Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia

June 19, 2012 – Abbott having to defend renewables. Oh the hilarity.

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 19th, 2012,

TENSIONS have erupted in the Coalition over a key climate change policy less than two weeks before the introduction of the carbon tax from July 1.

Tony Abbott was yesterday forced to stare down a backbench challenge to the party’s support for the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target as senior backbenchers blamed it for adding to electricity prices amid a backlash over last week’s 18 per cent price increases in NSW and South Australia.

Maher, S. 2012. Abbott forced to quell backbench climate rift. The Australian, 20 June, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that the Liberal Party had gone into the 1990 federal election with a stronger emissions reduction target than labour, but had lost that election very narrowly and felt betrayed by big green organisations and green voters generally, and then they become very actively hostile to all things environmental, and especially the problem of carbon dioxide build up. 

Tony Abbott had become leader of the Liberals in December, or late November, 2009 having given a speech where he said that the science of climate change was absolute crap. He had successfully demolished Kevin Rudd, (well, Rudd had helped demolish himself, to be fair) and also made endless attacks on Rudd’s successor as Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Abbott was basically an unguided missile, A WRECKING BALL, a very limited human being, 

The specific context was that by this point, he had lost the fight to prevent a great big tax on everything i.e., Gillard’s emissions trading scheme; and while he was still Leader of the Opposition, there were ructions, and some of his back benchers were getting high on their own supply and were blocking stuff that Abbott found it useful not to have blocked.

What I think we can learn is this: that when you unleash demons, they don’t always do what you want.

What happened next: Abbott continued to be an effective leader of the opposition. I don’t mean that as a compliment, necessarily. And became prime minister in 2013 thanks to the Murdoch press having demonised Julia Gillard to an astonishing degree and Abbott was then toppled by his own party, with the most, perhaps the most hilarious moment being when a third of his party voted for an empty chair because, rather than him as leader.

He is now back, as President of the Liberals, which will doubtless have the young, and especially the young women, flocking to join the Libs.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

https://theconversation.com/who-tilts-at-windmills-explaining-hostility-to-renewables-77762

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia

June 19, 1972 – Advertiser letter about fossil fuel impacts…

Fifty four years ago, on this day, June 19th, 1972, a letter in the Adelaide Advertiser about Concorde ends thus –

“The effects on the ozone layer caused by the Concorde or other high altitude fliers are, it seems from tests, very minor compared to those caused by our burning of fossil fuels at the surface, such as the car and ordinary aircraft.


Reg. T. Fisk

Glenelg

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 327ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was in the late 1960s and into the early 1970s there was a huge upsurge in concern about environmental issues (local, but also global).

The specific context was that Concorde and other supersonic transports were being campaigned against by various ‘eco’groups for various reasons, including the potential damage to the ozone layer. This letter is responding to them in a fairly typical style (I may bother to unpick it at some point). The mention of fossil fuels is mildly interesting….

What I think we can learn is this: in the early 1970s, we knew enough to be worried…

What happened next: The wave of eco-concern faded (though some brave and diligent people tried to keep the flame alive – shout out to the Environment Information Centre people, on Rundle Street).

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

September 10, 1973- Ozone concerns on display in Kyoto…

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 19, 1989 – George Brown speech to Student Pugwash – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 1997/2009 – children of colour used as propaganda tools by #climate wreckers/greens do “motherhood” – All Our Yesterdays

June 19, 2009 – Liberals warn ‘woke’ companies…

Categories
Australia Predatory delay Renewable energy

June 18, 2004 – Australian government lobbied about renewables. Again

Twenty two years ago, on this day, June 18th, 2004.  

Environmentalists today urged the government to do more to develop renewable energy technologies, amid news that Australia had been branded the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter.

Green groups and industry associations held a crisis meeting in Canberra to develop an urgent action plan for the environment ahead of the federal election.

 AAP, 2004. Australia branded worst greenhouse polluter. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245104076.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 377ppm. As of 2026, 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 for this was that from the 1950s Australia had had some renewables industries around solar, hot water heating and some very basic wind turbines, and that with appropriate support and funding that could have exploded, but of course, it would then have been a competitor to the coal lobby and to big centralised outfits like ETSA and so on.

And so the CSIRO funding got cut. (See Mark Diesendorf on this).

In 1994-95 there had been a proposal for a carbon tax at a federal level in Australia, and there would have been hypothecated funding available for renewable energy. The carbon tax was defeated, and the money therefore never arrived. And in 1997, ahead of the Kyoto conference, Prime Minister John Howard had had to make empty promises about a mandatory renewable energy target for Australia. He had, then, having got what he wanted at Kyoto, deliberately slow-walked this and muddied the waters until it all became largely futile. You can read about it in Clive Hamilton’s Running from the Storm. 

The specific context was that in 2003 Howard had gathered his mates together, the Low Emissions Technologies Advisory Group and demanded their help in squashing renewables, though this didn’t emerge until late 2004. Meanwhile, in the lead up to the 2004 energy white paper, which was a gift to the fossil fuel lobby, we see this sort of lobbying trying to get support for renewables. 

What I think we can learn is this: the good guys lose. Everybody knows the war is over and that John Howard is a fucking criminal. That’s I mean, that’s it, really, that’s the post. 

What happened next: emissions kept climbing.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 18, 1972 – Patrick White becomes a reluctant greenie activist

June 18, 1976- UK Meteorological Office explains things to Cabinet Office

June 18, 1984- OECD holds conference on “environment and economics”

 June 18, 2013 – Feeble ’Wind Fraud’ rally in Canberra

June 18, 2015 – Power station petition – All Our Yesterdays

June 18, 2008 – Carbon Capture and Storage is going to save Australia. Oh yes. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Denial

June 17, 2007 – “Carbon Sense” to the world

Nineteen years ago, on this day, June 17th, 2007, 

“Carbon Sense Coalition is a voluntary group of people concerned about the extent to which carbon is wrongly vilified in Western societies, particularly in government, the media, and in business circles. We aim to restore balance and reason to the carbon debate, and to explain and defend the key role of carbon in production of most of our energy for heat, light, and transportation, and all of our food.”

June 17th, 2007 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 384ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was from the late 1980s in Australia and elsewhere, and the United States especially, there was an active – what’s the word phrase I’m looking for,? – fucking stupid climate denial movement, or bunch of individuals occasionally coalescing as a “movement” in the Australian context that would be people like John Daly with his demented book the Greenhouse Trap. Daly died in 2004 and also outfits like the so called Lavoisier group. 

The specific context was that the carbon dioxide build up issue had been actively suppressed by John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

But this had become impossible for Howard to do in late 2006; the issue just burst onto the scene again thanks to the endless, or seemingly endless, Millennium drought, Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth, ratification of Kyoto Protocol, leading to new UN negotiations, social movement activism like Climate Camp in the United Kingdom and so forth. Then you had new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, having toppled Kim Beasley, using the climate issue as a stick to beat John Howard with, especially over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which Australia had famously not done.

Therefore it was clear that the climate issue would be live for another year or two, at least (in the end, it was until 2011). 

What I think we can learn is this: So here you have a bunch of intellectual inadequates giving themselves the title ‘carbon sense’, which is, of course, a play on common sense. And this invocation of common sense tells you a lot in the same way that it was common sense, that the world was flat, that women shouldn’t vote, that black people should be slaves, that blood letting made you stronger, etc, etc, that kind of common sense. 

What happened next: I am sure they are still around. Gaia help us all.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 17, 1957 – Guy Callendar writes more truth bombs – “On the Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”

June 17, 1994 – Moron versus physics. Sorry, “Moran” – All Our Yesterdays

June 17, 2009 – Blistering speech about how “The Climate Nightmare is Upon Us” by Christine Milne – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Fafocene

“The Fafocene diaries”? or “Letters from the Fafocene”? Or…

I didn’t invent the term Fafocene – or rather, I did, but I was not the first person to do so. However, it seems like I am the first to popularise it.

Fafocene?” You ask. Well, there’s a graphic for that.

And now I wonder if it might not be worth exploring this in more depth. – Explore its causes, signs and symptoms, the prognosis. If I had the time/expertise/money it would be a podcast, a la Heather Cox Richardson. But I don’t, so, there’s that.

A few years ago, on another site, I did ‘doom diaries‘ for a month, so this could be a kind of sequel to that…

Mind you, what was that warning of Freddie Nietzsche’s about staring into the abyss?

Categories
Interviews

“I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real” – interview with Harold Bernard, author of 1980 book ‘The Greenhouse Effect’

In 1980 a book called The Greenhouse Effect was published. Its author, Buzz Bernard, kindly agreed to an email interview…

Buzz Bernard

A bit about where you were born, grew up, were educated

I was born in Eugene, Oregon; grew up in Portland, Oregon; and was educated at the University of Washington (Seattle)

What drew you to the Air Force? What did you do in your service?

The draft was still in effect when I entered college. My dad said, “You’re gonna have to serve in the military, so you might as well do it as an officer.” Thus, I joined the AF ROTC and was commissioned as a second lieutenant. I was hoping the AF might send me on to get a Master’s Degree in Atmospheric Science, but something called Vietnam came along. So much for furthering my education.

In the air force I mainly supported flying/combat operations. I ended my career (primarily in the reserve) as Deputy Director of Weather (Reserve), Air Combat Command.

When and how did your involvement in meteorology come about?

I always (at least since I was about 8 or 9 years old) knew I wanted to be a “weatherman.” I wanted to know what made it cold or hot, why sometimes we got snowstorms instead of rainstorms, what caused big windstorms, etc. There wasn’t any one big event that triggered my curiosity (like with many of my fellow meteorologists), I was just interested in weather.

When and how did you first hear about carbon dioxide build-up as a potential problem? 

I first heard about atmospheric carbon dioxide when I went on a research project sponsored by the Univ of Washington in the Alaskan arctic in the summer of 1962. My job was to drive an old WWII weapons carrier out to a hut at the literal  end of Point Barrow and record CO2 measurements. “Man, is this boring,” I thought. 

In the late 1970s, I became friends with an MIT professor emeritus who worked at the research firm I was working at (as a civilian) in Massachusetts. He’d been involved in linking sunspot cycles to climate cycles. I found that fascinating and wrote a trade book (WEATHER WATCH) about it. I asked the professor about the threat of warming from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. He brushed it off saying, “Don’t worry about it.” Well, I wasn’t worried about it, but wanted to find out more. So I began reading everything I could find about the subject, and drew my own conclusions as a layman. I decided that there was a real threat from anthropogenic warming caused by CO2. Not immediately, but maybe by the turn of the century. Thus came the book THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which was what global warming or climate change was called back then.

I grew even more convinced of the threat of man-caused global warming through the 1980s and ended up writing another trade book about it that came out in 1993, GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. By then, the threat of anthropogenic global warming was becoming more public, controversial, and politicized. Even many (most?) operational meteorologists (forecasters) didn’t believe in it, or maybe just wanted to ignore it. I was told by one forecaster who owned a big commercial firm that I was a charlatan. (I don’t think he had a clue how little money most authors really make.) When I joined a commercial forecasting operation a few years later, I was told by a friend to keep my mouth shut about having written books that dealt with global warming. No one at the company believed in it. Of course, the company has done a one-eighty since then and now can’t talk about it enough.

The book itself, how did it come about—were you commissioned or did you pitch it?

I was not commissioned. I wanted to write the book because I believed the threat of global warming was real. I had an agent by then because of WEATHER WATCH, and the agent was able to get a contract for the book with a subsidiary of a major publisher.

Anything you recall about the writing process—easy, hard, quicker or longer than expected, surprises on the way? (this is all fifty years ago, I know!)

Looking back, it was hard. There were no word processors then. I used a typewriter. Cut and paste was literal. Q&A with researchers was via snail mail not email. What little research I did was done in libraries, not on the internet. I hated doing the indexes at the end of books. I think that’s one reason I ultimately turned to writing fiction.

Were you happy with it?

Yes. Of course, I think any time you complete a book, you’re happy with it. In truth, I don’t think many of my friends had any idea what I was writing about. One of my bosses asked me, in all seriousness, “Do you have a greenhouse at your home?”He obviously hadn’t read the book yet.

How was the book received?

It wasn’t any big deal. I was not an author (or researcher) that anybody knew. There was no Amazon back then where you could track book sales or read reviews by customers.

Any further work you did on the Greenhouse Effect/thoughts on where we are now at?

As I mentioned earlier, I did write a follow-up book called GLOBAL WARMING UNCHECKED. From here on out, however, I’ll let the climate change experts/researchers write about the subject. I still follow global warming/climate change, and science has proven the early warnings were correct. People still occasionally ask me if I “believe” in global warming, as if the science were unsettled. I respond, “Do you believe in sunrise and sunset?”

Thoughts? Major challenges still remain in front of us. Heat waves, droughts, major floods, superstorms.

Me? I’m just gonna kick back and enjoy writing my WWII historical fiction series. I still have to do a lot of research, but it’s a lot more fun, I get more “attaboys,” and earn more money.

Which of your WW2 books should people start with and why?

It really doesn’t matter. They are all standalone novels, although WHEN HEROES FLEW: ROOF OF THE WORLD and WHEN HEROES FLEW: WHERE THE DAWN COMES UP LIKE THUNDER are connected. Readers in the UK might want to start with WHEN HEROES FLEW: BLACK THURSDAY or FIVE DAYS IN JUNE (which comes out in October), since both are set largely in and around London.

Which of them are you proudest of and why?

I would say the first novel of the series which was titled simply WHEN HEROES FLEW. I wasn’t thinking of a series then. But the novel sold well, got great reviews, and eventually drew some interest from a screenwriter, so I was off and running.

Anything else you’d like to say?

Thanks for this opportunity to help me recall how I got started in this crazy business of commercial writing. When I was younger, I was a meteorologist who wrote a few books. Now I’m a novelist who retains a keen interest in meteorology and climate change, but those subjects are no longer my profession They are hobbies. I think I have a wonderful life.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

June 16, 2012 – Lenore Taylor versus CCS

Fourteen years ago, on this day, June 16th, 2012, Australian journalist Lenore Taylor, took stock of CCS in an article called “Climate strategy up in smoke.”

IT WAS the technology that was going to help underpin the nation’s climate change strategy. In 2009, the then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, pledged to ”lead the world” in carbon capture and storage technology, which traps carbon dioxide emissions, permanently storing them deep underground. 

 Taylor, L. (2012) Climate strategy up in smoke. Sydney Morning Herald June 16th

http://www.smh.com.au/national/climate-strategy-up-in-smoke-20120615-20f7i.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that in Australia, CCS had first popped up in the late 1990s in the Geodisc programme, and then a couple of years later, post Kyoto, in the efforts of the Prime Minister’s Science and Industry Council, then chaired by Robin Batterham, who was part time and the rest of its time, who was the chief technology officer of Rio Tinto. And then from 2004 onwards, there had been a series of announcements and conferences and legislation about CCS, the Queensland Government had pushed for it as well under Premier Peter Beattie. Also you’d had Kevin Rudd in 2007 Eight, using CCS as a way of keeping coal miners on side while still attracting liberals, small l liberal voters and those concerned about the environment, thus CCS performed the function of squaring the circle.

The specific context was that the physics didn’t add up, the money didn’t add up, and it all fell over in late 2010 and here we see Lenore Taylor, who had been covering climate since the early 1990s, writing about how it all fell over.

What I think we can learn is this: fantasy eventually meets reality and there’ll be a smart somebody there to report on that, usually, hopefully… 

What happened next: CCS has staggered on because it’s too useful, and in fact, it’s pretty much the only story that the coal industry has to tell, though there’s also all this shit about or there was this HELE – “high emissions, low efficiency” (sic) power plants, and the money that the Australian Coal Association put aside was repurposed to publicise the coal industry. And meanwhile, Gorgon, the Chevron CCS facility, has continued to massively underperform.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 16, 1965 – Rothschild writes to Lovelock – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1971 – “Ecology Action” formed in Sydney. – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1972 – David Bowie and (Five Years until) the End of the World. Also, Stockholm – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 1994 – Australian business want international allies – All Our Yesterdays

June 16, 2000 – Energy the Changing Climate report released – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 15, 1973 – Mobil propaganda

Fifty three years ago, on this day, June 15th, 

The Adelaide Advertiser runs a full page ad (not for the first or last time) from Mobil Oil company, trying to insinuate that Mobil gives a flying fuck about Australia, and to get readers to build a connection between buying Mobil and being a Real Australian.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 329ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that we are marinated in all forms of propaganda. As per the late Alex Carey,

“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda against democracy.” 

The specific context was that with the coming of drilling in the Bass Strait for oil and gas, multinationals stepped up their propaganda, sorry “advertising” effort.

What I think we can learn is this: the marinating has been going on for so long. I think we’re cooked, in fact.

What happened next: The propaganda has been constantly topped up. Like the sheep in Animal Farm, endlessly bleating, to stop any chance of independent thought.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

“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

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 15, 1947 – Control the rain and you will reign!!

June 15, 1991 – Pinatubo erupts – All Our Yesterdays

June 15, 1994 – Canberra Times soils itself by publishing denialist claptrap

The Guardian holds a climate summit. We. Are. Saved. June 15, 2009.

Categories
Brazil UNFCCC United Nations

June 14, 1992 – Rio Earth Summit finishes

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 14th, 1992, 

Rio Earth Summit finishes 3 to 14th June. Everyone signs the UNFCCC… (except Saudi and a couple of others, who waited until it was inevitable and they’d be left out in the cold if they didn’t).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 356ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that in 1968 the United Nations had agreed to a Swedish proposal to host a conference on the human environment. This had happened in 1972 in Stockholm, and one of the few things to come out of it was the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP.  UNEP, the World Meteorological Organisation, and the ICSU, had sponsored various scientific gatherings through the 70s and 80s about climate, and especially carbon dioxide build up, leading to the Villach conference in 1985.

And after Villach in several nations, not so much the United Kingdom, but certainly, for example, Australia and the United States, there had been a concerted push to get politicians aware of/concerned about climate change from CO2 build up.

The specific context was in 1988 the problem had become an issue, and the public were concerned. And perhaps the most important sign of this was Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society in September of ‘88. Then, despite the efforts of the United States to slow things down, or even stop them, there was irresistible pressure for an international climate treaty to be signed at the Rio Earth Summit (kind of a 20 year follow on to the Stockholm conference, but this time, held in the developing world, or third world, or whatever the politically correct term happens to be). 

And there were many books written about the conference, much ink spilled, many protests as there had been at Stockholm. Because guess what? World leaders in limousines with vacuous speeches are not particularly trusted by the rabble because the rabble have been paying attention.

Anyway the crucial insight is that George H W Bush, President of the United States had publicly and presumably privately, vehemently, said that if there were targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries in the text of the climate treaty, he would not sign it. And what’s more, he would not come to the Earth Summit at all

And the proponents of the targets and timetables decided it was better to have Bush at the table than not at all. And there’s an understandable logic to that decision, but what it’s meant is that we’ve spent the next 30 years trying to get targets and timetables for emissions reductions bedded in, and it hasn’t worked, and we’re doomed. 

What I think we can learn is this: That’s all you need to know, is that, thanks to a bunch of stupid white men with ideas above their intellect, we’re doomed. I mean, it’s broader than that, even if we’d taken better decisions in ‘88 to ‘92 the challenges we faced would still have overwhelmed us. I think we’ll never know. 

What happened next: See above. The emissions kept climbing and climbing

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

May 25, 1992 Keating Cabinet discusses Rio

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 14, 1979 – the messy inclusion of climate change in energy politics – All Our Yesterdays

June 14, 1993 – International Conference on the Economics of Climate Change – All Our Yesterdays

June 14, 2011 – climate change threat to Australia’s top wines – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Germany

June 13, 1979 – Financial Times article mentions the concerns of Helmut Schmidt (German Chancellor) about carbon dioxide build-up

Forty seven years ago, on this day, June 13th,1979, the Financial Times ran an article (on page 3, since you ask) “Schmidt to seek international action on energy.”

At the end of it, this – 

“Despite West Germany’s large coal reserves, Herr Schmidt has recently expressed doubts privately about markedly increasing use of the fuel.

“His attitude appears grounded in fears recently underlined here by the scientist and energy expert, Dr Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker, that increased carbon dioxide production could, over decades, cause climatic change with serious economic and political consequences.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 336ppm. As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 432ppm. 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 for this was that Herman Flohn, a German meteorologist/climatologist had been aware of Guy Callendar’s 1938 paper and wrote about it during the war. Afterwards, Flohn had kept talking about it, and written about it.

The specific context was that various German scientists had been trying to ring the alarm bell by this point. Also, the first World Climate Conference had taken place in February 1979.

What I think we can learn is this: People knew. We knew. At the highest levels. And here we are.

What happened next: Schmidt gave an interview to Time magazine, and name-checked carbon dioxide build-up (this got quoted in South Australian parliament, in case you wanted to know that). Schmidt, on a visit to the US, talked to Senator Ribicoff.  July 18, 1979 – US Senators ask for synthetic fuel implications for greenhouse warming. Told.

And then – 

November 15, 1979 – the FT reports on German concerns about fossil fuel effects.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say” – All Our Yesterdays

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal off. Convictions eventually quashed… – All Our Yesterdays

June 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – Australia-Indonesia joint statement on climate change – All Our Yesterdays