Tag: 1989

Categories
United Kingdom

April 25, 1989 – Tony Blair, eco-warrior

On this day Thirty seven years ago, April 25,  

Yesterday [April 25, 1989] Mr Tony Blair, Labour’s energy spokesman, went on the attack with a letter to the Prime Minister, challenging what he termed the “miserable record” of Mr Cecil Parkinson, the Energy Secretary, on energy conservation. 

Hunt, J. 1989. Greenhouse Effect Warms Tempers. Financial Times, April 26, Pg. 10

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that UK politicians had been aware of the climate issue for (at least) ten years by now. The smart ones, that is. So, quite a small minority.

The specific context was that in September 1988 Margaret Thatcher had conducted one of her u-turns and declared carbon dioxide build-up a problem worth turning into an issue. People had tried to take her at her word, and she had revealed herself to be what she always was.

Anyway, on the day April 25, 1989, she had held a full-day seminar, with various technical experts from ETSU etc, briefing her and her Cabinet colleagues (including several who couldn’t be bothered to stay awake – literally).

What I think we can learn from this is that Blair was trying to get an attack line out there for journalists who were writing about Thatcher’s seminar, so they could quote him for “balance.”

What happened next:  Blair?  Don’t know. Faded into obscurity. Or so about a million Iraqis would have wished…

See also

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

June 1, 1989 – Tony Blair versus carbon pricing

Also on this day

April 25, 1989 – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying? (Why yes, yes it is) 

April 25, 1969 – Keeling says pressured not to talk bluntly about “what is to be done?”

April 25th, 1974 – Swedish prime minister briefed on carbon dioxide build-up

April 25, 1996 – Greenpeace slams Australian government on #climate obstructionism

Categories
United Kingdom

March 19, 1989 – “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger”

On this day, thirty seven years ago “Ministers delay plans to curb climate danger” 

GEOFFREY LEAN Environment Correspondent

The Observer  March 19, 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning since the mid-late 1970s that there was serious trouble ahead.

The specific context was that the climate issue had exploded in September 1988 thanks in part to Margaret Thatcher’s speech at the Royal Society. In response, green groups had thrown down what they called the “Green Gauntlet,” 20 policy proposals; Thatcher had basically blanked it. And now we see this report that ministers delay plans to curb climate danger

 What I think we can learn from this is that it’s easy to say something is an issue and get plaudits, but then when people say, what are you going to do about it, it begins to get awkward, doesn’t it? The management of the climate issue as a political problem, rather than a civilizational one, kicked in because it is the perfect super-wicked problem in terms of distributed responsibility, uncertainty, long term effects, etc, and the problem of free riders, all the rest of it. 

What happened next  Well, in the UK, there was Thatcher’s 1989 Cabinet meeting in April. Then the UNFCCC process kicked in. And so on.

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 19, 1956 – Washington Post reports Revelle’s statements

March 19, 1970 – first warning in Australian parliament about carbon dioxide build-up 

March 19, 1990 – Bob Hawke gives #climate speech

March 19, 1998 – industry cautiously welcoming emissions trading…

 March 19, 2001 – US Secretary of Energy boasts about all the coal plants he will build (doesn’t).

Categories
United Kingdom

March 2, 1989 – Michael Buerk asks Thatcher if she’s a friend of the Earth

Thirty seven  years ago, on this day, March 2nd, 1989,

‘Mrs Thatcher, looking back over your life,’ the BBC’s Michael Buerk asked, ‘are you really a  friend of the earth?’ The Greening of Mrs Thatcher, broadcast on 2 nd March 1989, BBC Two logo

BBC Two

First broadcast: Thu 2nd Mar 1989, 20:30 on BBC Two England

The Greening of Mrs Thatcher From No 10 Downing Street Mrs Thatcher talks to Michael Buerk.

Prime Minister for ten years, Mrs Thatcher and her Government’s environmental record hasn’t won her many bouquets. This weekend she hosts a major international conference on saving the ozone layer, when that record and her commitment will be on the line. She says that the Tories are the real ‘friends of the earth’, but is she genuinely committed or just chasing the Green vote?

Tonight she talks for the first time about her own attitude to the environment, and what her new initiatives could mean for Britain and the rest of the world. 

Research MARK FIELDER

Outside broadcast director IAN PAUL 

Producer AMANDA THEUNISSEN 

Editor PETER SALMON BBC Bristol

TV Interview for BBC1 Nature | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Thatcher had been briefed on carbon dioxide build up in 1979 by her Chief Scientific Advisor, John Ashton, and had replied with an incredulous you want me to worry about the weather? This didn’t stop her using the possibility of a greenhouse effect to say nice things about nuclear power. Marc, if you haven’t already put the Tokyo and Venice G7 meetings on your search for list at National Archives, do so now and Thatcher had continued to largely ignore carbon dioxide build up as an issue, even though it was there in the 1987 Conservative Party manifesto. 

The specific context was that  thanks to nudges from people like Crispin Gickle in 1988 Thatcher had given a surprising speech at the Royal Society, and so kicked off concern about Carbon Dioxide build up. However, the green organisations had challenged her to do something meaningful, legislatively, and she had not been interviewed by Michael Burke on whether she was, quote, a friend of the earth. UNQUOTE, she said the following, x, y, z. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that people like Thatcher are were capable of doing what’s called a reverse ferret completely. U turning on their position. And that’s what happened in this case. 

What happened next she kept giving nice features about carbon dioxide build-up without ever pushing through any meaningful action by Her Majesty’s Government, and she was toppled in November 1990 shortly after giving another speech at the second world climate conference in Geneva. 

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 2, 1954 – UK newspaper readers get Greenhouse lesson from Ritchie-Calder 

March 2, 1956 – IGY oceanography meeting on “clearer understanding”

March 2nd, 1997- RIP Judi Bari

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Categories
Australia International processes

March 1, 1989 – “Environment pact backed” by Australian government

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, March 1st, 1989,

Federal Cabinet is set to back calls for an international treaty to protect the environment, a move which could drastically alter the nation’s future pattern of trade and the development of its resources.

Australia would support an international treaty to guard against potentially dangerous shifts in the earth’s climate and atmosphere, under a submission expected to go before Cabinet’s structural adjustment committee today.

[The Hague]

Dunn, R. 1989. Environmental pact backed. Australian Financial Review, 1 March.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was  that Australia had been warned about climate change build up repeatedly by scientists, the CSIRO had been beavering away on it since the early 70s. There had been a secret report called Fossil Fuels and The Greenhouse Effect in, or done by the Office of National Assessments in 1981. There had been Barry Jones, Minister of Science, organising the Greenhouse Project between the CSIRO’s atmospheric physics division and the Commission for the Future. And the issue had exploded into public awareness. In ‘88 there had been the “greenhouse 88” conference, linked by satellite to 10 towns and cities in Australia, everyone was holding hands and saying, “We will deal with this problem.”

The specific context is that the idea of an international treaty to deal with climate was high on the agenda because the ozone problem had had an international treaty, and then protocols were underway, So there was a meeting at The Hague without the big beasts deliberately. I should look into why the Dutch called it. Anyway, Australia, under Bob Hawke, was going to take a positive and proactive role. 

What I think we can learn from this is that Australia, at the outset, was not what it is now. And this is in part because I think the business groups were caught on the back foot, as they often are at the beginning of a window of concern, and just assumed that it would all blow over – they weren’t pushing hard back. And so the pro action forces had kind of an open goal. 

What happened next is that business did indeed wake up, and the pushback against any meaningful climate policy kicked into gear in late 1989 early 1990. Perhaps business had thought that they didn’t need to do much because a Liberal government was coming back, and despite the fine words of people like Chris Puplick, a business friendly Liberal government could be relied on to prevent meaningful climate action. That’s just speculation on my part. 

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 1, 1954 – Lucky Dragon incident gives the world the word “fall out”

March 1, 1967 – Carbon dioxide as important waste problem

March 1, 1970 – so many tribes, so few common interests – All Our Yesterdays

March 1st 2010 – scientist grilled over nothing burger…

Categories
United Kingdom

January 12, 1989 – Thatcher ponders linking aid to preventing deforestation

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, January 12th,1989 – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher meets with her Foreign Secretary and others to discuss climate policies- 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 382ppm. As of 2025 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was the UK is, historically, a huge polluter. Of course.

The specific context was that Thatcher had set off the “Greenhouse Effect” discussion among policy types in September 1988, with a speech to the Royal Society. (Scientists had been trying for years to alert politicians).  Some (James Goldsmith etc) wanted to try to link foreign aid to reduced deforestation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was opposed, and eventually won the day.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you really want to know what went on, you can read the memoirs, but you just have to wait for the archives to open, without ever trusting those archives to give you a full/accurate picture.

What happened next

The proposal to tie aid to stopping deforestation did not get past its opponents, who included the FCO.

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: 

January 12, 1995 – Australian carbon tax coming??

January 12, 2006 – the nuclear option, yet again

January 12, 2008 – Australian mining lobby group ups its “sustainability” rhetoric #PerceptionManagement #Propaganda  

Categories
Australia

December 7, 1989 and 1992 – “Ecologically Sustainable Development” goes from hero to zero

Thirty-six/thirty-three years ago, on this day, December 7th, 1989/1992, ESD went from hero to zero.

CANBERRA: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, won approval yesterday from industry, union, farm and green groups in aiming to achieve the “ecological sustainability” of all Australia’s major resource industries within a year.

Seccombe, M. 1989. Hawke backed in bid to gain ecology-industry harmony. Sydney Morning Herald, December 8, p.4.

and

ESD and greenhouse agreement COAG, Perth Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Communique, ‘Environment – ESD and greenhouse’, COAG Meeting, Perth, 7 December 1992,

(By this time Keating and his gang had obliterated all concern for environment, and especially greenhouse gas reduction hopes).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353-356ppm. 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 there had been a previous wave of eco-concern from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. It had run into the buffers, thanks to industry lobbying, state resistance and civil society exhaustion. From 1987 or so, first with the ozone layer and then the “greenhouse effect”, demands for actual action had grown.

The specific context was that these two events mark the beginning of hope and the triumph of experience.

What I think we can learn from this – the defeat then shaped the battlespace forever after.

What happened next – failure and defeat piled upon failure and defeat, as the scale of the problems grew beyond wicked to, well, existential and impossible. And yet we breed…

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 7, 1928 – Noam Chomsky born

December 7, 1967: Towards Tomorrow “Assault on Life”

December 7, 1967 – Swedish “Monitor” program talks environmental crisis

December 7, 2011 – a CCS network is launched

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

November 8, 1989 – somebody suggests the polluters pay….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, November 8th, 1989,

SYDNEY: The Federal Government should consider introducing a “polluter-pays” tax on companies which add to the greenhouse effect, the Minister for Science, Barry Jones, said yesterday.

Anon. 1989. Polluter-pays’ taxation suggested by minister. Canberra Times, November 9, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 the idea of pollution taxes had been around in the early 1970s, including in Australia. Barry Jones, who is pretty smart, will have known all about that. I mean, it’s not a controversial position, is it?

The specific context was – thanks to Barry Jones’ “Commission for the Future”, working with the CSIRO on “The Greenhouse Project” in 1987, Australians were pretty well-informed about the problems that they would face.  By late 1988 the issue was hot hot hot.

What I think we can learn from this – putting a price on something “bad” to discourage it is not controversial sometimes. Other times, it is made controversial.

What happened next – There were ferocious campaigns against any form of carbon pricing (tax or emissions trading scheme) that ebbed and flowed. Finally, albeit briefly, a carbon price was in place from 2012, but was then abolished in 2013-4.

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, 1989 – Thatcher gives climate speech to UN General Assembly – All Our Yesterdays

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

Categories
France International processes

July 16, 1989 – Paris Agreement….

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 16th, 1989,

33. There is growing awareness throughout the world of the necessity to preserve better the global ecological balance. This includes serious threats to the atmosphere, which could lead to future climate changes. We note with great concern the growing pollution of air, lakes, rivers, oceans and seas; acid rain, dangerous substances; and the rapid desertification and deforestation. Such environmental degradation endangers species and undermines the well-being of individuals and societies.

Decisive action is urgently needed to understand and protect the earth’s ecological balance. We will work together to achieve the common goals of preserving a healthy and balanced global environment in order to meet shared economic and social objectives and to carry out obligations to future generations.

Economic Declaration (16/07/1989) – G7/G20 Documents Database

Paris Declaration!!! At G7 meeting. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 G7 meetings had been happening since the mid-1970s. At the Tokyo meeting, in 1979, carbon dioxide build-up had even gotten a mention in the final communique, and then again in 1985 (merely as “climatic change”). 

The specific context was that the climate issue had broken through, finally, in mid-1988, and everyone was mouthing the platitudes… The G7 was no exception.

What I think we can learn from this is that we had a “Paris Agreement” a good twenty five years before the 2015 one. And they were both essentially meaningless. At a species level, we have failed to do anything about climate change.

What happened next – the climate negotiations did not begin in earnest (after serious opposition from the US) until 1991. A proposal, led by the French, for targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries to be in the text of the treaty, was eventually defeated: Bush said he would not even attend the “Earth Summit” if it was in there. Everything since then has been been a failed attempt to fix that problem.

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 16, 1990 – Canberra Times gives denialist tosh a platform

July 16, 1992 – American scientist claims “no firm evidence” of #climate change Australian National Press Club #denial

Categories
Australia

July 5, 1989 – Bob Hawke launches a book

Thirty six years ago, on this day, July 5th, 1989,

“Following the Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched a book by the Commission for the Future on how individuals could take action to help save the planet from environmental disaster.”

 Dunn, R. 1989. Canberra set for Environment Pact. Australian Financial Review, July 6. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm.  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 political elites had been warned about carbon dioxide build-up repeatedly. By 1986, Australian scientists, aided by Minister for Science Barry Jones, were upping their volume.

The specific context was that Bob Hawke had – with a nudge or three from his Environment Minister Graham Richardson – latched onto “the Greenhouse Effect.” There had already been, in May, a proposal, from Richardson, for the Hawke Government to agree to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005. This had been shot down by Treasurer Paul Keating.

Meanwhile, Australia was being flooded …. With books about What You Could Do As An Individual.

What I think we can learn from this is that waves of concern come and go, but people can’t look into the abyss for very long…

What happened next was that this wave was mostly gone by late 1991, thanks to usual wave exhaustion, the first Gulf War and the successful fightback by business interests.

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 5, 1973 – The Predicament of Mankind discussed

July 5, 1989 – Nuclear tries to regain some credibility, latching on to greenhouse

July 5, 2013 – that turd Michael Gove …drops plans to drop climate from curriculum

Categories
Australia

June 23, 1989 – Richo gonna save the world…

Thirty six years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1989, Graham Richardson, Federal Environment Minister, says some accurate things….

THE Federal Government is considering changes to cut Australia’s excessive energy consumption, according to Federal Environment Minister Senator Graham Richardson.

Everything from power stations to cars would be targeted to produce sizeable drops in energy use, he said in an interview in Adelaide on Friday after an ALP fund-raising dinner.

Senator Richardson said Australia produced some of the highest per capita levels of carbon dioxide in the world, while our economy ranked among the most energy intensive in the world.

In 1984, Australia ranked 13th in the world in per capita consumption of commercially traded fuels-a figure which Senator Richardson said was very high.

Australia had a long way to go to match other nations in cutting waste and using energy more efficiently, he said. 

Jones, B. 1989. Govt aiming to cut fuel usage. Sun Herald, 25 June, p.3.

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 Richardson was ‘switched on’ to eco issues. And there was an election coming, one that was going to be very very tight…

What I think we can learn from this is that when they feel they might lose office, politicians may be willing/able to think a little outside the box

What happened next is that Richardson moved on from the Environment portfolio after the March 1990 election.  By late 1991 the “green” moment had passed. The ALP never spoke the truth in quite this way again…

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 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays