Tag: 1989

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”

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

December 4, 1989 – Greenhouse tax urged…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 4, 1989 a climate action advocate suggested a perfectly sensible economic response to climate change – tax things that are unhealthy, as governments were doing for cigarettes…

The Federal Government should move to control car exhaust emissions and expand the public transport system to discourage people from using cars, a greenhouse effect expert said in Melbourne on Tuesday. [December 4/]

Dr Ian Lowe, the Director of Science Policy Research Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, was speaking at the launch of his book explaining the greenhouse effect’s repercussions and ways to avoid them.

He predicted a transport system dominated by hydrogen and electric cars in 50 years.

Some countries already issued fuel efficiency targets for cars, taxing car-owners according to how well they met the targets, while others issued mandatory efficiency targets for company-operated fleets, he said.

Anon. 1989. Greenhouse gas tax urged. Green Week, December 5, p.2.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was everyone had been talking about the problem, and possible targets, for a year. But what, specifically, to do? Well, a tax is a logical response to an environmental problem, 

What is amazing is just how little traction it got. Of course, there was a very successful campaign. First against the existence of the problem then the fallback position is to admit that there might be a problem but the solution is too expensive. 

What I think we can learn from this

We knew enough and we didn’t act. 

What happened next

We didn’t put any taxes or prices, or economic disincentives in place. And guess what happened? Business as usual, which is literally destroying the planet’s ecosystems.

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..

Categories
International processes Norway

November 6, 1989 – Noordwijk conference – “alright, we will keep talking”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 6, 1989, an international meeting about climate change began in Norway. It was one of many.in that period. It was to review the progress of the then-new IPCC and have discussions about a possible treaty (opposed by the US). 

“Attendees included ministers of 68 countries. The goal of the conference was creating a binding agreement on CO₂ emissions, which almost succeeded. The conference was organized by the Dutch environment minister Ed Nijpels and prepared by climatologist Pier Vellinga.[3]

The United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom did not want to make an agreement about the reduction of emissions. Even discussions about stabilizing emissions turned out to be difficult”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noordwijk_Climate_Conference

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the US had been doing its level best to prevent any discussion of rich nations adopting targets for emissions reductions. Japan and Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also onboard with that. There had been a meeting at The Hague to try to kick this loose. The big nations were not invited. By Nordwijk it was all becoming a bit uncomfortable. But if you read Nathaniel Rich’s version, you get the idea that because Bill Reilly invited the wrong underling it all went tits up. It’s a little bit more complicated than that. And the brutal review of Losing Earth that I mentioned last year, it’s really worth reading. 

What I think we can learn from this

Statecraft is statecraft is statecraft.

What happened next

A flurry of meetings in 1990, on climate, environment, development etc. Culminated in the Second World Climate Conference. Then the negotiations for a climate treaty…

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.

Categories
Australia

November 1, 1989 – Senior Australian politician talks on “Industry and Environment”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, November 1, 1989, the deputy Prime Minister of Australia gives a speech with the usual words of “balance” at an Industry and Environment conference.

Australian companies must actively negotiate with the environmental lobby to achieve a balance between economic growth and conservation of the environment, according to speakers at a conference on industry and the environment in Sydney yesterday.

Although this one principle dominated the conference, the three main speakers at the conference – the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin; the managing director of the paper manufacturer Amcor Ltd and chairman of the Business Council of Australia’s environmental taskforce, Mr Stan Wallis; and the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr Peter Garrett – found little other common ground.

Abbott, M. 1989. Business and Greenies ‘Must seek a balance’. Australian Financial Review, 2 November. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australia was now officially drunk on climate greenhouse, the environment “protecting our fragile world.” It had had the shit scared out of it, frankly, by ozone and the idea of lots of white people dropping dead in the streets because of skin cancer. But business’s response was still, at this point, muted. And they perhaps were just assuming that the whole thing would blow over the way it had 20 years previously. Don’t forget the people making the decisions in 1989 were the ones who had been youngsters in 1969 and then it seemed what had happened to the issue was quick forgetting. Meanwhile, the Labour government of Bob Hawke had been wrestling with ecological problems since day one, Franklin dam, the wet Tropics logging unit, you name it. And the activist Environment Minister Graham Richardson had in May 1989 tried to get the Federal Government to sign up to the Toronto target. He’d been slapped down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer. And meanwhile, the Liberal Party was looking to greenhouse and environment as a way of winning votes ahead of the next federal election, which had to happen by March of 1990. At this point, the Green Party did not exist, federally. So Kerin’s speech, where he extolled the virtues of “balance” is just your good old fashioned. pluralist “government will hold the ring” can.

What I think we can learn from this

Business keeps its powder dry and doesn’t spend money unnecessarily. 

What happened next

Labor clung on to power in 1990 by the skin of its teeth, thanks in part to the green vote. This meant that there was an Ecologically Sustainable Development policy making process, which was then chopped off at the knees by the next prime minister Paul Keating, and federal bureaucrats. It was an interesting three years in Australian environmental policy making and the aftereffects are with us still. Internationally we’ve got the pissweak UNFCCC, thanks to the intransigence of the Bush administration and its allies. In Australia, the Liberal suspicion of (and resentment of) green issues continues.

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.

Categories
Australia Science

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

Thirty four years ago, on this day, October 6, 1989, the Hawke government got a briefing from people who knew what they were talking about. Nobody can say they were not warmed. Sorry, warned ….

“Prime Minister’s Science Council – “Global Climatic Change – Issues for Australia”

Two topics of considerable importance both to the Government and to the nation are being discussed at today’s meeting. They are global climatic change and the issues it raises for Australia, and resources for science and technology and their utilisation.

Also included in your press kits is a paper describing recent developments in government policies for science and technology and significant actions taken since the may statement ‘ Science and Technology for Australia’. Global Climatic Change Issues for Australia
This morning the Council is discussing the scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect and considering the effects of possible changes.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that even having a “science council” was a relatively new thing. Politicians tend not like to be told that what they’re doing is going to have bad consequences. They would rather be able to pretend that nobody told them. The leader of this group was Ralph Slayter, who had been around for yonks and had been aware of carbon dioxide build-up no later than 1969 and possibly a lot earlier. Hawke was facing an election in a few months, so being able to dress himself up as responsive and aware were going to help him with green votes. (Am I too cynical?)

What I think we can learn from this

There is an interplay between the science, the scientists, the politicians and the politics. The idea that the politicians must also always “listen to the science and the scientist” is a comforting one, but reality is far harder because there isn’t one settled science. You also have a difference between production science and impact science and anyway the whole thing is shot through with questions about appetites for risk and what you are finally aiming at. The claim that politicians should be under the thumb of scientists is “risky” shall we say.

What happened next

Various science panels have persisted. Famously under Howard the chief scientific advisor role was part-time and it was filled by someone who also simultaneously working for the mining company Rio Tinto. In 2011 the chief scientific advisor quit and the assumption is it is because she wasn’t being listened to and not enough action was being taken on climate change

But ultimately the people to blame for that are the citizens of democracies not getting stuck in and being democratic actors. But then, that brings us back to bureaucracy and the neoliberal state and neoliberal societies and and what’s that line by Brecht about the government being very disappointed in the people and abolishing them in electing a new one (this was after the East German workers’ uprising in 1953).

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