Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 27, 1988, the USSR’s Foreign Minister gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
“Other prominent politicians also made important statements. Eduard Schevardnadze, then Soviet Foreign Minister, made a stronger speech to the UNGA on 27 September 1988, where he proposed that UNEP should be transformed into ‘an environmental council capable of taking effective decisions to ensure ecological security’.”
Page 35 Paterson, M (1996)
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. and
The context was that everyone was talking about climate – it was “one of those moments.” And the issue was still fresh. What shevardnadze was proposing was simply what had been proposed in 1972 for a stronger UNEP rather than a small research and cajoling outfit. It was defeated in 1972, and ignored in 1988. And here we are.
What I think we can learn from this is that the necessary institutions are unlikely to come into existence without out and much bigger bottom-up effort. But it’s hard for the bottom-up people to campaign for a “big institution “which will be faithless and which will treat them like dirt.
What happened next
UNEP stayed small and the United States contained and controlled the treaty process.
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
On this day, 35 years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference in Toronto, a meeting of the Australian government’s Federal Cabinet calls for a report on what can be done.
But it did lead to THIS report, in April of the following year
NB Thanks to Senator Rex Patrick for the tweet about this, and to Sally who can’t wander who alerted to me to it.
The context
The spooks at the Office of National Assessments had produced a report for Cabinet about the Greenhouse Effect, back in 1981, but it’s not clear it was ever discussed or seen by Fraser/Howard/Peackock etc. Through the 1980s, climate scientists got more certain – and more vocal – about the threat. Hawke’s science minister Barry Jones had LONG been aware of the climate problem. Jones had managed to get funding for a “Commission for the Future” (something New Zealand had had already, and the Swedes had done too in the early 1970s).
“The Commission’s chair, Phillip Adams, recalls that problems such as nuclear war, genetic modification, artificial intelligence, were all proposed. Finally, though:
…the last bloke to talk was right at the far end of the table. Very quiet gentleman… He said, ‘You’re all wrong – it’s the dial in my laboratory, and the laboratories of my colleagues around the world.’ He said, ‘Every day, we see the needle going up, because of what we call the greenhouse effect.‘
The first big project that the Commission for the Future did – in combination with the CSIRO – was “The Greenhouse Project”, with Australian scientists Graeme Pearman and Barrie Pittock neck deep.
The Greenhouse Project had launched in September 1987. There was a big scientific conference a couple of months later. The Toronto conference (which Pearman attended) was in June, by which time preparations were already well underway for a series of public meetings, linked by satellite, to happen in the capital cities of every state, in November 1988 (Greenhouse 88).
What we can learn
We knew enough to act. The pushback from industry and denialists began in 1989, and was successful in scuppering what might have been a half-decent response. And here we are.
What happened next
A detailed report was tabled to Cabinet the following April. It makes frankly horrifying reading. In May 1989 the Federal Environment Minister tried to get the Cabinet to agree to a target of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2005. He was blocked by Paul Keating, Treasurer.
Eventually, just before the Second World Climate Conference, the Australian Cabinet DID accept a version of the “Toronto Target” but with so many caveats as to make it pointless. And Keating, still in Cabinet, extracted an agreement that the Productivity Commission would produce a report.
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 five years ago, on this day, August 3, 1988, an Exxon PR flak is drafting bullshit about “THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT”, draft written by Joseph M. Carlson, an Exxon Public Affairs Managers.
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 everyone had started to bang on about climate change. And so Exxon needed to go public. But going public and saying, “yeah, we’ve known about this for 10 years and we decided a while back that we were going to be obstructive” would not be particularly helpful. So instead, they tried to baffle people with bullshit and passive language and all the rest of it.
What I think we can learn from this
What we learn is that this is just how corporates behave unless forced to do otherwise.
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 five years ago, on this day, July 26, 1988, the Australian Financial Review reported on what “the greenhouse effect” might do to the energy mix (it didn’t).
Environmental problems associated with the “greenhouse effect” could force the world to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy – which would give Australia the opportunity to become the foremost uranium supplier, according to a leading petroleum industry expert.
Mr Bob Foster, general manager, external relations, for BHP Petroleum said last week: “Australia can lead the world on how to mitigate against the greenhouse effect.”
Sargent, S. 1988. Environment problems seen with fossil fuels. Australian Financial Review, 26 July.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that everyone had started to talk about climate change. And the biggest Australian miner BHP was able to see dollar signs because it had lots of uranium and could envisage a turn to nuclear. The deeper context is that from the 1950s and 60s onwards, advocates of nuclear had been talking about it as a greenhouse solution. See, for example, Philip Abelson in 1968, New York Times 1969 Thatcher 1979 for a very small selection
What I think we can learn from this is that proponents of the nuclear dream (or nightmare, depending on your perspective) have been using all the arguments that they can for a long, long time.
What happened next
Nuclear power did not save the world. Nuclear power was never going to save the world,
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.
On this day in 1988, the editor of Nature, John Maddox kept going with his general harrumphing and ignorance of what the science was actually saying, with his “jumping the greenhouse gun” editorial. It drew responses from scientists Kenneth Hare and Kenneth Mellanby
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that Maddox had been being aggressively wrong about climate change for a long time (1971 – on ABC television, for instance. And earlier.).
What I think we can learn from this
Old white men who have been in jobs a long time paint themselves into a corner and can’t find ways to back down gracefully, by saying the simple words “I was wrong.”
What happened next
Hare and Mellanby replied in Nature a couple of weeks later.
Also – for fans of obscure Meatloaf…
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 five years ago, on this day, June 28, 1988, NGOs suggested deep deep cuts. Ha ha ha
Developed nations should commit themselves to a 50 per cent reduction in the use of fossil fuels by 2015 to slow and then stop the warming of the Earth, a group of non-governmental organizations said yesterday at a conference in Toronto on the atmosphere.
McInnes, C. 1988. Cut use of fossil fuels by half, group urges. The Globe and Mail, 29 June.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the Changing Atmosphere conference was a mix of NGOs and scientists and the engineers were pushing for a very ambitious target, as this press release based report shows, a 50% reduction by 2015
What I think we can learn from this
It was the NGOs who knew what was needed and and were “Demanding The Impossible” or “the necessary,” as you might also look at it
What happened next
The actual target presented at the end of the conference was a watered-down compromise of 20% reduction by 2005. And this was adopted with caveats by various nations but did not succeed in the United Nations process. which called merely for stabilisation by the year 2000 of rich nations (which none met) – his was of course a farce and a betrayal
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 five years ago, on this day, June 26, 1988, one of the major US networks goes all in on our doom…
“The Inside Sunday edition of the CBS Evening News for June 26, 1988 featured a very unusual eight-minute environmental story that led with the greenhouse effect, linking it to the high temperatures of the 1980s. The Goddard Institute’s David Rind and climatologist Thomas Karl warned of future warming and discussed the need to decrease the production of carbon dioxide.”
sorry – can’t lay hands on source right now!
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the United States was suffering a prolonged drought with the Mississippi at its lowest level ever. Farmers’ crops destroyed and heat waves. On the 23rd James Hanson had given testimony and then made statements to journalists immediately after which had caused uproar.
It’s crucial to understand as per the Grant Swinger spoof that everybody knew about the greenhouse effect more or less because it had been spoken of intermittently for 20-years and especially in 1983, less than 5 years previously.
What I think we can learn from this
Eight minutes of news broadcast is enormous. Everybody knew. The problem is not one of knowledge; the problem is one of Power.
What happened next
The fossil fuel fans fought back. They started to flood the media with b******* knowing that balance was bias. They also successfully lobbied government to go slow on international negotiations. Thirty five years later 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.
Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his pivotal testimony to senators.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that since the 1985 Villach meeting advocates of climate action had been pressing every button and pulling every lever that they knew. Hansen had testified before and this testimony timed to sensitise journalists before the Toronto “Changing the Global Atmosphere” conference was held on a very hot day in Washington DC with the windows closed and the air conditioning turned off.
What I think we can learn from this
You have to say the same thing over and over and over again to get anywhere. You have to be lucky with your timing. And crucially James Hanson was a small c-conservative person at that point, so coming from him it was a big deal to say that the greenhouse effect was here. Those words would not have had the same effect from some other people…
What happened next
The issue exploded. Presidential candidates were forced to address it. Hansen got smeared and ignored and uninvited to important meetings. This continued until he retired. He’s been getting arrested a lot.
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 five years ago, on this day, March 7 (or thereabouts) 1988 at a conference on Gaia running from 7 to 11 March…
Richard Gammon of the US government’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at Seattle in Washington state, seems to have been the first off the starting blocks. After seeing the complete data for 1987 and the first results for 1988, he told a conference in March 1988: “Since the mid-1970s we have been in a period of very, very rapid warming. We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate.”
(Pearce, 1989:3)
[“The Gaia Controversy: AGU’S Chapman Conference” in San Diego was from March 7 to 11.]
Rarely has a hypothesis immediately sparked such a passionate response. There is something in it for everybody, from hard core scientists to philosophers, ultraconservationists, students of world religions, mystics, politicians, and space enthusiasts; they were all there in San Diego, March 7–11, 1988, for the AGU Chapman Conference on Gaia Hypotheses. For 4 days an impressive list of specialists presented and debated the pros and cons of Gaia Hypotheses from diverse perspectives: modern and ancient biology, ecology, biochemistry, the physicochemical systems of the Earth, oceans, and atmosphere, and the evolution of the solar system.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 352.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that “earth systems” scientists were very interested in the Lovelock and Margulis Gaia theory, enough to have a conference about it. And from the October 1985 Villach meeting onwards, the scientists and politicians were all getting more interested in just how soon the signal would emerge from the noise on climate change…
What I think we can learn from this
James Hansen was not an outlier in his June 1988 testimony. Sure, there wasn’t necessarily a majority, but what Hansen said was not all that unusual or surprising (see Schneider’s Greenhouse Century for accounts of how journalists kept looking for quotes from him to try to set up a “Hansen/Schneider split” story.)
What happened next
Within months climate change would become unavoidable for politicians. No more long grass…
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 five years ago, on this day, February 27, 1988, a conference about, well, Global Change, finished in Canberra.
1988 Australian Academy of Science (1988) Global change, Proceedings of the Elizabeth and Frederick White Research conference 24-27 February 1988.
[fill in, take photo of contents page]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was
The Australian Academy of Science had been looking at climate change since a 1975-6 report (with a 1980 conference, and then another in 1987). Meanwhile, the problems of Amazonian deforestation, ozone, acid rain etc were all very much ‘in the news’.
What I think we can learn from this
Smart people will identify problems, in great detail, but, fearful of being labelled “political” are hesitant to name the names of the people, organisations, motives and processes that are perpetuating the problems, or talk about what would actually need to be done, beyond vague “change in legislation/change in mindsets” stuff. They bring an ethical knife to a power gunfight….
What happened next
More fine words. More emissions. And here we are.
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Do comment on this post.
