Tag: 1988

Categories
Australia Coal

March 16, 1988- Coal strategy, no mention of climate

Thirty eight years ago, on this day, March 16th, 1988, a coal industry apparatchik produces a strategy.

Ritchie, J. 1988. Development of a Strategy for the Australian Coal Industry.  Australian Coal Association, paper to the Petroleum & Minerals Review Conference, Canberra, 16 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Australian coal industry had been experiencing boom times in the 1980s and became the world’s biggest coal exporter in 1984.

There were still, of course, major problems in terms of modernization of equipment, working practices, infrastructure, all the usual stuff. 

The specific context was. What’s fascinating about this proposed coal strategy does not mention climate change at all, March of 1988. If it had been published a year later, even six months later, it would have had to so.

What I think we can learn from this is that this is like one of those nice little digs into the fossil record, where you can see when the asteroid hit fairly exactly. 

What happened next By the end of 1988 climate change was everywhere thanks to the long, hot summer in the States, James Hansen’s testimony, the Changing Atmosphere conference, but also in Australia, there had been lots of activity. In September of 1987 the Greenhouse Project had been launched. This was a co-production of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric physics and the “Commission for the Future.” They held an academic conference in 1987 and then connected public conferences in 1988 in November. So that’s really when you can date the coming of the greenhouse issue in Australia.

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

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 16, 1973 –  North Sea Oil for the people?! (Nope)

March 16, 1993 – VAT to be imposed on domestic energy, called a “climate measure”

 March 16, 1994 – “We could bail from Rio” says former Environment Minister

March 16, 1995 – Victorian government plans brown coal exports

Categories
Australia United States of America

December 13, 1988 – Environment Minister Graham Richardson dishing it out in Washington

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, December 13th, 1988, a speech by the then Australian Environment Minister, the late Graham Richardson, in Washington at International Environment Forum, attacked James Balderstone, AMIC etc. 

“Resource development and industrialisation, often unfettered, have been seen in the past as economic imperatives. But a lack of control and foresight has laid waste so much of the world that environment protection is now the economic imperative. Countries that are fouling their own nest, or allowing others to foul them, will struggle to survive.”

“Countries who protect their nests will be far better off. But with global problems like the greenhouse effect, that is only part of the picture. We now live in one big fairly dirty nest, and protecting other countries as well as our own, is the big economic imperative.”

See H Morgan Speech 4 May 1989 to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – we had been through this rhetorical game back in the late 1960s – lots of fine words from politicians.

The specific context was that in 1988 we were at the beginning of another rhetorical game, which would stagger on to 1992. Also, Richardson was still on a sugar-rush after the November 1988 “Greenhouse 88” satellite link up.

What I think we can learn from this – that there was knowledge of what was at stake, all those decades ago.

What happened next

Morgan gave a speech six months later, May 4 1989, to ANU. “Exploration Access and political power.

Richardson tried to get ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets through Hawke’s cabinet that same month, and got squished by then-Treasurer Paul Keating.

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 13, 1967 – Sweden begins to save the world…

December 13, 1973 – Edward Heath announces Three Day Week

December 13, 1978 – BBC Radio talks about climate change “One Degree Over” – All Our Yesterdays

December 13, 1984 – Christian Science Monitor monitors the #climate science – ooops.

Categories
Australia Denial

November 28, 1988 – early doubt-casting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, November 28th, 1988, a doubt-casting paper from Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper discussed at first “National Energy Consultative Council”

Clear answers on the climatic impact on Australia of the greenhouse effect will not be achieved for at least 10 years because of limited scientific knowledge, according to a Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy paper.

The paper cautions against attributing some existing climatic conditions, like the drought in the United States and floods in Bangladesh, to the greenhouse effect.

Gill, P. 1988. Paper cautious on greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, November 30

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 352ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the warnings about carbon dioxide build-up had been coming since the early 1980s (ONA report, Tucker’s monograph). But in 1984, Australia had become the world’s largest coal exporter, so, there’s that.

The specific context was by mid-1988 the question of “the greenhouse effect” was one that could no longer be simply ignored.  Denial and doubt-casting became part of the mix.

What I think we can learn from this – from the beginning, the Australian state was keen to defend exporters from scrutiny, challenges.

What happened next – nothing substantive has changed in the intervening 4 decades.  Except the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

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: 

November 28, 1976 – climate modelling workshop in USA

November 28, 2001 – “Stellar team for sun-powered debate” in Adelaide –

November 28, 2008 – somebody shuts down a coal plant, solo

Categories
Australia

November 3, 1988 – priorities revealed via adverts

Thirty-seven years ago, on this day, November 3rd, 1988 –

The Melbourne Age, at bottom of page 20

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was climate change (then called “the Greenhouse Effect”) was on the cusp of blowing up as a public policy issue in Australia, thanks to both international events (the Villach meeting and its aftermath, James Hansen’s testimony in 1988) and local factors and efforts (especially the CSIRO/Commission for the Future “Greenhouse Project”).

The specific context was that the big public meetings, linked by satellite (then novel) were to be held very soon.

What I think we can learn from this – the juxtaposition of climate and car adverts? It continues. We can be an asshole species.

What happened next – the meetings were held. The promises were made. The cars kept being sold, bigger and bigger, more and more. The emissions climbed.

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: 

SEE October 27, 1988 – Guardian self-censorship story.

November 3, 1916 -measurement of ice flow shows climate change 

November 3, 1990 – money for independent climate scientists? Yeah, nah

November 3, 1990 – more smears about the IPCC, in the Financial Times 

November 3, 2000 – Australian denialists get American scientist to testify about Kyoto Protocol, smear IPCC

Categories
United Kingdom

October 27, 1988 – the Guardian’s advertising dept is revolting

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 27th, 1988, the limits are pushed…

This recalls an infamous case from 1988 involving the Guardian, considered Britain’s most liberal newspaper. An article by Guardian journalist James Erlichman covered a Greenpeace campaign to name and shame Ford motor company – then by far the country’s biggest advertiser – because it lagged behind other car manufacturers in adapting engines to take unleaded petrol. A Greenpeace poster showed exhaust fumes in the shape of a skull and crossbones with the slogan: ‘Ford Gives You More.’

Greenpeace tried to publish the poster as an advertisement in The Times, the Guardian and the Independent – all refused. The conclusion to Erlichman’s piece contained one of the great bombshells in the history of British journalism:

“Greenpeace booked 20 hoardings for its poster campaign. But then the advertising agency was informed that most of the sites – those owned by Mills & Allen – had been withdrawn.

Carl Johnson, who is handling the account, said: ‘We were told that the posters were offensive, but I am sure someone was afraid of losing a lot of Ford advertising.’

Mr Johnson attempted to book the ‘skull and crossbones’ advertisement with The Times, the Guardian and the Independent. ‘I have no doubt that they all feared losing Ford’s advertising if they accepted ours,’ he said.” (Erlichman, ‘Threat of boycotts “turns firms green”,’ The Guardian, October 27, 1988) https://www.medialens.org/2009/the-guardian-climate-and-advertising-an-open-email-to-george-monbiot/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 newspapers have been reliant on advertising for a very long time. Efforts to break free of that have on the whole not worked so well, at a mass level.

The specific context was that everyone was het up about global warming. It was a good story. There was nothing wrong with it journalistically. Economically though….

What I think we can learn from this – that advertising is one of the five filters in the Herman and Chomsky Propaganda Model. Which should be taught in schools, but won’t ever be.

What happened next – the Guardian mostly learned its lesson, eh?

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 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions –

Categories
United Kingdom

October 13, 1988 – ITV – “The Environment and Pollution”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, October 13th, 1988,

October 13 1988 ITV programme “The Environment and Pollution” Lord Caithness says “we have got a world leading programme for finding alternatives to fossil fuels.”

And

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. 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 climate change had been “on the news” as a very small part of the broader ecological concern in the period 1968-1972. The Dutch had known about the issue, or at least Prince Consort Bernhard had. In 1988 the issue had burst back onto the scene.

The specific context was that ITV presumably made this show in response to Thatcher’s speech to the Royal Society in late September (but I am guessing).

What I think we can learn from this – everyone was told what was at stake. But turning even “listening” into action requires sustained civil society activity (of which social movements are only a subset), and that is tricky, especially in times of enforced neoliberal shitfuckery.

What happened next – more enforced neoliberal shitfuckery. Spasms of social movements and a basically dead civil society. And the emissions kept climbing.

(NB this is not to say Keynesianism is a barrel of laughs.)

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 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

October 13, 1993 – IIASA and the IAMs – Gaia help us all – All Our Yesterdays

October 13, 2005 – “Climate Change: Turning up the Heat” published

Categories
United States of America

August 17, 1988 – “The Greening of Congress”

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 17th, 1988,

RS (1988) The `greening’ of Congress. Christian Science Monitor, August 17, 1988

https://www.csmonitor.com/1988/0817/ewirth.html

TWO US senators recently introduced bills to help slow global climate warming. The bills could put the United States in the forefront of international efforts to combat the so-called greenhouse effect. Norway appears to be the only country to have officially committed itself to reducing carbon dioxide emissions – a key culprit in warming the climate. Norwegians plan to cut such pollution by 20 percent by the year 2000. If enacted, the Senate measures could form the basis for a more comprehensive strategy than one focused only on carbon dioxide.

A bill introduced by Vermont Republican Sen. Robert Stafford would ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for all but medical uses by 1999. CFCs help destroy the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer and play a major role in trapping heat in the atmosphere. Senator Stafford’s bill would also require the US to cut CO2 emissions by half by the year 2000. It would also impose tight limits on nitrogen oxides and other gases that contribute to ozone smog at ground level.

A second bill, introduced by Colorado Democrat Timothy Wirth, asks for smaller reductions in CO2 emissions – 20 percent by 2000. But it also calls for a comprehensive US energy policy based on greater energy efficiency, more research into alternative energy sources, research into safer nuclear reactor designs, and broader use of natural gas to fuel power plants and vehicles. It would allot more money for basic atmospheric research. It would also steer US international aid efforts toward encouraging global population control, preserving rain forests, and supporting reforestation projects.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that carbon dioxide build-up had become a relatively regular (albeit infrequent) subject in the Op-Ed pages of Serious Newspapers over the preceding decade. 

The specific context was that James Hansen’s landmark testimony before a Senate hearing in June, combined with the drought affecting the mid-west, had “the greenhouse effect” on everyone’s lips. For a great summary of this, see the “Grant Swinger” article LINK HERE.

What I think we can learn from this – “greening” of politicians tends to go almost as quickly as it comes, in the absence of robust radical social movement organisations. Which we don’t have, and won’t have. So it goes.

What happened next – there was a flurry of announcements and pronouncements in 1988 and 1989. By 1990 the reality, and the organised backlash, were biting back. And the emissions? Oh, they kept climbing, of course.

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: 

August 17, 1982 – Crispin Tickell sounds the alarm bell

August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

August 17, 1997 – Paper etc industries want “greenhouse minister” – All Our Yesterdays

August 17, 1998 – Emissions Trading considered (again)

August 17, 2002 – Pacific states urge Australia to sign Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Australia

July 27, 1988 – The greenback effect

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, July 27th, 1988 a highly entertaining and informative article by Australian chemist Ben Selinger is published in the Canberra Times.

Selinger, B. 1988. The greenback affects the greenhouse effect. Canberra Times July 27, p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 351ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Australian scientists (and probably especially the chemists!) had been looking at carbon dioxide build-up for at the very least a decade and saying “oh, there will be trouble at some point.”

The specific context was in 1988 the issue had hit the headlines (in part thanks to sterling work by the Commission for the Future and the CSIRO’s division of Atmospheric Physics). By 1989, we were into the blustering and “funding for further research” dodges and wheezes as politicians began to understand quite how disruptive to the status quo that real greenhouse action would be.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is a very identifiable pattern to the recurrent booms in awareness – we live in a kind of Groundhog Day, but without quite realising that. So, a boring tragedy instead of a Buddhist comedy…

What happened next – the counter-attack to climate concern got properly going in late 1989 and then picked up momentum and support. Meanwhile, the emissions kept going up, as did the atmospheric concentrations…

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: 

July 27, 1977 – Pro-nuclear professor cites #climate concerns at Adelaide speech

July 27, 1979 – Thatcher’s Cabinet ponders burying climate report

July 27, 2001 – Minerals Council of Australia versus the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Canada International processes

June 30, 1988 – Toronto conference on “Our Changing Atmosphere” ends

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 30th, 1988 

TORONTO conference ends

You can read some reflections on this from 2013 (25 years later) here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a scientific conference in Villach in September 1985 had been the starting gun for atmospheric scientists to push every button/pull every lever they could (at least in Australia and the US) on the question of “the greenhouse effect.”

One fruit of this was the “Our Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, from which the “Toronto Target” – a 20 per cent reduction in human emissions by 2005 – was born.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew almost four decades that there was trouble ahead (really, the awareness goes back to the late 1970s).

What happened next – the Toronto Target was ignored, derided or agreed to with such provisos that it would never be implemented. It did not make it into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Human emissions have gone up by almost 70% since then. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are surging, as are temperatures.  My 2004 decision not to have kids is looking smarter with the fall of each new temperature record. Breeders – wtaf?

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: 

June 30, 2008 – Judge stops a coal-burning power plant getting built. – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
United States of America

March 14, 1988 – Reagan mouths pieties about international scientific cooperation

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 14th, 1988,

In his message to the Congress of March 14, 1988 concerning international activities in science and technology, President Reagan said that “participation in international science and technology activities is vital to U.S. national security in the broadest sense.”

Dept. St. Bull., vol 88 at 53 (June 1988).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ozone hole had been discovered. There had been a treaty and he protocol in rapid, rapid time. So rapid that the Department of State, etc, and Energy especially, were worried that they’d been bounced into something and decided were going to fight harder against the carbon dioxide treaty. Reagan, obviously, was a lame duck, and neck deep in Iran-Contra. Whoever put the words in his mouth, it’s all boilerplate, motherhood apple pie, who could be against scientific cooperation? (also, with the INF treaty, the Cold War winding down – Gorbachev, Perestroika and Glasnost blah blah blah).

What I think we can learn from this

so you could say these sorts of nonsense statements, no one would bat an eyelid. In fact, they’d bat an eyelid if you didn’t say them, or if you said the opposite. So it’s a communication, but one that’s empty of any meaning.

What happened next

Three months later with the drought in the American midwest, James Hansen’s testimony and “The Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, the carbon dioxide issue burst onto the agenda. 

See also “greenhouse glasnost.” 

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: 

March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

 March 14, 2007 – Top Australian bureaucrat admits “frankly bad” #climate and water policies

 March 14, 2007 – Australian Treasury eyeroll about politicians on #climate, (scoop by Laura Tingle).