Tag: 1990

Categories
United States of America

April 18, 1990 – Bush’s delayed conference ends

On this day 36 years ago, April 18, 1990 President Bush’s conference finishes,

Shortly thereafter President Bush invited representatives of the 20 most influential countries in the world to a White House conference on science an economics research related to global change (17-18 April, 1990, in Washington). Even though the FAR would soon be completed and was intended to serve as the basis for negotiating a climate convention, no invitation to attend the conference was extended to the IPCC. I was surprised and sought an explanation through my contact in the USA (Dr Robert Corell) and I was soon thereafter invited to attend. For the first time I sensed that the IPCC messages might be disturbing the formulation of a US policy about these matters.

(Bolin, 2007: 59-60)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Republican politicians, presidents and vice presidents, – looking at you, Reagan and Bush – had been ignoring carbon dioxide build up. There had been a real warning and a real opportunity to do something meaningful back when it was still possible in 1977-81. That opportunity was ignored. 

The specific context was that in 1988 George Bush, running for president and vulnerable on environment matters because he hadn’t done anything, (his Democratic opponent, Michael Dukakis, who kind of sort of had), announced that people who were worried about the greenhouse effect were forgetting about the “White House effect”, and that if he were to be president, he (Bush) would in his first year in office, convene an International Meeting on what to do about it. Well, Bush had won the 1988 election handily, and then guess what, did not hold the International Conference. 

And when he did finally hold the international conference, he somehow, his people somehow “forgot” to invite the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Swedish scientist Bert Bolin. Funny that. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people like George Bush are hopefully rotting in hell for many reasons, climate change denial and obstruction being near the top of the list. 

What happened next:   Bolin died in 2007 having lived long enough to see the IPCC get the Nobel Peace Prize, and to have the hope that, who knows, maybe, in Copenhagen, in two years time, there would be a meaningful global deal, and there wasn’t.

See also

George Bush Sr could have got in on the ground floor of climate action – history would have thanked him

Also on this day

April 18, 1970 – Harold Wilson in York, bigging up UN, rights/obligations

April 18, 1989 – begging letter to world leaders sent

April 18, 2013, Liberal Party bullshit about “soil carbon” revealed to be bullshit

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage

March 27, 1990 – Greenweek on carbon capture

Thirty years ago, on this day, March 27th, 1990,

On this day, the publication Greenweek has a news article titled

“Radical way to take carbon dioxide from power stations”

“A dramatic fall in greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialised Hunter Valley in NSW could come about if the Hunter Technology Group can proceed with studies of a radical method of removing carbon dioxide emissions from power stations.

“The group is seeking $150,000 from the NSW Government to study a proposal whereby carbon dioxide emissions would be pumped along ground-level pipelines to rural and forest areas, rather than be sent through smokestacks into the atmosphere.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that Green Week had been set up by an enterprising journalist, I think in the beginning of 1989  and was doing exactly what it said, publicising events and policy discussions, etc. And here we see discussion in its early stages of quote, carbon capture and storage a fantasy, if ever there were one. 

The specific context was that all sorts of bullshit was being bullshitted at this time.

What I think we can learn from this is that the carbon capture and storage thing, which had started in the mid 1970s as a putative solution to CO2 build up, was there in the undergrowth in the 90s.

What happened next

The fantasy technology staggers on. The amount of CO2 actually captured is pitiful, especially if you take out the stuff that is used for enhanced oil recovery. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day: 

March 27, 1966 – The “Conservation Society” to be launched

March 27, 1971 – Norwegian Tabloid talks about the climate threat 

March 27th, 1977- what we can learn from Dutch arrogance and aviation disasters

March 27, 1995 – former Nature editor John Maddox admits was wrong on Greenhouse, without, er, admitting it.

March 27, 2008 – James Hansen writes a letter to Kevin Rudd

Categories
Australia

March 21,  1990 – Hawke’s final campaign appearance

Thirty six years ago, on this day, March 21st, 1990, 

Some Labour spokesmen have forecast that the government could lose at least six seats from its last parliamentary majority of 22, and scrape back in several doubtful seats only with green preferences. Mr Hawke showed his worry about the impact of protest votes when he made his final campaign appearance yesterday [ 21 March]  at the National Press Club in Canberra. He called on young and disaffected voters not to vote green but, if they did so, to direct their second preferences to Labour. “When you wake up on 25 March,” he said, “there won’t be a Democrat government or a green independent government.”

Milliken, R. 1990. Green vote emerges as crucial factor in election. The Independent – London, 22 March, p.14. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the ALP had come to power in 1983, helped massively by a promise to protect the Franklin river from yet another damned dam.  They’d done a bit on environment – their record was not actively terrible the way it has become.

The specific context was that the Liberals had proposed a more ambitious emissions reduction target than Labour. The Liberals had also convinced themselves that they could have lunch with the head of the Australian Conservation Foundation and he and the ACF would then “tell” all the greenies how to vote.  They didn’t really get it, did they?

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians lie and prevaricate (this will come as a shock, I know).

What happened next – Labor squeaked back in. Because of the green vote, they had to institute an “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process. This went on through 1990-1 and then got totally kneecapped by the Labor government of Paul Keating.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Xxx

Also on this day:

March 21, 1768 – Joseph Fourier born

March 21, 1980 – chair of Statoil board acknowledges the “social cost” of the “CO2 problem”

March 21, 1994 – Yes to UNFCCC, yes to more coal-fired plants. Obviously. #auspol

March 21, 1994 – Singleton Council approves Redbank power station

Categories
Science Scientists

February 14, 1990 – Pale Blue Dot photo taken by Voyager

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 14th, 1990,

“The command sequence was then compiled and sent to Voyager 1, with the images taken at 04:48 GMT on February 14, 1990.[19] At that time, the distance between the spacecraft and Earth was 40.47 astronomical units (6,055 million kilometers, 3,762 million miles).[20]”

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar”, every “supreme leader”, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Voyager had been launched years earlier, and they turned round and looked at the earth and took the photo. There’s a nice story about how it got found, just like one pixel. 

What I think we can learn from this is that beautiful images are sometimes found by accident. See also Earthrise in 1968 as pushed for by Stewart Brand. 

What happened next Carl Sagan wrote his wonderful essay about the pale blue dot and everything that happened there. Sagan had given testimony to a Senate committee in December 1985 about the greenhouse effect. And Sagan sadly died too young. 

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 14,1967 – John Mason (Met Office boss) dismisses carbon dioxide problem

February 14, 1972 – the Lorax is animated…

February 14, 2015 – No love for coal from UK politicians

Categories
Australia

February 9, 1990 – “in the end the rain comes down”? (Blue Sky Mining released)

Thirty six years ago, on this day, February 9, 1990

Blue Sky Mining is the seventh studio album by Australian alternative rock band Midnight Oil, released on 9 February 1990 under the Columbia Records label.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that the Oils had been around since the mid-1970s, doing extremely exciting (ymmv) music and lyrics. 10 to 1 is a stunner, and they kept it up.

The specific context was that well, they were on a roll. You can read about it (see what I did there?) here.

What I think we can learn from this is that good music is part of the “map” you need. Certainly a big part of my map.

What happened next: The Oils did a gig outside Exxon’s HQ.

May 30, 1990 – Midnight Oil do a gig outside Exxon’s HQ in New York – All Our Yesterdays

See also my piece on the album track “Shakers and Movers”

Midnight Oil’s “Shakers and Movers” – a profound beautiful gem of a song

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 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

 February 9, 1970 – HRH Prince of Netherlands points to carbon dioxide build-up

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Categories
Science Scientists United Kingdom United States of America

January 28, 1990 –  Stephen Schneider and the dirty crystal ball.

Thirty six years ago, on this day, January 28th, 1990.

Another reviewer of the Gribbin book, William Goulding (The Sunday Times, 28 January, 1990), quotes the late climate scientist and climate science communicator Stephen Schneider as saying: “scientific predictions are like ‘trying to gaze into a dirty crystal ball. By taking time to clean the glass you can get a better picture; but at some point it is necessary to decide that the picture is good enough to alert policy makers and the general public to the hazards ahead. That point has certainly been reached with studies of the greenhouse effect and the prospect of rising sea levels in particular.’” Unfortunately, that point seems to be forever receding into the future… 

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2018/08/11/groundhog-day-in-the-hothouse

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 353ppm. As of 2026 it is 428ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that scientists had been measuring the impact of human activities, whether it was on air pollution, water pollution, ozone depletion, you name it, and had been trying to figure out how to raise the alarm without being called alarmist, and pondering where, when and how to speak out. 

So you have the famous Shelly Rowland quote 

“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?”

Stephen Schneider was among them. In 1971 famously, he had co-authored a paper that got taken up as a when’s the new ice age happening, kind of thing to the dismay of some of his colleagues. I think it’s fair to say that Schneider leaned in. In 1976 he published the Genesis Strategy, He’d been on Johnny Carson (TV show). See also his efforts around the First World Climate Conference (Science as a contact sport)

The specific context was that the IPCC’s first assessment report was due out. (The IPCC had had its first meeting in November 1988). Meanwhile negotiations were clearly at some point going to begin for an international climate treaty. So here is Schneider, who was a very smart man, very thoughtful, trying to figure out when you pull the big lever. 

You can also see him tackling the same issues about 10 years prior, in a 1979 Panorama video. I would love to know when this video was; I haven’t been able to track it down.

Stephen Schneider in 1979

What I think we can learn from this is that scientists get flattened by industry and their paid attack dogs (and also by useful idiots).

What happened next

Schneider kept on trucking – his death was a huge huge loss

See also this from July 14 1988 Los Angeles Times –

Ozone Warning : He Sounded Alarm, Paid Heavy Price – Los Angeles Times

The interest was gratifying but more than a little ironic. “They won’t admit it but this means some kind of ban has been lifted,” Rowland said.

For as Rowland and others recount it, ever since 1974, when he and UCI postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina first theorized that the Earth’s protective ozone layer was being damaged by synthetic chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Rowland has paid a price for his ideas.

In part, that’s because Rowland didn’t just make his discovery, write up the results and quietly return to his lab.

Instead, shocked by the implications of his research, he took an unusual public stance–doggedly telling reporters, Congress, half a dozen state legislatures, and just about anyone who seemed interested that ozone loss could lead to skin cancer and catastrophic climatic change. And, again and again for more than a decade, he urged that CFCs be banned.

In doing so, Rowland took on a $28-billion-a-year industry whose products, ranging from home insulating materials to solvents for electronic equipment, have become an essential part of modern life.

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 28, 1969 – Santa Barbara Oil spill

January 28, 1993 – Parliament protest – “Wake Up, the World is Dying” – Guest Post by Hugh Warwick

January 28, 2013 – Doomed “Green Deal” home insulation scheme launched in the UK

Categories
International processes United Nations

December 21, 1990 – UNGA creates “INC”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 21st, 1990, the United Nations General Assembly, via Resolution 45/212, creates the “International Negotiating Committee”, to negotiate a global climate treaty (what became the UNFCCC).

UNGA Resolution No. 45/212 (Protection of Global Climate for Present and Future Generations of Mankind) | ADB’s Law and Policy Reform Program

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the United Nations General Assembly had been here before. In 1968 it had said yes to a conference, to be held in 1972. That had given the world (checks notes…) the United Nations Environment Program.

The specific context was that despite the best efforts of the US (and the UK), negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed at the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio were gonna begin. The second world climate conference had just happened in Geneva and now the “International Negotiating Committee” was going to be a thing.

What I think we can learn from this – if enough pressure builds, new organisations/institutions are formed (That is not to say they endure, or are worth a bucket of warm spit, necessarily).

What happened next? The INC met five times from early 1991 to early 1992 – many sticking points (i.e. obstacles thrown up by the US and the oil producing states). George HW Bush repeatedly, and credibly, threatened to boycott the Earth Summit if the treaty text included targets and timetables for emissions reductions. And eventually, the French blinked and the targets and timetables were taken out.

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 21, 1992 – Keating in Adelaide

December 21, 1993 – European Union agrees to ratify UNFCCC

December 21, 2005 – US activist William Rodgers commits suicide

Categories
Australia Energy

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, October 4th, 1990, the energy efficiency crew said the same thing again…

AUSTRALIA can reduce its contribution to global warming and improve its balance of payments with a major energy efficiency strategy, according to new research.

Three recent reports indicate that Australia is lagging behind other developed countries in energy efficiency and can improve performance dramatically to cut carbon dioxide output by up to 20 per cent by the year 2005.

Two of the reports say the target could be achieved with net energy savings of $6.2 billion a year by 2005, while the third says it could be done with no cost to the economy.

But a major national program would be required. This would see us use more public transport and switch to cars using only 4.5 to six litres of petrol per 100km (the average is now 12). All buildings would have to meet energy-efficient standards and higher road freight taxes would channel more freight to rail.

Our refrigerators could well have a 90-watts rating (as do the most fuel-efficient sold in the US) and not the 700-1,000 watts here.

The energy-efficiency plan is designed to save 42.6 per cent of energy in the residential sector, 54 per cent in the commercial sector, 38 per cent in transport and 23 per cent in manufacturing industry.

Two reports by Deni Greene, a Melbourne energy consultant – one for the Federal Environment Department, the other for all environment ministers – are at odds with the views of some that energy-saving measures cost too much.

Williams, G. 1990. Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 October, p.19.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that from 1988 onwards “the greenhouse effect” was big news. There were some who thought (rightly) that there were huge savings in emissions to be made from tightening up energy efficiency regulations. See for example March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored

The specific context was that the Business Council of Australia was already brewing (had produced?) a report that said doing anything about energy efficiency would crash the economy.

What I think we can learn from this – we couldn’t even do the simple stuff. We couldn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit. What on EARTH makes anyone believe we can do the really tricky stuff? Srsly?

What happened next – by 1992 the “Ecologically Sustainable Development process” was dead in the water- killed by Keating.

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 4, 1957 – see, see – SPUTNIK!! – All Our Yesterdays

October 4, 1969 – “If we melt the Antarctic, our problems are solved because all of the ports of the world would vanish and the ocean will rise 200 feet.”

October 4, 1978 – the Interdepartmental group on Climatology meets for the first time…

October 4, 1993 – Coal chief wringing his hands about “greenhouse,” promises new tech

Categories
United Kingdom

September 21, 1990 – Stabilisation in 2005, says the UK

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 21st, 1990,

Later, once the UK had established its stabilisation target, but only for the year 2005 rather than 2000 as others had done, Trippier again produced high-quality rhetoric. ‘We could go for 2000, if we wanted to close down half the coal mines in Britain and go for no economic growth’,

he stated (quoted in the Independent 21 September 1990

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that in June 1888 at the Toronto conference on the changing atmosphere a target of a 20 per cent reduction in C02 emissions by 2005, on a 1988 baseline had been proposed.

The specific context was that 1990 was the year of all the conferences, and the UK had already said “nope” to Toronto, but were still trying to look like the good guys. – thus this wretched compromise.

What I think we can learn from this is that politicians will, obviously, always try to make a terrible compromise/retreat from reality look like a bold step in statesmanship. It’s perception management all the way…

What happened next – the wretched UNFCCC treaty contains an implicit expectation that rich nations will stabilise their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.  Most didn’t, obvs.

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 21, 1958, LA Times runs a Greenhouse Cartoon 

September 21, 1990 – Ministers call for Toronto Target to be federal policy …

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

September 21, 2014 – big #climate march in New York. World saved.

Categories
Cultural responses United States of America

September 15,1990 – Captain Planet launches

Thirty five years ago, on this day, September 15th, 1990, 

The first episode of “Captain Planet and the Planeteers” was broadcast.

Captain Planet and the Planeteers, commonly referred to as simply Captain Planet, is an American animated environmentalist superhero television series created by Barbara Pyle and Ted Turner[1] and developed by Pyle, Nicholas Boxer, Thom Beers, Andy Heyward, Robby London, Bob Forward, and Cassandra Schafausen. The series was produced by Turner Program Services and DIC Enterprises and broadcast on TBS and in syndication from September 15, 1990, to December 5, 1992

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 354ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was we’ve got to propagandise the young about how The System cares and can be fixed to solve whatever the problem seems to be. There are vast indoctrination efforts going on, all the time.

The specific context was that Ted Turner was then married to Jane Fonda, who switched him on to environmental issues. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the efforts at getting the kids riled up? Yeah, doesn’t last.

What happened next

There is a seriously hilarious spoof with Don Cheadle.

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

King, D. L. (1994). Captain Planet and the Planeteers: Kids, environmental crisis, and competing narratives of the new world order. Sociological Quarterly, 35(1), 103-120.

Also on this day: 

September 15, 1948 – Biologist Evelyn Hutchinson mentions carbon dioxide build-up at an AAAS symposium.

September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra

September 15, 1982/1990 – “Environmental Justice” is born. And so is Captain Planet…

September 15, 1996 – A CCS posterchild is born: Sleipner Field comes online. – All Our Yesterdays

September 15, 2008- business splits over what to extort from Rudd…