Tag: 1989

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 10, 1989 – Bush announces conference

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 10th, George Bush says he will hold a conference.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was thatAmerican politicians had been warned about the climate threat since the late 70s. Under Reagan/Bush between 1981 and 1989 these threats had been largely ignored until it was no longer politically feasible to do so on. 

The specific context was that in August 1988 on the campaign trail, George H.W. Bush,feeling vulnerable on environmental issues, because his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, had a record to stand on, proclaimed that he would call an international conference on climate change in his first year in office. 

The other specific context is that – he – Bush had been caught trying to suppress the scientific and alter the scientific assessment of a NASA scientist, James Hansen, and so was needing to do some reputational repair. 

What I think we can learn from this is that when leadership was needed, we got Bush instead.

What happened next. The conference was finally held in 1990 and somebody somehow “forgot” in inverted commas, to invite the head of the IPCC, Bert Bolin. 

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: 

May 10, 1931 – Daily Oregonian mentioning greenhouse…. – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1968 – “The Age of Effluence” says Time Magazine. C02 build-up mentioned… – All Our Yesterdays

May 10, 1978 – Women told that by 2000 “we will be frantically searching for alternatives to coal.”

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker

May 10, 2007 – Future Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan “punches the Liberal bruise” on climate and emissions trading 

Categories
International processes United Kingdom United States of America

May 9, 1989 – the Brits want a global climate pact. The US? Not so much…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 9th, 1989, Crispin Tickell tried to move things along. 

Boston Globe, May 10 1989.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Tickell was a career diplomat. In 1975 he had done a sabbatical at Harvard University and wrote his thesis on Climatic Change and International Affairs. He could see what carbon dioxide build-up would do to geopolitics. He tried repeatedly to get Margaret Thatcher to be concerned about the question. Eventually, in 1988 he succeeded.

The specific context was that in the second half of 1988 the problem had become an issue. Thatcher gave a speech at the Royal Society in late September 1988 that was, in effect, the starting gun for international diplomacy. The administration of George H.W. Bush, however, was dragging its heels.

What I think we can learn from this. There was a chance to fix this – or if not actually fix it, then manage it. To buy us extra time. Instead we went lead head and lead foot off the cliff. Oh well.

What happened next. The US threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries was in the text of the Climate Treaty. This threat worked, the targets and timetables weren’t in, and we have spent the last 34 years trying to get them in. 

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: 

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

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

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
United States of America

May 8, 1989 – Bush Administration exposed gagging climate scientist James Hansen

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, May 8th, 

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/NYTimes.1989Week07May.pdf

“All three networks on May 8, 1989 did greenhouse effect stories based on Senate sub-committee hearings in which NASA scientist James Hansen told Senator Al Gore that he had been ordered by the Bush administration to change the conclusions in written testimony regarding the seriousness of global warming.”

Sachsman 2000:5)

And

“More specifically, on 8 May 1989, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed that it had altered the Congressional testimony of NASA’s James Hansen, thereby weakening his conclusion that enough was known about the phenomenon to justify immediate action. The Whitehouse defended this action by claiming that it wanted to avoid the appearance of policy disagreements within the Administration. The political fallout from this episode was considerable, not only within the United States but also internationally.”

Rowlands (1995) Page 76 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been warning politicians and had mostly been simply ignored. But from 1988 onwards, ignoring came with costs.

The specific context was that James Hansen had given testimony to a Senate Committee on 23rd of June, 1988 and this, as much as anything else, had set the ball rolling. Happy dogs. But new president, George H.W. Bush was opposed to an environmental agenda. I think it’s fair to say, despite his promises on the campaign trail. And here we see evidence of Hansen’s testimony being altered and sidelined, and this being exposed by Democratic senator from Tennessee, Al Gore.

What I think we can learn from this is that if you’re a politician, you can ignore people, but actually actively changing their words… well, someone is going to leak it, and you’re going to get in hot water. 

What happened next. Hansen decided just to go back to doing his science, understandably, but he changed his mind in 2005 and has since then been an incredibly effective, active scientist and advocate for action. Bush continued, and scuppered the chance of any strong response to the climate threat by threatening to boycott the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, if targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries were in the treaty on climate that was up for signature. This worked. Targets and timetables for rich countries were taken out of the text. 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.

Also on this day: 

May 8, 1972 – “Teach-in for Survival” in London

May 8, 1980 – Nature article “CO2 could increase global tensions.” Exxon discussed underneath. Delicious ironies abound. – All Our Yesterdays

May 8, 1992 – UNFCCC text agreed. World basically doomed.

May 8, 2008 – Carbon Rationing Scrapped

May 8, 2013 – we pass 400 parts per million. Trouble ahead.

May 8, 2015 – denialist denies in delusional denialist newspaper

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