Tag: 1989

Categories
Australia

July 20, 1989 – New “Ambassador for the Environment” role makes greenies happy

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 20th, 1989, a nice new job is announced…

Major conservation groups believe that the new post of Ambassador for the Environment will be only as effective as Federal Government policy allows.

The new position – to be filled by the former Governor-General and High Court judge Sir Ninian Stephen – was announced by the Prime Minister this week as part of his major environmental statement.

Mr Hawke said that “no-one could better discharge that role for Australia”.

Speaking from Melbourne, Sir Ninian said he was not sure why he had been chosen but was delighted to accept when it was offered by Mr Hawke by telephone last weekend.

Bailey, P. 1989. All praise for our green envoy. Sydney Morning Herald, July 22, p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

Australia gets its first ambassador for the environment. A nice job for a superannuated civil servant in this case, Ninian Steven.

The context was that Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an eye on the next federal election, and needed to keep small-g green tinged voters onside, and needed to therefore do some harmless appointing of meaningless jobs to fly the flag and to keep the greenies happy. 

What we learn is that the sorts of gestures get made, you always have to ask for “What responsibilities does the person have?” “What rights do they have?” “How will they be funded?” “Will they be able to take names and embarrass anyone?” And if there aren’t good answers to those questions, then what you’re looking at is just more bullshit. 

What happened next. He had the job for a while, I forget who was next. Think it was a woman. The post degenerated to its natural state when the head of the Australian Coal Association, Ralph Hilman, was appointed by John Howard.

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 20, 1989 – Bob Hawke fumbles the green football…

July 20, 2014- the “Green Blob” blamed

Categories
France International processes

July 16, 1989 – Paris agreement on climate…

The Paris Agreement; World leaders gather in Paris and talk about climate change and make big promises. Am I talking about 2015? No, I’m talking about the G7 in 1989 thirty five years ago, on this day, July 13th, 1989.

1989 Economic Declaration “We believe that the conclusion of a framework or umbrella convention on climate change to set out general principles or guidelines is urgently required to mobilize and rationalize the efforts made by the international community… Specific protocols containing concrete commitments could be fitted into the framework as scientific evidence requires and permits.”

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/paris-economic-summit-economic-declaration

THATCHER GIVES PRESS CONFERENCE, usual warm words https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107731

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the G7 meetings had started originally as a one-off at Rambouillet in November 1975 as part of the concern that Western leaders had about stagflation. labour unrest (which is a cute way of setting the slaves aren’t willing to be slaves at the same rate anymore) and general sense of things falling apart. The leaders liked it so much they made it an annual event. And in 1979, carbon dioxide buildup and climate change even been onto the agenda, some vague promises, {LINK]

But then by 1980, Venice, that was all forgotten. And it was more coal all the time [link}. 

Fun fact. The pivotal “Changing Atmosphere” conference that had happened in 1988, the pivotal one had taken place in the same venue as the G7 meeting.

What we learn is that people like turning up in Paris and making agreements. It makes them feel good and important. So, beautiful city even if it has become a theme park for itself. And here we are.

What happened next? Well, funnily enough, the G7 in Houston next year didn’t mention climate at all. Why could that be? And the climate issue rose to a peak in summer of ‘92. And then it was perceived to have been more or less resolved. Because you know, now we had a treaty, we had some fine words, everything would be fine.

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
Energy United Kingdom

July 4, 1989 – UK Energy Committee ponders greenhouse implications

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 4th, 1989, a committee delivers its findings.

Energy Committee, Sixth Report, Energy Implications of the Greenhouse Effect, Volumes 1,2, 3, together with the proceedings of the Committee, HMSO,

As someone wrote.

When a report is described at its launch by one of its authors as ‘possibly the most important issued since Parliamentary departmental Select Committees began a decade ago’, it is scarcely surprising if those approaching it to study its comments do so with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation.
Having duly read not just the 65pages of the main report, but also trawled with increasing fascination through the two supplementary volumes of evidence presented (both written and oral), running to some 158 and 164 pages respectively, I have come to a simple conclusion. The topic under consideration is acknowledged by world leaders to be possibly the greatest threat to civilization-as-we-know-it; this is parliament’s latest work on the topic: ergo, it must by definition rank as ‘most important’.

Warren, A. (1989). The UK energy select committee greenhouse report. Energy Policy, 17(5), 452–454. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(89)90067-0 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

An energy committee receives a report!! Hold The Front Page. Stop the press!

The context is that by the end of 1988, politicians were setting up task forces and committees. The IPCC had its first meeting in November of ‘88, for example, but also domestically, most of this was channelled through the frame of energy, because energy was at that stage the number one issue (agriculture, aviation, industry would all start to be looked at later). 

What we learn is what else you’re going to do, of course, you’re gonna set up a committee fact finding. That in and of itself, isn’t the problem. It’s whether you then keep pushing or whether you use the fact that you set up a committee to send activists to sleep as an excuse not to do anything more. And that,  sadly, is what we did. And it seems impossible for social movement organisations to effectively follow the issue into the committees because they are the place where good ideas go to die. 

What happened next: A flurry of promises in 1989 – 1990, especially around variations on the Toronto target of rich nations cutting emissions. Then the Rio Earth Summit gave us a half-baked stabilisation target. And then it all just went away. Because it did. 

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: 

4 July, 1957 – popular UK magazine The Listener mentions carbon dioxide build-up

July 4, 1996 – article in Nature saying ‘it’s partly us’

July 4, 2004 – @WWF_Australia try to shame John Howard into #climate action…

Categories
Australia

June 13, 1989 – Engineers want greenhouse plan, immediate action required… #auspol

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 13th, 1989, engineers want to get cracking…,

The international community must take immediate steps to revise its energy strategies to ameliorate the greenhouse effect, the Institution of Engineers, Australia, warned yesterday.

Presenting its position paper, The Impact of Energy Use on the Greenhouse Effect, the association recommended action based on the premise that fossil fuels would continue to supply most of the world’s energy needs.

Lewis, S. 1989. Engineers want greenhouse plan. Australian Financial Review, 14 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was running around talking about climate change and something must be done. World Environment Day had just happened. And there’d been a big global pop conference, with all the celebrities imploring us to save the earth. Because that’s what celebrities do. And here come the engineers. And the thing you’ve got to love about engineers, is they’re not much fussed with moral claims. They’re very fussed with numbers, blueprints, plans, actions, assessing whether the actions have worked, coming up with another action intervention. Because that’s how engineers, bless them, are trained to think it’s incredibly important. And we don’t think about it. We don’t think about infrastructure until it goes wrong. So the engineers wanted a plan and they wanted it now. 

 What we learn is that there was a time when there were demands from civil society for urgent action. The politicians had their own agenda. And we did not push them hard enough. 

What happened next? The whole awkward question of “what to do about climate change and environment” is shepherded into the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process and then killed off by bureaucracy. And in the meantime, the issue of climate fell down the agenda. It always does because the media gets bored. And because a war or something comes along, in this case, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait…

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 13 1963 – Revelle, Von Braun and Teller talk futures

June 13, 1988 – “‘Greenhouse Effect’ Could Trigger Flooding, Crop Losses, Scientists Say”

June 13, 2008 – activists stop coal train, throw coal

Categories
Australia Business Responses

June 7, 1989 – Money to be made from the Greenhouse, says the Fin

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1989, the Australian Financial Review (piss-poor, compared to the Financial Times) was talking about the money to be made…

For all the worry that the greenhouse effect is causing around the world there is, perhaps, a bright side.

The greenhouse effect has opened up a number of potentially profitable opportunities for industry. It has created a number of niche markets for environmentally safe products or new strands of vegetable.

The South Australian Government has already taken steps to help industry identify these new niche markets. It has established a council to examine the implications of the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer on the future direction of industry, agriculture and the economy of the State.

McLachlan, C. 1989. Hot chances for coping with greenhouse effect. Australian Financial Review, 7 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone was talking about the greenhouse effect and what was to be done. Including the business press. And thanks, thank our lucky stars, it turns out there was money to be made. Because otherwise, you know, why would we act? 

What we can learn from this is that every media outlet has its frames: the Hobbesian frame for the Mail and the Telegraph and the slightly more refined but still Hobbesian view for the Times. The bleeding heart Jean Jacques Rousseau, frame for The Guardian. And “let’s make loads of money” and “let’s identify anyone who can stop us making loads of money and squash them like a bug” frames for the business press. 

What happened next? Everyone went on about how much money might be made. But then it turned out that there would be taxes and regulation in order to create new markets and the status quo actors, i.e. the incumbents, were able to squash those markets for a very long time. Until it was too late for anything to actually matter. 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: 

June 7, 1959 – another letter about carbon dioxide build up in the Times of India

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC

June 7, 1984 – UK diplomat pushes for more environmental action

Categories
anti-reflexivity Australia Business Responses

May 3, 1989 “Exploration Access and Political Power” speech by Hugh Morgan

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 3rd, 1989, Australian businessman and all round lovely guy Hugh Morgan makes a speech at the Australian Mining Industry Council’s “Minerals Outlook Seminar” at ANU

Its title was “Exploration Access and Political Power” and some representative quotes are here –

‘The true environmentalist, the revolutionary who sees man as vile and nature as sacred, is indifferent, if not hostile to economic benefits’ (Morgan 1989, 31).
‘If the politics of nature worship and economic decline … take hold and become institutionalised, then Australia will be seen as a place to leave, not as a place to come’. (Morgan 1989). (cited in McEachern)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at this stage there were probably still a lot of concerned conservatives and businessmen saying “just keep a low profile and it will all blow over; the greenies will find something else to be hysterical about. And if we are a small target, then we stop it from continuing longer than it otherwise would”. Hugh Morgan was not one of those people. And Hugh Morgan was determined to take the fight to the enemy, i.e. people who gave a damn about future generations and ecological survival. 

What we learn is that there are always ideologically committed people within any faction whether it’s the environs of the business lobby, who think that they see the deep underlying pattern. And they may well be right. Just because they’re in a small minority. doesn’t mean they’re wrong. 

What happened next, Morgan kept giving these sorts of speeches about the defence of Western civilization and democracy, by which he meant capitalism and shareholder value and the right to screw other people over. Morgan’s henchman, Ray Evans, then started fighting on climate stuff too, and made links with American outfits. 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

Cahill, D. 2004. The radical neo-liber radical neo-liberal movement as a hegemonic force in Ace in Australia, 

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36978766.pdf

Doug McEachern (1995) Mining Meaning from the Rhetoric of Nature—Australian Mining Companies and their attitudes to the environment at home and abroad, Policy, Organisation and Society, 10:1, 48-69, DOI: 10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10349952.1995.11876636

Also on this day: 

May 3, 1978 – First and last “Sun Day”

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

Categories
Australia

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

Thirty five years ago, on this day, April 25th, 1989, it was all put in stark terms at the University of Wollongong. (Spoiler, the answer is “no, not ‘dying’, being murdered – there’s a difference.),

25 April 1989 University of Wollongong Campus News – The Greenhouse Effect – is the world dying?

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was losing their mind about “the greenhouse effect.” Or alternatively, you can say, understanding the implications and the likelihood that no one would do anything meaningful. This was happening around the world. 

What we learn is, we knew what was at stake we really did. Alternatively, you could say the world is not dying, it’s being killed and the people who are killing it have names and addresses, as per Utah Phillips. 

What happened next, everyone pledged their devotion to the cause of climate change or the greenhouse effect. For about five minutes. Then most of us went back to sleep, failing to understand what was at stake or understanding it but feeling powerless, lonely, et cetera. Because it is just unimaginably big as an issue. 

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 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
Business Responses Canada Denial

February 27, 1989 – Barron’s “Climate of Fear” shame…

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 27th, 1989, a Canadian business publication (Barron’s) comes out with the entirely predictable denialist bullshit that has aged so well.

Jonathan Laing, “Climate of Fear: The Greenhouse Effect May Be Mostly Hot Air,” Barron’s, February 27, 1989

https://www.fortfreedom.org/s32.htm

As two commentators put it – “Such a dismissive or distorted approach to serious environmental problems does a disservice to these publications’ readers, if only by spreading misinformation that may stifle industrial innovation in devising technologies that could lead to solutions to these problems, thereby downlaying new profit opportunities.”

(Oppenheimer & Boyle, 1990: 227) 

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 the business press had decided that the hippies had had enough fun and that it was time to push back. Articles started popping up in right-wing business press saying “it’s all a big scare and hoax or exaggeration.” 

What we learn is, there’s always pushback. And it starts with these sorts of things and then grows into organisations like the George C Marshall Institute (which already existed, but pivoted) and the Global Climate Coalition.  It’s supported by outfits like the IPA. For every action, there’s an equal and oppositional batshit crazy reaction. 

What happened next is that more articles got published in the business press and they get approvingly cited in Parliament and speeches to create a new common sense; Gramsci, Hegemony etc etc.

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: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Australia Coal

January 30, 1989 – “Hawkie” flies off to flog coal

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 30, 1989, amidst all the very fine words and wringing of hands about the Greenhouse Effect…

On the morning of Monday 30 January 1989, the ABC 7.45am news reported the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, had begun an overseas trip to Korea, Thailand, India and Pakistan, with the primary aim of promoting Australian exports, particularly coal, iron ore and agricultural products. Juxtaposed with this report was one describing Senator John Button’s encouragement of Japanese investment in Australian forests designed to safeguard our timber resources. The viability of these economic moves may also be subject to the greenhouse effect. Australian exports of fossil fuel, particularly coal, may be restricted by increasing international pressure to try to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide.

(Henderson-Sellers and Blong, 1989:3)

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 while Bob Hawke was making lots of nice noises about the greenhouse effect – giving speeches and everyone was holding hands and singing Kumbaya. But there was also the small matter of selling as much bloody coal, both thermal and metallurgical, as you could to as many people as possible, because that’s going to make the oil companies rich, it’s going to generate some income for state and federal governments, and it’s going to help with the then pressing “balance of payments crisis.”

What we learn is that politicians always have competing priorities. The very nature of politics is the allocation of resources without violence. And so it can hardly be a surprise that Hawke is able to say one thing to one audience, and another to another. This is doublethink hypocrisy, whatever name you want to apply to it. It’s just the way things are. And in the absence of social movements capable of demanding sanity, then insanity and suicidal, short term, greed will win. And since we can’t have those broad, tough social movements, well, insanity, greed, short sightedness, and suicidal stupidity will in fact, win. And they almost have by now; won’t be long… 

What happened next

Hawke was forced to agree to an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process to win the March 1990 Federal Election.

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: 

January 30, 1961 – New York Times reports world is cooling

January 30, 1989 – Je ne fais rein pour regretter… #climate jargon

Categories
Scientists United States of America

January 5,1989 – National Academy of Science tries to chivvy Bush.

Thirty five years ago, on this day, January 5th, 1989 the US National Academy of Sciences ? urged President-elect George HW Bush to actually DO something on climate because “‘the future welfare of human society’ was at risk” (Layzer 2012 page 157).

Here’s the beginning of a New York Times article, published January 6 1989 by the redoubtable Philip Shabecoff.

The National Academy of Sciences urged President-elect George Bush today to place the threat of a significant increase in global temperatures high on his agenda because ”the future welfare of human society” is at risk.

The academy urged Mr. Bush to seek alternatives to coal, oil and other fuels whose air pollutants are a main cause of the predicted global warming.

”We believe that global environmental change may well be the most pressing international issue of the next century,” the academy said. ”The United States is well-positioned to play a leadership role in coping with and gaining an international consensus on this difficult issue.”

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 climate change had finally broken through the previous summer. And as candidate, George Herbert Walker, Bush had made the right noises about the greenhouse effect and the so-called “White House effect.” And now with his inauguration about to take place, folks at the National Academy of Sciences wanted to hold him to that. 

What we can learn is that everybody knows that politicians have to be “reminded” of their promises repeatedly. Because if you stop pressuring them, they assume everyone else has forgotten about the promise. And they keep taking the fat, brown envelopes of cash from the usual suspects. 

What happened next, Bush did everything he could to dampen the issue. And his goons were busy smearing James Hansen, et cetera. But in May of 1989, they overdid it. And Bush was forced to concede that yes, there would need to be a global treaty, and that negotiations should start for that. That led on to the text battles over the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the US ultimately won. And here we are 30 years later, having achieved nothing. And actually, that’s wrong: emissions are now 65% higher than they were. And we’ve run out of time and budget.

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

Layzer, J. 2012. Open for Business: Conservatives’ Opposition to Environmental Regulation. MIT Press

Shabecoff, P. 1989. Bush Is Urged to Fight Threat of Global Warming. New York Times, January 6

Also on this day: 

January 5, 1973 – An academic article about the Arctic emerges from the Met Office

Jan 5, 2006 – strategic hand-wringing about “Our Drowning Neighbours”