Tag: 1989

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

Categories
Activism Australia

September 24, 1989 – Petra Kelly disses the Australian Prime Minister

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 24, 1989, German activist and member of parliament Petra Kelly opined on Australian government policy

WHEN BOB HAWKE cried at a press conference in 1984, his face was plastered all over German newspapers.

That was about the last time matters of any relevance to Australian domestic politics rated even a centimetre of German news space.

That is, until Bob Brown and his team of green independents made it on to the Tasmanian Government benches in May.

According to the founder of the West German Green Party, Petra Kelly, the greens’ success in Tasmania was widely reported – even in the smallest German village.

“I think Bob Brown is probably the most well-known Australian in Europe,” Ms Kelly said from her hotel in Adelaide last week.

“He’s much more widely known than Mr Hawke.”

In Australia for an “ecopolitics” conference at the University of Adelaide, Petra Kelly has attracted media attention for describing Bob Hawke’s moves to capture the environment vote as just “green cosmetic surgery”.

Mealey, E. 1989. Petra sees green over Aussie Politics. Sun Herald, 24 September.

(Petra – the diminutive name – wouldn’t be used for Bob or Andrew. But tbf, has been used for “Boris”)

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 Petra Kelly was a big star from the German environmental movement and antinuclear movement. Adelaide was a good place to do this stuff and I totally missed it. I was not plugged into those networks and it pisses me off but it is what it is. At that time, btw, everyone in Australia was running around talking about the “greenhouse effect.”

What I think we can learn from this is that the mass media will use diminutive names, first names for women, in a way that they would not for men 

That there were linkages between German and Australian movements and learning; see Christopher Rootes’ article about this which appeared in Environmental Politics.

What happened next is that Petra Kelly died in 1992 – it was probably murder-suicide or possibly an agreed pact we can never know. And Hawke made grand promises about climate action that, well, never got kept. 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.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

August 30, 1989 – A global tax on emissions?!

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 30 1989 the Australian newspaper the Canberra Times reported on the crazy ideas that … might have made a difference.  What a stupid stupid species we turned out to be.

“A third set of more imaginative options are ruled out as too costly. These include a global tax on carbon emissions, major investment in renewable energy, and the banning of coal.”

Guest, I. 1989. World Bank tackles global warming. Canberra Times, 30 August, p. 9.

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

The context was that debates about the responses to climate change – what we used to call the greenhouse effect – were well underway, because various nations were adopting or thinking about adopting emissions reductions targets such as the Toronto Target. What’s entertaining in this is the question “compared to what?” So, if there had been a global carbon emissions tax and the money raised had gone into investing in renewable energy and compensating the workers affected by the demise of coal, then we might have gotten somewhere… But it would all have been too costly to save the world.

What I think we can learn from this is that the ideas we needed were there but turning ideas into a political program requires more skill and resources than we had. This is largely (but not totally) because of the veto power of business and the obduracy of large technical systems and so on.

What happened next

We never got a carbon tax. We got attempts at emissions trading schemes. The so-called major investments in renewables came very late, too late. And although we may exit coal, we will do it far too late.

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

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 24, 1989, Sydney councillors start to take note of citizen ideas for tackling “the greenhouse effect”. And use it to put the spotlight on the feds.

A concerned citizen’s letter has prompted Leichhardt Council to send three submissions to a Senate committee inquiring into ways of reducing the impact of the greenhouse effect.

The submissions, from Alderman Issy Wyner, as chairman of the council’s environment pollution control panel, Dr Ken Sullivan, president of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand, and Mr John Mara, council’s deputy chief health and building surveyor, were posted on Friday.

Mr N. G. Hyde, of Kingsgrove, had written to Leichhardt Council, expressing his concern about the greenhouse effect and depletion of the ozone layer.

“He probably wrote to every council but it stimulated a response from us,”Mr Mara said.

“We kept the matter on the agenda by writing to the Federal Environment Minister, Senator Richardson, and his NSW counterpart, Mr Moore, for advice, and picking up information from newspapers and journals.”

Bilic, J. 1989. Council officers greenhouse tips. Sydney Morning Herald, 24 August. 

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

The context was that everyone was running around with urgency and ideas for dealing with what was then called the greenhouse effect. People who understood it knew that early action was not only preferable but necessary because once it has got out of hand it wouldn’t just be “too expensive to do anything about” but “impossible ti do anything about.”

This was at a federal state and local level in Australia. (Of course we had had the Brundtland Report by now, which emphasised the importance of local action).

What I think we can learn from this is that all the rhetoric about responsive government, citizen engagement citizen participation have been with us for generations. And on whole, in most places, it has not taken. And even in the places where it has taken it needs persistent consistent effort because the culture of atomization of neoliberalization of techno-salvationism is very very strong.

What happened next – they gave us the language of Local Agenda 21, but local councils went back to doing what they do best – being secretive, flogging off state assets including publicly-owned land to developers in exchange for brown envelopes and acting as a career launch pad and finishing academy for ambitious young politicians wanting to be an MP, and general “snout in the trough” opportunities for others

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
Geoeingeering New Zealand

 August 17, 1989 – Space shields to save the earth…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 17, 1989, more silly technofixes got proposed.

A giant and costly space screen to reduce sunlight and the effects of global warming is proposed by a Canterbury University scientist.

**FULL_TEXT Mr Michael Mautner writes in a letter in yesterday’s Washington Post that if atmospheric means of reducing the effects of greenhouse warming fail, “it may be possible to erect a space screen that would reduce the incident sunlight on Earth.”

Anon. 1989. Space shield plan to cut sunlight. New Zealand Herald, 17 August. 

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 everyone was running around with their pet opinion about the greenhouse effect and “technological solutions”. The prospect of an international climate treaty was rising, and the need therefore for technological fixes was becoming apparent (because Gaia forbid that you do anything about imperialism and consumerism).

What I think we can learn from this is that the dream of controlling the weather and planetary engineering had been around at least since the 1950s as a realistic prospect (see for example all of the effort around weather modification in the 50s and 60s see Jason Fleming’s book for this). 

People always reach for the outlandish and eye-catching because it will get them attention.

What happened next

 We still do not have space mirrors but the idea of solar radiation management from seeding clouds with sulphur still seems to have a life see for example the journal environmental politics and it’s articles about solar geoengineering.

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
Activism Sea level rise United Kingdom

April 11, 1989 – “Ark” sinks its cred

Thirty four years ago, on this day, April 11, 1989, the flash-in-the-pan UK environment group “Ark” released a report about potential sea level rise that tanked its credibility

1989 Ark Sea-level rise report, “by 2050″…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Ark, launched in December 1988, was trying to outflank the existing outfits like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. It needed big claims to grab attention… Ooops.

What I think we can learn from this

It is hard to join a “cartel” and big big claims may grab attention, but they can also come with a big big downside.

What happened next

Ark crashed and sank, within months.

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 Denial

December 27, 1989 – Greenhouse effect = “socialist hokum”

On this day, December 27 in 1989 the Canberra Times reported that a Queensland mining chief  had called the greenhouse effect  “socialist hokum”,

Mussared, D. (1989) Global Warming The Evidence The Canberra Times  Wednesday 27 December 1989, page 32 

I’ve not been able to find the name of this clown, or the date, but it will have happened at some point in 1988 or more likely 1989.

See also August 15, 1989 – Queenslander mayor says the greenhouse effect is like“a bird urinating in the Tweed River while in flight”

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

By 1989 “The Greenhouse Effect,” as Global Warming/Climate Change was briefly known, was ‘everywhere’ in the media (to be bumped only by the build-up to the First Gulf War, from August 1990.)

Why this matters. 

The point is this – we all assess new things in the world through various lenses – of what seems ‘right’, what fits our cosmology. If there is something like “the greenhouse effect”, which implies things we have always thought of as Good (more cheap energy) might have downsides, or presents a problem that is going to upset our way of life, then of COURSE we look for ways to dismiss it. That’s who we are.  And an entire industry of professionals has built up to make this easier rather than harder to do.

What happened next?

Queensland got megarich from selling coal, both thermal and metallurgical (or rather, some people – in and beyond Queensland –  got rich. Others, not so much).

Categories
Denial United States of America

December 25, 1989 – business press pushback about Global Warning “panic” begins…

On this day, December 25 in 1989 the business press ran one of the first (of countless) bullshit articles saying that concern about global warming was a “panic”. 

The usual cherry-picking and getting react quotes from various contrarians, all wrapped up with basic condescension, and  just enough actual facts to make it all seem plausible. 

Am not going to quote from it. Life is (really) too short.

Brookes, W. (1989) “The Global Warming Panic” Forbes, December 25: 96-102

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The “pushback” against concern on climate change was growing.  Corporate interests were realising that this was a threat that needed combatting. Outlets like Forbes, read by the CEOs and wanna-be CEOs, needed to provide coherent-seeming, professional seeming pieces, that studiously avoided, oh, any mention of how the atmospheric scientists had been right about ozone, for example.

Why this matters. 

The doubt and denial campaigns began in 1989, and picked up speed. We need to remember that. Those who planned and implemented these should be in front of some international tribunal for crimes against humanity and ecocide. But won’t be, of course.

What happened next?

More nonsense, more “Global Climate Coalition” etc.

See tomorrow’s post…

Categories
Egypt International processes

December 17, 1989 – a big #climate conference in Egypt begins…

On this day, December 17 in 1989, a big conference on climate change began in Egypt. 

“During 17-21 December, the World Conference on Preparing for Climate Change was held in Cairo, Egypt. At the opening address, Suzanne Mubarak from Egypt referred to the ‘grim irony’ of the fact that, while the ‘primary responsibility’ for global warming lay with the industrialised countries, the effects would be experienced ‘mostly in the countries of the South, where the capacity to cope [was] weaker.’”

Paterson, M (1996) p.38

Also http://www.climate.org/about/archives/Cairo%20Climate%20Conference%201989.pdf

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was running around holding conferences back then. Each one was going to be the one that history remembered as The Moment It All Started To Go Right. Not a single one of them was…

Funny how nobody (that I saw) brought this up during the recent COP27 nonsense. Presumably would raise too many awkward questions about how little has been achieved…?

Why this matters. 

It doesn’t, I guess. But good to remember, as we circle the drain, that there was a time when we tried to sort ourselves out.  Or gave the impression of trying to, in any case…

What happened next?

More meetings in 1990 and then, finally, the negotiations for a climate treaty began in early 1991. And the US, predictably, did everything it could to slow down/stop progress, with considerable success…

Categories
Australia Economics of mitigation

December 4, 1989 – first anti-climate action economic “modelling” released in Australia

On this day, December 4 in 1989, the first anti-climate action “economics modelling” in Australia came out, and was reported by the business press. Oddly, they neglected to mention that the funding for this “research” came from… a company that was digging up and selling coal.  Can only have been space constraints that stopped them mentioning it, oh yes….

Australia will have to suffer the consequences of reduced economic growth to achieve the proposed international goal of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 15 years, according to a group of leading economists.

A paper to be presented to a conference entitled Greenhouse and Energy, which starts at Macquarie University in Sydney today, states that, among other effects, the fight against the greenhouse effect will result in increased electricity bills and reduced increases in real wages.

Lawson, M. 1989. Fighting Greenhouse has an economic cost. Australian Financial Review, 4 December.  

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 353ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Everyone was talking about emissions cuts and how much (earlier in the year the Thatcher government had shat all over the Toronto Target (see here).

Why this matters. 

The “models” do not “reflect” reality. They are just made up bullshit.

John Kenneth Galbraith said it best – “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

What happened next?

Those who want to stop climate action – because it would cut their profits and/or power, because it offends them, will always find some shonky “modellers” to give them the answers they want. Then equally shonky “journalists” will uncritically run the crap on page 1, and it will get picked up by shonky politicians… and presto, “common sense” is created.

See also – May 13, 1992 – Australian business predicts economic armageddon if any greenhouse gas cuts made