Tag: 1989

Categories
United Kingdom

May 9, 1989- Tony Blair says market forces can’t fix the greenhouse effect…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989 that nice young Tony Blair has an opinion piece in the Guardian. It includes the immortal lines

“From the moment Mrs Thatcher took up the greenhouse effect she has been at risk. Market forces cannot solve it. Indeed, they may have caused it.”

And later

“It is wholly impractical to solve the greenhouse effect through increased reliance on nuclear power.” 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Margarat Thatcher had performed an astonishing reverse-ferret in September 1988, and brought “the greenhouse effect” onto the political agenda. Then,her bluff was called by various NGOs, who threw down a thirty point “green gauntlet” in November. It was obvious she was all mouth and no trousers. Labour had to have a response, and this was it…

What I think we can learn from this is political parties are always seeking out – or responding to – “issues” thrown up by social movements, the media.

What happened next. A few weeks later Blair would be rubbishing the idea of any carbon taxes.

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

Blair, T. 1989. People switch on to the age of the green light-bulb. The Guardian, May 9, p.9

Also on this day: 

May 9, 1959 – “Science News” predicts 25% increase of C02 by end of century (Bert Bolin’s guesstimate) – All Our Yesterdays

May 9, 2009 – Another white flag goes up on the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”

May 9, 2016 – South Australia’s last coal-plant shuts down 

Categories
Academia United States of America

May 2, 1989 – a DC forum about “Our Common Future”

Thirty six years ago, on this day, May 2nd, 1989, a bunch of people got together to think about The Future (turns out it is murder),

Global change and our common future papers from a forum. 

DeFries, Ruth S .; Malone, Thomas F. National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Global Change Forum on Global Change and Our Common Future 1989 Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 1989. xiii, 227 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm. Committee on Global Change, National Research Council. 

Proceedings of the Forum on Global Change and Our Common Future, held on May 2-3, 1989, at the National Theatre in Washington, D.C., and organized by the National Research Council’s Committee on Global Change. Includes bibliographical references.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the “Our Common Future” report had been released in 1987. It was a sequel/rehash of sorts of the Brandt report of 1980, and sat alongside the Global 2000 report. All these – whisper it – were dancing around the fact that the Limits to Growth people of 1972 were basically right but nobody wanted to admit it so everyone went along with the bright shining lies about Technology or Development or Human Rights or whatever protective incantations were popular and career-enhancing at that moment.

What I think we can learn from this. We were smart enough to spot the problems. Mostly too scared (with good reason) to point out that the maniac sociopaths in charge would never allow the actions required, because it would interfere with their power, prestige, appetites, ideology. Duck and cover? Kinda.

What happened next

In 1989 the Global Climate Coalition was formed – oil companies and auto companies and so on – to fight any meaningful policy response to climate change. They won.

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: 

May 2, 1990 – Nairobi Declaration on Climatic Change – All Our Yesterdays

May 2, 2009 – Australian Liberals warned of wipe-out if seen as “anti-climate action” #auspol

May 2, 2012 – CCS is gonna save us all. Oh yes.

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Categories
Australia

April 29, 1989 – Australian Science Minister takes to the airwaves on the Greenhouse Effect.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, April 29th, 1989, the ABC radio programme the “Science Show” had this as its running line up.

The Science Show [Episode 658] – Reply to David Suzuki from Barry Jones; Greenhouse Effect Consequences; New Scientist Editor; Research Used for Biological Weapons; Lichens; Bopplenuts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Science Show had, from its first August 1975 broadcast, been alerting listeners to the threat of climate change.  Science Minister Barry Jones had been on the case too, and his “Commission for the Future” had worked with the CSIRO on a highly effective “Greenhouse Project.”  The Australian Federal Government was grappling with ‘what to do’… David Suzuki, the Canadian science communicator, was making frequent trips to Australia and had recently lectured on the Amazon.

What I think we can learn from this was that the late 1980s really was a burst of awareness/fear around climate change, but that people can only cope with so much fear and then they turn away, happy to be told that every little thing’s gonna be alright, even (especially) when they know that really, it won’t be…

What happened next

We turned away – the green groups were unable to maintain the momentum, sustain their capacity. It was always going to end like this. It’s how every story ends…Or has ended so far.  Who knows, maybe next time will be different.  Sure.

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: 

April 29, 1967 – Canberra Times reviews Science and Survival – All Our Yesterdays

April 29, 1970 – Washington DC symposium talks about carbon dioxide

April 29, 1998 – Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol

Categories
Science Scientists

January 6, 1989 – “Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment” 

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 6th, 1989, an article with the snappy title Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment was published. Its lead author was  V. Ramanathan.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The starting gun for *public* concern about climate change had been fired a few months before (June 1988), thanks to both James Hansen’s testimony to a Senate committee in Washington DC, a very hot summer, and other events (including statements by senior politicians such as George HW Bush and Margaret Thatcher). Ramanthan’s work on the effect of all the other trace gases on estimated temperature rise had been one factor in making the Villach meeting of 1985 what it was.

What I think we can learn from this

That smart people have been scratching their heads/worrying about the earth’s radiation budget and imbalance for a long long time.

What happened next

Scientists kept sciencing, and the emissions kept climbing.

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

V. Ramanathan R. D. Cess, E. F. Harrison, P. Minnis, B. R. Barkstrom, E. Ahmad and D. Hartmann 1989. Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment  Science  Vol. 243, No. 4887 (Jan. 6, 1989), pp. 57-63

Also on this day: 

Categories
Denial United States of America

November 11, 1988 – Gore blames Reagan and Reaganites for loss of US leadership

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, November 11th, 1988,

At that [Nov 11, 1988] conference [organised by Time] French environmental official Brice Lalonde remarked, “Through the late 1970s, lots of things we learned about the environment came from the United States. And [in the] late seventies, it stops, and the lead [switched to] Scandinavia, Germany, and the Netherlands.” To this, Tennessee Democrat Senator Albert Gore quickly responded “January of 1981, to be precise.”

(Schneider, 1989: 225)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Time magazine was holding a conference about the environment and climate change and so forth. Because that sold newspapers and they wanted to get another story out of it. 

So convene a big bunch of big names. You can put it on your cover, get reflected/halo glory, future connections. It’s then easier for journalists to phone up and get quotes. Bish bosh.

And what Gore was doing was telling the truth about how the Reagan administration had been, at best indifferent, at worst, actively hostile to all environmental concerns.There had been in effect, a lost decade, longer by the time you took the incoming President Bush into account.

What we learn is that there was a lost decade,

What happened next, Gore went toe-to-toe with Bush Snr over the subject of global warming. revealing that NASA scientist James Hansen had been gagged, etc, etc. Gore was then Clinton’s running mate in 1992, at the same time “Earth in the Balance” came out. 

And here we are, with the emissions still climbing. 

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 11, 1963 – “Is man upsetting the weather?”

November 11, 1988 – IPCC finishes its first meeting

Categories
United Kingdom United Nations

 November 8, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989, UK Prime Minister Thatcher speech to UN General Assembly

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that 14 months previously, Margaret Thatcher had stunned everyone by making a speech about global warming to a gathering of the Royal Society in Oxford. And this had really moved the conversation on “the greenhouse effec”t and what to be about it onto a much higher level. But she’d actually committed the UK to very little despite her special one day Cabinet meeting about the greenhouse effect April 1989. And here, we have her making nice flowery speeches at the UNGA. 

What we learn is that she was a consummate politician. 

What happened next, a couple of days later, environmental analyst Tom Burke pointed out that there was “a hole in the policy layer”(which is quite a fun title, but you have to put it in the context of the ozone). And he pointed out that the UNGA speech had half an hour of flowery rhetoric, but nothing concrete, nothing specific. And so it came to pass that nothing specific or concrete was done. 

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 8, 1989 – ALP Minister says environmentalism a “middle-class fad” – “greenies” respond…

November 8, 2013 – “One religion is enough” says John Howard

Categories
United States of America

October 23, 1989 – Republican Governor of New Jersey issues climate executive order

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 23rd 1989 Republican Governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean issues an executive order. Yep. it was a broadly bi-partisan issue, until 1990-1991, and the beginning of the organised fight back by the fossil fuel interests…

https://nj.gov/infobank/circular/eok219.htm

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this stage you could be a Republican and still give a shit about climate change and be seen to be doing something or wanting to do something about it. The culture wars hadn’t really hardened the arteries of the body politic. That’s not to say that what the Republicans were proposing as solutions were going to work. But at least they acknowledged that there was a problem. The fact that that seems like a small mercy or something noteworthy tells you how decayed we are.

What I think we can learn from this is that we knew and that it wasn’t always a culture war.

What happened next remained governor of New Jersey until 1990 and the culture war hardened 

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 23, 1955 – LA Times article says “our weather is changing”

October 23, 1963 – JKF warns of actions “which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale.” 

Categories
Australia

October 5, 1989 – Enviro minister “Richo” warns Hawkie to save “Kakadu”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 5th, 1989, Australian Federal Environment Minister Graham Richardson warns Prime Minister Bob Hawke that he will have to save Kakadu (i.e. ban mining) to win the election, because green-minded voters will accept nothing less. (See Paul Kelly’s The End of Certainty for details)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia had been digging up and exporting minerals for good 25 years in large quantities. And the whole concept of Aboriginal land rights and sacred sites was nothing important back then. Not to the white people anyway. But by the mid-late 80s, that was changing. And the idea for an expansion of the uranium mine at Kakadu that would damage the National Park was a vote loser in the marginal inner city constituencies where Labor hoped it would be able to cling on to power at the next federal election. This had to happen early in 1990 and therefore Graeme Richardson, who was Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s very effective environment minister, was telling Hawke that he was going to have to save Kakadu even though this was going to seriously piss off the mining lobby. The mining lobby feared that it was the beginning of serious restrictions on their ability to plunder, sorry to “develop”, Australia’s resources for their own benefit. And Hawke took that on board; he delayed the decision and took the credit for that.

What we learn is that these seemingly tangential issues are important to understand if you want to understand how climate policy works

What happened next Labor did in fact squeak home in the March 1990 election, and then had a quid pro quo debt to keep the Ecologically Sustainable Development 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.

Also on this day: 

October 5, 1988 – Vice Presidential Debate and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’

October 5, 1992 – Ignoreland hits the airwaves. #Neoliberalism

October 5, 2006 – Greenpeace sues Blair Government over shonky energy “consultation”

Categories
Cultural responses

September 11, 1989 – Bill McKibben’s “The End of Nature” published

Thirty-five years ago, on this day, September 11th, 1989, The New Yorker Magazine publishes ‘The End of Nature’ , an essay by William McKibben.

In an interview with the same magazine in 2014 McKibben recognised he had initially miscalculated what we are up against.

“It took me a long time to realize that the scientists had won the argument but were going to lose the fight, because it isn’t about data and science, it’s about power. The most powerful industry is fossil fuel, because it is the richest. At a certain point, it became clear that our only hope of matching that money was with the currencies of movement: passion, spirit, creativity—and warm bodies”

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/peoples-climate-march-interview-bill-mckibben

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that for the past 13 months, everyone had been banging on about the “greenhouse effect” since James Hansen’s testimony. This had been neatly secured by Grant Swinger. And here was the first one of the first big philosophical pieces written by then young Bill McKibben. Talking about the End of Nature/

The New Yorker, of course, had been the venue for Rachel Carson’s 1962 effort Silent Spring. So this was in keeping with their general long form, big picture jeremiads (see also Elizabeth Kolbert’s Field Notes from a Catastrophe). 

What we learn is that there are specific publications where if you really want to have an influence, that’s where you need to be. Because everyone will be reading it and the mere fact that it got published there will mean that people take it seriously. Even if more interesting, important work is appearing somewhere else. Because we do mental shortcuts – we have to, because we’re surrounded by so many potential sources of information. 

What happened next McKibben’s essay got published as a book. Good Book. McKibben went on to found 350.org involved in divestment and so forth. Probably still thinks that the situation is salvageable. I don’t know. Maybe I should interview him. Anyway, that’s 35 years ago. 

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

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/peoples-climate-march-interview-bill-mckibben

Also on this day: 

September 11, 1961 – New York Times reports “Air Found Gaining in Carbon Dioxide”

September 11, 1973 – CIA coup topples Chilean democracy

Categories
Geoeingeering

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1989,

WASHINGTON — Gigantic orbiting mirrors may offer a solution – albeit a very costly one — to Earth’s anticipated woes with global warming if pollution control efforts fail, a Swiss scientist said Wednesday.

In a letter published in the British journal Nature, Walter Seifritz said he thinks it is unlikely humans will do much in the near future to reduce pollution that threatens to boost the planet’s temperature.

Carbon dioxide and other gases generated by fuel consumption and burning of tropical forests warm Earth’s atmosphere by trapping solar heat like a greenhouse.

Many scientists predict if current pollution trends continue, Earth’s temperature could rise 4 to 9 degrees over the next 70 years. Such an increase would cause a marked rise in sea levels and dramatic climate changes.

If efforts to cut emission of so-called greenhouse gases fail and serious global warming occurs, Seifritz contends ‘a remote but feasible possiblity’ would be to lower temperatures by artificially blocking the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.

‘To compensate for a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Kelvin (4.5 degrees Farenheit), the solar radiation must be reduced by about 3.5 percent. The task could be done by satellites bearing large, lightweight mirrors,’ wrote the professor from Switzerland’s Schurrer Institute.

Kolberg, R. 1989. Mammoth mirrors could offset global warming. UPI, 23 August.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone had been banging on about climate change for a year. And now, the techno-fetishists were getting in on the act, with the idea of space mirrors as part of the whole solar radiation management gimmick. 

What we learn is that rather than look inside and examine our actual problems, we are far keener on looking outside and listening to people who point to “this thing of darkness we acknowledge is someone else’s” (That’s a riff on Prospero in The Tempest, btw). And technofixes are a really good example of that. Press bro would not be surprised. 

What happened next, we still don’t have any space mirrors. We didn’t do anything to reduce the trajectory of emissions. And we are beginning to boil, metaphorically speaking.

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 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum