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: 

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action

Categories
Denmark UNFCCC

December 18, 2009 – the worthless “Copenhagen Accord”

Fifteen years ago, on this day, December 18th, 2009,

the worthless “Copenhagen Accord” was agreed. We’re all doomed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been in deep shit from 2001 when President Bush’s handlers told him to withdraw from Kyoto. It had only been brought back into shape by the Russians wanting World Trade Organisation membership and a quid pro quo of ratifying Kyoto. And then from 2007, there had been an intense process literally called the “Road to Copenhagen.” And here we are… Is this all we’ve got? Is that it? 

What we learn is that the international process is fundamentally broken for a variety of reasons. There are always going to be people who want to keep that particular show on the road because they have so much invested psychologically and professionally (see here). And here we are. 

What happened next? Along came Cancun. And along came Durban. And along came all the other COPs – Paris, Poznan, Glasgow, Dubai, Azerbaijan etc all amounting to fuck all.

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: 

December 18, 1970 – Science article about “Man-Made Climatic Changes”

December 18, 2008 – Tim DeChristopher does his auction action

Categories
Geoeingeering

 December 17, 2006 – Sulphur for reducing heat becomes canonical

Eighteen years ago, on this day, December 17th, 2006 ,

Scientist: Sulfur remedy for greenhouse effect backed by data

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Nobel Prize winner Professor Paul J. Crutzen has stated he has data to support his controversial claim that injecting sulfur into the atmosphere would negate the greenhouse effect.

The data is intended to quiet critics of the theory he first discussed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August, 2006.

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 Dutch Nobel Prize-winning physicist Paul Crutzen had ruffled feathers in August 2006 by suggesting that seeding clouds with sulphur in order to increase their reflectiveness might be necessary. Their albedo would be one way of dealing with an overheating planet. Of course, this comes with all sorts of questions about ethics and justice and politics. And, frankly, practicality, because that stuff is not going to stay there – it’s going to land as acid rain. There had been some back and forth about this already. I seem to recall George Monbiot writing a piece about it in the Grauniad.

What we learn is that geoengineering schemes have been around a long time. Solar Radiation Management is part of that. Personally, I prefer space mirrors, but what are you going to do? 

What happened next? The idea continues not to gain that much traction. I think there are frankly, insurmountable problems for it. And I think that’s why we’re pivoting towards equally fantastical schemes like Direct Air Capture. And Crutzen died in 2021.

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: 

December 17, 1973 – “Global warming will make nuclear war look like a fire cracker in your backyard.”

December 17, 1989 – a big #climate conference in Egypt begins…

December 17, 2008 – European Parliament says yes to funding CCS

Categories
Europe

December 16, 1991 – European Energy Charter becomes a Thing.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1991 the European Energy Charter became The Law,

1991 16-17 European Energy Charter https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Legal/1991_European_Energy_Charter.pdf

The Energy Charter Treaty has been criticized for being a significant obstacle to enacting national policies to combat climate change, and for actively disincentivizing national governments from compliance with recent international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement due to the threat of significant financial loss.

As of 2023, numerous countries have either left or have announced plans to leave the ECT. The European Union and Euratom took the final and formal step of exiting the Energy Charter Treaty, which will take effect one year after the depository has received the notification.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that energy companies were eyeing up a very bright future. Lots of state-owned infrastructure was being sold off. And so there was money to be made. Yes, there was the minor irritation of the greenhouse issue. But the European Energy Charter was at hand. I don’t know who agreed it, whose idea it was, what problem that was trying to solve. What alternatives there were, what battles were fought, I need to find out, this is a research project. 

What we learn is that debates over how to regulate energy have an extremely long history. I’m not talking 30 years, I’m talking 100 and whatever. 

What happened next, well, the Energy Charter shunted along and then, in the early 2020s, the movement grew for it to be abolished. For reasons X, Y, and Zed. And the leading lights in this campaign were x, y, and Zed. And in 2024 the UK pulled out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Charter_Treaty

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: 

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Categories
International processes UNFCCC

December 15, 2007 – Bali COP closes with “Road Map to Copenhagen”

Seventeen years ago, on this day, December 15th, 2007 Bali COP closed with “Road Map to Copenhagen”… We were finally going to take it Seriously and come up with an all-singing, all-dancing successor to Kyoto, only better. Oh yes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC process had been dealt severe blows in 2001 when newly-selected President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, or rather the people pulling the strings on the meat puppet called George W. Bush had him pull out. The following year, Australia pulled out, to no one’s surprise. And it looked like the whole idea of the Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC might just fall apart. It didn’t because the Russians ratified it as a quid pro quo for membership of the World Trade Organisation. And so in 2005 the Kyoto Protocol had become a thing. And then it became a question of what’s going to replace it? And there was back and forth and back and forth, as there always is. And then in 2007, everyone went to Bali, with the idea that they were going to produce a “Roadmap to Copenhagen”. And at Copenhagen, they would sign an all singing, all dancing, replacement, or extension, whatever you want to call it, of Kyoto. And so on this day in 2007, the Bali meeting ended with a fair amount of optimism. It was the same year after all, that the IPCC fourth assessment report had come out. Al Gore and the IPCC had won a Nobel Prize. It was a great time for Bert Bolin and William Kellogg to die (as they did), because, frankly, it looked like everything was going to be okay. Or at least manageable. 

What we learn is that the UNFCCC has been through these processes before. There’s been ups and downs and it’s all part of the soap opera. 

What happened next? Well, Copenhagen was a joke. And the pieces of crockery had to be glued back together again. They were and everyone went to Paris. And history repeats itself. We’ve been through tragedy and farce, I don’t really know where we are now.

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: 

December 15, 2005 – James Hansen versus Bush again…

December 15, 2009 – Monbiot versus Plimer on Lateline

December 15, 2009 – Daily Express expresses its irresponsibly idiocy…