Tag: 1990

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

Categories
United Kingdom

May 21, 1990 – “The Big Heat” documentary

Thirty four years ago, on this day, May 21st, 1990, the BBC ran a documentary on, well “The Big Heat”

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/22a5069010204a1ea1421917335be902

The Big Heat

As the cold war ends, world leaders are already beginning to fight the climate war. They have been warned by scientists that global warming, caused by industrialisation and pollution, will cause a dramatic increase in storms, floods and droughts around the world. But there is bitter disagreement over who should pay the cost of preventing such disastrous climatic change. Should the burden fall on the west, with the risk of recession and a fall in living standards, or should Third World countries also foot the bill, even though it may mean hunger and poverty?

As part of One World week, Stephen Bradshaw reports from Britain, America and India on the politics of the climate, and reveals the latest scientific evidence on the future of our weather. Producer Charles Furneaux Editor Mark Thompson

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 everyone was banging on about climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect. And this documentary explored the geopolitical consequences and implications.

 What we learn is that the issues have been laid out, repeatedly, for anyone who cares to understand them. 

What happened next, more documentaries. But also, quite soon after the pushback with the ridiculous greenhouse conspiracy documentary, the one that John Houghton wrote about. 

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 21, 1971 – Marvin Gaye asks “What’s Going On?”

May 21, 1998 – “Emissions Trading: Harnessing the Power of the Market”

Categories
United Kingdom

May 11, 1990 – the Financial Times on good intentions not cutting it

Thirty four years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the pink’un pointed out that the problem would be difficult to solve.

If the world’s environmental problems could be solved by high-powered conferences, then the planet would have nothing to worry about. Officials from the world’s environment ministries, activists from green pressure groups and scientists specialising in environmental problems have spent the year jetting from one international gathering to another.

Thomas, D and Hunt, J. 1990. Wave on wave of good intentions: The issues facing the world’s environmental diplomats. Financial Times, 11 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were, as the FT article says, endless meetings for diplomats and negotiators to attend, on either “sustainable development” or climate or both. The Earth Summit was due in June of 1992. 

And the FT had been running some good pieces, some good reportage and the usual bullshit denial because that’s what a portion of its audience wanted. 

What we learn is what the FT is, quite rightly pointing out is that good intentions will get you so far, fine words butter, no parsnips, etc. 

 What happened next, the FT kept running the occasional denial bullshit, but on the whole, reasonably good reportage and reasonably good opinion within its worldview, obviously. Pretty much everyone acts within their worldview all the time, especially if they’re a big organisation that needs its gatekeepers. 

See also Herman and Chomsky propaganda model 

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 11, 1971 – U Thant gets The Message

May 11, 1988 – “Greenhouse Glasnost” USA and USSR to co-operate on climate

Categories
AFrica

May 2, 1990 – Nairobi Declaration on Climatic Change

Thirty four years ago, on this day, May 2nd, 1990, another declaration…,

See here for pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there were ongoing meetings about climate and “sustainable development” in the aftermath of both the Brundtland Report and the 1988 upsurge. There was to be a meeting in Bergen, about sustainable development. And here we have Africans saying, “hey, maybe there should be nothing about us without us”.

What we can learn is that these sorts of declarations are being made all the time. My other favourite is the Male Declaration of November 18, 1989,  about sea level rise, and then forgotten. Now, all that’s remembered is what the rich largely white nations said or agreed to do (and then didn’t do).

What happened next, the emissions kept rising. Every so often there were more declarations and we’re 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.

References

1990 Nairobi meeting with Woods Hole folks http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Nairobi_Declaration_on_Climatic_Chan.html?id=MRfPAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

Paterson 1996 page 39

Also on this day: 

May 2, 2009 – Australian Liberals warned of wipe-out if seen as “anti-climate action” #auspol

May 2, 2012 – CCS is gonna save us all. Oh yes.

May 2, 2019 – Committee on Climate change report on net zero by 2050

Categories
Australia

March 3, 1990 – The Science Show on the “backlash to Greenhouse warnings”

 Thirty four years ago, on this day, March 3rd, 1990, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s radio programme “The Science Show”, covered climate politics.

The Science Show [Episode 702] – 1990 Anzaas Congress. The 59th Annual Anzaas Congress Was Held In Hobart, February 14-16th 1990; Climate Change In The Past, A Human Response.” ;Greenhouse Modelling; Backlash To Greenhouse Warnings; Politics Of Greenhouse Science; Ozone Hole/Ozone Layer; Silly Abstract. A Comedy Piece; Coral Reefs And The Greenhouse Effect; International Environmental Policy.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.75ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was still banging on about climate change all the time (it would only start to go away when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq, on 2 August 1990). And on the Science Show, they needed to do the classic, “both sides of the argument.” Denialists had figured that out. And people like John Daly had realised that if you wrote a book (The Greenhouse Trap) and then weren’t invited to discuss it on the Science Show, you could cry censorship. So this is hijacking journalistic ethics and integrity for your own purposes – ”balance as bias” according to the boykoff boys.

What we learn is that the denialists have been astonishingly effective at what they do. And institutions have been unable to successfully repel or expel them and protect, well, future generations. 

What happened next? 

The denialists kept denying. That gave aid and comfort to the greed heads and thickos within the Labour party and the Liberal National Party and indeed the economic apparatus. And so Australia never took strong climate action. And here we are 30 years later with the consequences beginning to pile up. Happy days.

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: 

March 3, 1990 –  “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

March 3, 1990 – Energy efficiency could save billions a year, Australian government told (says ‘whatevs’).

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

February 1, 1990 – Australian Financial Review ponders carbon tax… (via FT)

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 1st, 1990, an article about possible carbon taxes from the Financial Times (London) was syndicated in the Australian Financial Review (aka “The Fin”).

“Drastic measures to combat global atmospheric pollution caused by burning carbon fuels were urged yesterday by the International Energy Agency.”

Anon. 1990. Carbon Fuel Tax May Limit Pollution Levels. Australian Financial Review, 2 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422.3ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at Nordwijk in November of 1989, nations had agreed to keep talking about talking about negotiating a climate treaty. There were other meetings coming up. And the International Energy Agency was sticking its oar in with the suggestion of carbon taxes and pricing mechanisms. Also there was a federal election pending in Australia, the climate issue was very salient. 

What we learn is that debates about carbon pricing have been shaped by prestigious powerful – or prestigious, at least – outfits like the IEA in ways that I didn’t fully understand for my PhD thesis, but here we are. 

What happened next, Bob Hawke narrowly won the March 1993 election with small g. green votes, and was therefore obliged to follow through with this idea of ecologically sustainable development. 

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: 

Feb 1, 2007- Jeremy Grantham slams Bush on #climate

February 1, 1978 – US TV show MacNeill Lehrer hosts discussion about climate change

Feb 1 2023 – Interview with Russell Porter, Australian documentary maker

Categories
Renewable energy

December 24, 1990 – Australia as renewable energy superpower

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 24, 1990, a letter appears in the Canberra Times… 

Renewable energy 

YOUR excellent report from Washington, DC, presenting evidence that renewable energy could substitute for coal, oil and gas in the 21st century (CT, December 17) needs to be supplemented with some information about the Australian situation… Commonwealth support for renewable energy has been very weak.

Canberra Times 24th December 1990

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122332903/13000347

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 421ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone was talking about moving away from fossil fuels moving towards renewables. Would it be possible? Over what time-scale? etcetera 

Except when they weren’t and they were trying to sit on things, which is what the Australian government eventually took to doing.

What I think we can learn from this

The Politics of technology R&D – what gets funded, what doesn’t, by who, with what end-goals is always really interesting, well usually.

The crucial thing is this is Australia which could have been ahead of the game on wind power solar geothermal hydrogen you name it. But the problem was we had so much damn coal and natural gas, and the people who owned those resources also, in effect, owned the state and the policymaking process and have won all the big battles.

What happened next is we didn’t do that “clean energy transition.” We may yet in the future who knows, but it will be too little too late, by definition.

The age of consequences is beginning and the dildo of consequences never arrives lubed.

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