Tag: 1990

Categories
Australia

December 12, 1990 – Paul Keating refers greenhouse issue to Industry Commission

Thirty four years ago, on this day, December 12th, 1990,

The Federal Government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005 will be investigated by its main advisory body of micro-economic reform.

Treasurer Paul Keating announced on Wednesday[12th] he has referred the plan to the Industry Commission, which must report by September 30 next year.

The inquiry will cover “the costs and benefits for Australian industry of an international consensus in favour of a stabilisation of emissions of greenhouse gases and a reduction in those emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.”

It will also look at what new opportunities may arise for Australian industry as a result of the reduction, and how Australia could best prepare to respond to the costs and benefits of the plan.

Some scientists believe Australia could become a world leader in environmentally-friendly technology as a result of added research flowing from the government decision.

Anon,1990. Paul Keating refers greenhouse to Industry Commission. Green Week, December 18,p.7.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that as part of the quid pro quo for accepting the Interim Planning Target through Cabinet in October 1990, Keating had managed to extract permission to send the greenhouse issue to one of the pet neo-liberal outposts, the Industry Commission. 

What we learn is that if you want to get anything through a group, there’s always going to be compromises. Some of them consequential, some of them not. It can be hard to tell beforehand. 

What happened next. In September of 1991, the Industry Commission released its report, but basically gave loads of ammunition to the denialists and the delayers saying “nothing to see here shouldn’t take action cheaper not to do anything,” etc, etc. And this was another nail in the climate issue’s coffin. By this time, it was getting harder and harder to sustain interest. There was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process coming to an end, the backwash of the Gulf War, people preparing for Rio. 

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 12, 1977 – UK Government launches energy efficiency scheme, because Jimmy Carter had visited…

December 12, 2007 – Canada leaves Kyoto Protocol as Australia joins

December 12, 2007 – RIP William Kellogg

Categories
Australia Denial Uncategorized

November 29, 1990 and 1994 – Australian denial fools (Fred Singer and Brian Tucker)

Thirty-four and thirty years ago, on this day, November 29th, 1990/1994, two climate denialists who really ought to have known better (and did, before idiocy overtook them) were spouting their nonsens.

29 November 1990 Fred Singer The Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Tasman Institute Seminar

and

29 November 1994 – Canberra Times piece IPA whining about greenhouse, wheeling out Brian Tucker, who had been head of the CSIRO’s Atmospheric Sciences Division.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm/359ppm. As of 2024 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context is this: We have two examples of high status dickheads, one American, one Australian, denying the reality of climate change. What were both sort of relatively crucial moments in history. So in 1990, Ros Kelly had just come back from the Second World Climate Conference. The negotiations for a climate treaty were about to begin in earnest within a couple of months. In the second case, there was a battle going on about whether to have a carbon tax. And in both cases, the denialists will have said, “Oh, it’s all a scare. It’s all hysteria. Nothing should be done, needs to be done. And any action that is taken is merely rent seeking and appealing to silly ill informed portions of the electorate.” 

Gee, that went well didn’t it? And I want to say this again. Fuck you, and burn in hell you pricks. 

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 29, 1973 – Australian politician warns of climate change

NOVEMBER 29, 1974 – SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER SAYS “RISK OF A CHANGED CLIMATE DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES … [IS] OF UTTER IMPORTANCE”

November 29, 1988 – Australian parliamentarians taught climate

Categories
Europe International processes

October 29, 1990 – the Joint Council of Energy and Environment Ministers of the European Community decide to save the world.

On this day 34 years ago,

The Joint Council of the Energy and Environment Ministers of the member states of the European Community (EC) adopted a Council Decision at their meeting on October 29, 1990 concluding that, “the revision of energy and transportation policie1s to curb global carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere  should be one of the priority targets of the world.” They decided that CO2 emissions from the European Community should be stabilized by the year 2000 at 1990 levels, “although the Council notes that some member countries, according to their programmes, are not in a position to commit themselves to  this objective”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the world had “woken up” to the climate threat in 1988. An international treaty was supposed to be signed in mid-1992 at the already-scheduled “Earth Summit” about environment and development. The following week the Second World Climate Conference,, which was to be the unofficial start of the international climate negotiations, would begin in Switzerland, so the European Commission wanted to have some credibility for that..

What we learn

Fine words don’t butter so many parsnips, do they?

What happened next

Super-effective lobbying effort by big biz meant that no carbon tax was instituted. In 2005 a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme got underway.  ETS’s are preferred by bankers and consultants – more fees, more loopholes and dodges etc.  A carbon tax though according to economists, is “inefficient.”  So, there’s that…

Also on this day: 

October 29, 1991 – Australia told to pay more than poor countries to help save planet. Does it? Of course it doesn’t.

October 29, 2004 – Aussie environmentalists win a court case…

Categories
Denial United Kingdom

October 27, 1990 – denialist letter published (demolished days later)

Thirty four years ago, on this day October 27th 1990, a stupid denialist’s letter is published, forcing the Met Office boss John Houghton to respond

Sir: You published a letter (27 October) from Mr Hilary Lawson in which he casts doubts on the integrity of scientists involved in the assessment of global climate change. Mr Lawson has made allegations of this kind before, in particular in his Equinox programme ”The Great Greenhouse Conspiracy” broadcast on Channel 4. But, as Vicky Hutchings points out in an article in the New Statesman and Society (26 September) in which she exposes the inaccuracies of the Equinox programme, Mr Lawson provides no evidence for his allegations.

As chairman of the Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), I can assure Mr Lawson the assessment was not ”dominated by those who were already in the pro-global warming camp” but by scientists chosen solely for their expertise; most of them (myself included) would refuse to be described as belonging to any particular camp.

About half the 400 scientists (from more than 30 countries) who worked on the scientific assessment assisted in the preparation of the draft documents, the other half reviewed them. Therefore virtually every scientist in the world who has made significant contributions to the science of global climate change had a part in the generation of the assessment and a wide range of other scientists were involved in its approval. Despite the many discussions and hard arguments which took place, none of the 100 or so present at the final meeting dissented from the final text.

The IPCC assessment concludes first that ”we are certain that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will result in additional warming of the earth’s surface”. It estimates, on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow on a ”business as usual” scenario, that global temperature will rise by about 0.3C per decade during the next century with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5C. Even if the lower figure is taken, the rate of change is likely to be greater than that which has occured on Earth at any time since the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago.

These estimates of future climate change are mainly based on the results of the numerical models which integrate our knowledge of the dynamics and physics of the whole climate system. Mr Lawson alleges that the models are unable to reproduce accurately the current climate, let alone predict the future.

In Mr Lawson’s Equinox programme, in order to make this point, he misleadingly showed some very poor results of a Meteorological Office climate model produced some years ago when climate modelling was in its infancy. Global modelling has developed a great deal since then and models are now able to describe current climate with a large amount of skill. They have also been applied with some success to reproducing the climates which occurred during the last ice age. Although a lot of further development is required, we are confident that useful projections of future change can be provided.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN T. HOUGHTON

Chief Executive

Meteorological Office

Bracknell, Berkshire

30 October

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that some ridiculous idiotic documentary had been made, saying that it was all a conspiracy. These sorts of things are inevitable because a lot of people love their conspiracies and are frankly dickheads. This was also in the context of the first IPCC report coming out.

What we learn is that dickheads gonna dickhead. And that people like John Houghton at the Met Office are going to have to spend time unpicking this, and the problem is a classic Gish Gallop – by the time you’ve explained why it’s all bullshit, people have lost interest. Gish gallop as a technique keeps getting used because it’s so effective. It’s up there with “technology will save us.” Ah, all the different ways people enjoy being lied to….

 What happened next, Houghton had first been talking about climate in like 1966, I think at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting. Anyway, Houghton had a stellar career.

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: 

October 27, 1967 – “the Swedish environmental turn” picks up speed

October 27, 1990 – The Economist admits nobody is gonna seriously cut C02 emissions

Categories
Cultural responses France

September 9, 1990 – classic (?) film Mindwalk released

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 9th, 1990, an interesting film was released. It sounds like a joke set-up: a poet, a politician and a physicist walk around a monastery…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Fritjof Capra was a bit of a star in New Age circles because he had a physics background and then to chuck it all in to be at the feet of Gregory Bateson and others. He had written The Turning Point, and so forth. And this film, directed by his brother is a rather interesting artefact. And it was an attempt to put these ideas to the test. I like the film. It has three significant speaking parts. There’s a poet, played by John Hurd, who’d already put on weight from the previous year’s The Package, Liv Ullman, as a Swedish nuclear physicist and Sam Waterson as a very thinly veiled Al Gore. These three meet at Mont St Michel and walk and talk. 

What we learn is that it can be hard to translate relatively abstruse ideas into something that people will watch. But this is an entirely serviceable effort in my opinion, and you should get hold of it if you can. 

What happened next Hurd went on to have a career that he thought was okay, but wasn’t as big as it could have been. Waterson has been around forever. Liv Ullman, I think is still alive. And Bent Capra never made another film; probably didn’t want to.

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: 

September 9, 1947 – The Daily Worker talks about melting the ice-caps

September 9, 1971 – of Australian Prime Ministers and American scientists…

Categories
Australia

September 3, 1990 – Greenies meet Prime Minister, a cautious dance ensues

Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 3rd, 1990, Bob Hawke has to keep the promise that got him back as Prime Minister… (well, one of them).

Conservation groups left Parliament House in Canberra on Monday [3rd], resisting Federal Government pressure to join efforts to achieve consensus over sustainable development.

This followed Stage Two of a special summit process including representatives from government, environmental groups and industry.

Members of Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature and the Wilderness Society spent more than an hour with Prime Minister Bob Hawke discussing a range of issues.

Anon,1990. Greens meet Hawke but resist consensus. Green Week, September 4, p.9.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that small-g green had come out for Labor giving second preferences in the Australian Federal election of March 1990. This meant that the incumbent Labor government squeaked back home. And the quid pro quo was that there would be more serious engagement with “ecologically sustainable development.” There had been, at last, a position paper in June of 1990. That had been fairly piss-weak on climate, of course, because it’s the big unmentionable to hard basket item, really. And here was Hawke meeting with the greenies to the fear and dismay and disgust of the business sector. Which you have to remember at this point, didn’t know if Hawke might go on for years and years. 

What we learn is that there are always these sorts of meetings and quid pro quos and attempts to get mainstream parties to pay at least lip service to not being ecocidal maniacs. These usually end in tears for the ‘greenies’, because the system rewards Ecocide or maniac behaviour and punishes anything that isn’t ecocidal mania. 

What happened next? After some further toing and froing and argy bargy the Ecologically Sustainable Development policymaking process did indeed happen. The greenies performed well intellectually. Business didn’t quite know what happened. But it was all for naught because business and bureaucracy – especially bureaucracy – were able to water things down and water things down. And then they got especially lucky, when Hawke was replaced by his former Treasurer Paul Keating. And then the dismissal of ecologically sustainable development kicked up a serious gear. It was killed off in the committees and left to die by the wayside. And also, there was the infamous meeting in the middle of 1992. Supposed to be a two day event. But everyone walked out at the end of day one because the bureaucrats were such assholes.

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: 

September 3, 1988 – Ann Landers is Greta Thunberg avant la lettre…

September 3, 2002 – “Kyoto cuts too small, so we’re not going to bother”. 

Categories
Australia

August 8, 1990 – ANZEC says “adopt Toronto target” of sharp carbon cuts.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 8th, 1990, there’s another push for the Target to be adopted.

“One was launched by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council on August 8, and supports the Toronto target as an interim goal for planning purposes. This has been accepted by the Governments of NSW, Victoria and the ACT.” (Begbe, 1990, 10 Sept)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate negotiations were coming. Australia’s government was committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development because the green groups had extracted that as a promise for their sort of support in the recent federal election. Various state governments and the ACT, for example, had committed to the Toronto target (and in May 1989 Hawke’s Environment Secretary had floated it in Cabinet, to be shot down by Paul Keating, then Treasurer.). The Toronto Target proposed that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 20% by the year 2005. The denialists were getting up on their hind legs too. 

And here was the Australian New Zealand Environment Council suggesting that Australia and presumably New Zealand, both say yes to Toronto.

What we learn is that invocations to targets have been with us for a very long time. You get such pleasure of announcing/campaigning for a target, but actually getting the people who say yes to do anything about hitting that target, well, that is somewhat more difficult. 

What happened next, in October 1990 the Hawke government did indeed make a promise for an “Interim Planning Target,” hedged with all sorts with caveats about economic costs and other developed nations taking similar action. So it was a non-promise promise, but it allowed Kelly to go off to the Second World Climate Conference with Australia’s reputation in sort of good standing.

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: 

August 8, 1975 – first academic paper to use term “global warming” published

August 8, 1990 – Ministers meet, argue for Toronto Target

Categories
United Kingdom

July 28, 1990 – science writer John Gribbin explains why caution is wrong on global warming

Thirty four years ago, on this day, July 28th, 1990 UK science writer John Gribbin nails the problem.

AT WHAT POINT will politicians take real action to curb the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? A summary of the situation runs as follows: ‘Some blinkered optimists argue that until the case against carbon dioxide is proven, it is pointless to take any action to curb it. But since the only proof will be when the rains start to fail in North America and there is no spare grain to rush to famine regions, this hardly seems sensible.’

Gribbin, J. 1990. Talking Point: Why caution is wrong on global warming. New Scientist, 127 28 July, p. 18.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Gribbin had been writing about climate systems as a trained physicist and science journalist for a good 15 years in New Scientist and so forth. He’d written various books and was well qualified to understand what the IPCC was saying in its various reports. By this time Working Group 1 had already reported and the synthesis report was due to happen.

There were by now outfits like the George C Marshall Institute, and World Coal Association trying to play denialist minimalizing games, and Gribbin was speaking out against taking their shit seriously.

What we learn is that by 1990, it was extremely obvious both that the world was going to warm and that denialists – for reasons of their own – would deny. The siren sounds of denial were to be warned against. 

What happened next. Look around you. Who won? Who lost?

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 28, 1970 – American journalist warns about melting the icecaps…

July 28, 1990 – American #climate denial comes to London

July 28, 2003 – James Inhofe shares his genius

Categories
Australia

June 25, 1990 – Ecologically Sustainable Development paper released

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, June 25th, 1990, the Australian Federal Government is forced to keep a promise made to win the last election.

CANBERRA: The Federal Government gave assurances yesterday there would be no freeze on development applications for resource-based projects over the next year while it formulates its final policy on ecologically sustainable development.

It also undertook that the future of the proposed Coronation Hill mine in the Northern Territory – delayed by a review by the Resources Assessment Commission – would not be further delayed while the policy is being settled. The commitments were given by the Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly, and the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy, Mr Kerin, when releasing the Government’s discussion paper, Ecologically Sustainable Development

Cockburn, M. 1990. Pledges on ecology review. Sydney Morning Herald, 26 June. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in order to win the 1990 federal election, Australian Labor Party had had to schmooze the environment movement and promise it further deeper involvement in policymaking. This was the Ecologically Sustainable Development process. And a paper was released on that day with relatively weak climate stuff, but you know, everything’s allegedly “up for debate”. The other context is that the Liberals felt that they had been shafted by the Australian Conservation Foundation, had snubbed it, and would continue to snub it. 

What we learn is that betrayal Dolchstoss is a strong narrative.

 What happened next? The ESD process launched, the environmentalists were better-informed and more committed and ran rings around industry who just thought they could turn up and get what they wanted and that their vague prognostications of economic doom would be a conversation ender. They didn’t expect anything else, why would they? So therefore, the ESD had to be defeated. Not through argument, but through politics watering down.

It was watered down significantly by bureaucrats, it dribbled out in the final versions in December 1991. And then a couple of weeks later, Bob Hawke was toppled as prime minister. And that really was the end of it as evidenced by the infamous meeting, in the middle of 1992 where everyone was extremely fed up with the bureaucrats (LINK).

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 25, 2003 – the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum is created

June 25, 2002, 2003 and 2008 – CCS’s first hype cycle builds

Categories
International processes UNFCCC United Kingdom

May 26, 1990 – Times front page about Thatcher going for stabilisation target

Thirty-four years ago, on this day, May 26th, 1990, the Times ran a big story about Thatcher settling for a “stabilise UK emissions by 2000 at 1990 levels” target, but calling it “tough.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there had been fights over emissions reductions for rich nations. In 1989, an energy minister, Lady whoever or Baroness whatever had nixed that {LINK}. But the negotiations were coming and the UK would need some sort of position. SDtabilisation target looks like a winner, even if it wasn’t adequate scientifically(that’s never stopped people before and it didn’t on this occasion).

What we learn is that there were intense tussles and battles in that period of the 80s, ‘88 to ‘92. And this was one of them. 

What happened next Thatcher was gone in six months. And the stabilisation target made its way into the UNFCCC 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.

Also on this day: 

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

May 26, 1994 – Australian #climate stance “will become increasingly devoid of substance” says Liberal politician. Oh yes