Fifty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1973, the Australian Treasury, in a paper about the environment, even mentioned climate change.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was this – Australia and the climate issue – it goes back to 1969, MacFarlane Burnett, Nugget Coombs and so forth. By 1970 the issue was popping up in newspapers and in books. Coombs was looking at Steady state economy.
What I think we can learn from this.
The. Problem. Is. Not. Information. The. Problem. Is. Power.
What happened next
Treasury kept pretty schtum, as best I can tell. By the late 1980s they were muttering about potential carbon pricing. This morphed into emissions trading in the mid-late 1990s. And we all know how THAT ended…
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 nine years ago, on this day, June 7, 1984, Crispin Tickell kept plugging away…
In 1984, back at the UK Foreign Office as Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, he was instrumental in attracting the attention of the UK DoE and developed countries to the subject. He traces official British interest in climate change to the 1984 G7 Summit in London. As British permanent representative to the United Nations, a position he still held when first advising Mrs Thatcher, and as policy adviser to research bodies in the USA, Sir Crispin was able to stress the politics of fear, as well as diplomatic opportunities arising from the climate change issue in many national and international fora.2
Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 176-7)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 347.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Tickell had been switched on to the climate problem, in 1975-76. He’d written a book, he’d tried to get it up the g7 agenda in the late 1970s. There had been a push back against this, I think. So in 1980-3, the G7 just didn’t really talk about environment, because there was a new Cold War to worry about etc. But Tickell kept going, as problem brokers are wont to do, and was able to apparently reframe the issue.
What I think we can learn from this
There are always individuals within the system, working with patience and skill to get leaders on board. It requires a certain kind of person. I am not that kind of person.
What happened next
Four years later, Tickell was finally able to convince Thatcher to take climate change seriously, at least rhetorically. She could have taken the initiative when John Ashworth had advised her in 1979/1980. And here we are
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.
June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India
Sixty four years ago, on this day, June 7, 1959, two Indian writers sought to alert people to the dangers of carbon dioxide build-up
7 June 1959 Second letter by Kulkarni and Mani in Times of India
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 317.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Edward Teller had been giving various talks about the buildup of co2. And this had been picked up by press services, such as Associated Press, and people in other parts of the world were paying attention. This was the second letter by these authors to The Times of India.
What I think we can learn from this is that there was no deep dark secret. People knew from the mid 1950s that there was a problem. We have forgotten that, partly because the story then receded and nobody really did anything. And so we skip over we skip forward to 1988, but that’s not really historically accurate.
What happened next
Teller didn’t really talk that much more about carbon dioxide. I personally think it was all part of his pro-nuclear rampage. And for various reasons, the pronuclear rampage hit the buffers.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.
Forty five years ago, on this day, June 6, 1978, Exxon got told about the climate crisis to be caused by its product… We know this thanks to the hard work of the folks at Inside Climate News and Exxon Knew.
6 June 1978 PRESENTATION SHARED WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE from Exxon Research and Engineering Science Advisor, James Black
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 338ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Exxon had been aware of the climate issue like anyone else for a long time. They were beginning to liaise with certain scientists, like Wally Broecker, to do some investigation of their own and to offer Exxon facilities, ships etc. as platforms from which useful data could be measured.
What I think we can learn from this. This isn’t necessarily an effort at silencing or cooptation (in fact, that would be a perverse reading). This is just a big company trying to figure out what’s going on.
What happened next
Of course, since then, Exxon has done pretty much everything within its power to block climate action, because that action would impinge on their profits.
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 one years ago, on this day, June 5, 2002, climate thug (among other kinds of thug) John Howard told parliament he would not be submitting the Kyoto Protocol for ratification
‘It is not in Australia’s interests to ratify. The protocol would cost us jobs and damage our industry.’
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 375.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Howard had long been hostile to environmental and especially global warming issues. Since taking office, he had expended a lot of diplomatic energy and capital in 1997 to carve out an absurdly generous deal for Australia. It had already been leaked in September 1988, that the Cabinet had agreed not to ratify Kyoto, unless the United States did. So Howard’s announcement came as no surprise to anyone. But it was a colourful insouciant arrogant kick in the teeth to do it on World Environment Day, the kind of thing that makes Howard the turd that he is.
What I think we can learn from this is that these sorts of announcements are timed, in part, to throw red meat to supporters, but also to demoralise those who are pushing for stronger action. Because if you can demoralise them if they don’t turn up to the next battle, it’s easier for you to win. And hopefully you can set up a virtuous circle where they are forced from the field. That’s the theory. And often it works – but on climate, there’s always new people waking up and getting frantically concerned because well, the issue is frantically concerning (although most of them burn out quick, and retreat to lick their wounds, because there aren’t the groups that can help them sustain themselves).
What happened next
Howard continued to cause mayhem and irreparable damage.
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..
References
Veil of Kyoto rather good on “gesture politics”
Haworth and Foxall, 2010. The Veil of Kyoto and the politics of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. Political Geography Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2010, Pages 167-176.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, June 5, 1990, the ACT government said yes to a 20 per cent cut in emissions by 2005…
“The target was part of the ACT Strategy to respond to the Greenhouse Effect launched by the ACT Chief Minister, Trevor Kaine, on June 5.
Mr Kaine said yesterday that the Commonwealth had been “dragging their feet a little” on the issue. “But it’s important that they’ve now done it and the issue, now that they’ve made the decision and set the targets, is: are they in fact going to put it into effect,” Mr Kaine said. The Federal Government would be watched closely to ensure that it did not attempt to withdraw from the decision, he said.”
Lamberton, 1990,13 October Canberra Times
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that in 1988, the “Toronto target” had been proposed at a conference called “The Changing Climate.” It was for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The ACT has no industry, just lots of hot air from federal politicians.
What I think we can learn from this
So a critic could say that it’s relatively straightforward to make cuts, if you don’t have coal-fired power plants with all factories within your borders, because you simply do efficiency gains, insulation, etc. And that’s true. But what else is a service economy supposed to do? Say “Oh, nothing to do with us.” And then you can call them hypocrites if they don’t do anything. So the ACT government pursued this. I think they were successful.
The fact that various state governments and territory governments said yes to the Toronto target, put additional pressure on the federal government, which is another reason why you would do one of these things. The problem was not the targets. The problem is whether you’re going to take action to make it happen.
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 five years ago, on this day, June 4, 1998, NSW premier Bob Carr puts pen to paper. As per Hansard –
“It is amazing how up to the mark the Hon. R. S. L. Jones is. This very day, Thursday, 4 June, the New South Wales Premier, the Hon. Bob Carr, signed the first carbon credit trade in Australia as part of an innovative program tackling greenhouse gas emissions and creating new jobs in New South Wales. Today the international finance company Bankers Trust and resource consultants Margules Groome Poyry certified the trade. This is the first time in Australia that major players in the finance and resource sectors have backed a carbon sink plantation in Australia.”
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 368ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Bob Carr as New South Wales Prime Minister premier was wanting to put New South Wales on the map for carbon trading. Global carbon trading looked like it was going to be a “thing”, and NSW has a lot of trees… Carr had been aware of the problem of climate change since 1971, because he saw Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich on an Australian TV show.
What I think we can learn from this
Within the system, we have smart people who are willing to see the system as basically reformable and tweakable. Will with luck and skill gain promotion. And they will try to implement various (neoliberal market based) wheezes. Sometimes they succeed in bringing the schemes to fruition, but the schemes never will (or “have not yet” if you are a true believer) delivered on their promise.
What happened next
The whole question of a carbon trading scheme fell over. But Carr persisted. And it was his attempt to stitch together all of the states having emissions trading schemes that would then combine that forced John Howard’s hand in 2005/6. Carr stepped down as New South Wales premier in 2005, and was briefly a senator in the federal parliament, and Julia Gillard’s Foreign Minister
And the emissions? Well, they have kept increasing and the atmospheric concentrations have kept increasing. Obviously.
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.
Thirteen years ago, on this day, June 3, 2010, one of the best books about climate denial and its historical roots was published: Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there had been earlier books (including two by Ross Gelbspan which I would recommend) about climate denial. Oreskes and Conway had been working hard to show the history of organised denial of basic science by industry and how the climate people had learned from ozone and tobacco, same playbook, and how certain personnel were the same. It was published maybe a year too late to have the impact that it could have, if it had come out. Before Copenhagen, it might have exposed and neutered the sort of climategate bullshit, but here we are. The book is really, really good. And I would strongly recommend that you read it.
What I think we can learn from this
Good books can change folks’ perspective (duh).
What happened next
They made a movie. Everybody knows, who wants to know, that there have been systematic programmes of lying to us. But because those liars are well-protected, and don’t suffer consequences, and because it’s exhausting to be lied to, the lies wash you down. And the promises rust.
And because of the mass media being what it is, as opposed to what media could be, we are where we are, where we are.
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 nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested.
What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best.
What happened next
Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.
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 seven years ago, on this day, June 2, 1986, US Senators got going…
The year of 1986 was significant in terms of congressional interest. Influential congressional leaders asserted that the issue of greenhouse warming was no longer only a science issue; policy options had to be considered. 19 in Congress, the likes of Senators Chafee, Stafford, Bentsen, Durenberger, Mitchell, Baucus, Leahy and Gore, began to pressure the White House to take action on climate change.
These Senators signed a letter to Dr. Frank Press, President of NAS on June 2, 1986, requesting the NAS to review the scientific issues. These senators were ‘deeply disturbed’ by the implications of published reports on CO2 induced climate change.
(Hecht and Tirpak 1995)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 350ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that various US Senators had been getting well informed about the risks of climate change by various National Academy of Science reports. And scientists such as Jim Hansen, and David Burns, and so on. In October 1985, there had been a meeting at Villach in Austria, which had really concentrated everyone’s minds. Carl Sagan had given testimony to Seators in December of 1985. LINK
Joe Biden introduced a climate bill, in 1987, and this letter by various senators, is part of the run-up to that. And we should remember that Frank Press was previously Jimmy Carter’s Chief Scientific Adviser. And he would have been very well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, having been lobbied on it and having taken action on it before (and in April 1980 having pushed back against a report advocating a policy response).
What I think we can learn from this is that before the breakout in 1988, there were lots of people in the policy stream and politics stream and the problem stream to make stuff happen, and to couple the streams. There are always efforts to couple streams before they are successfully coupled.
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.
