Tag: 1990

Categories
Australia Religion

July 9, 1990- Green Christians’ 12 commandments

Thirty five years ago, on this day, July 9th, 1990,

Is God a greenie? Such a question should make an infinite number of angels dance on their pin-heads later this week, as representatives from all Australian churches sit down to reach a consensus answer.

However, my ecclesiastical contacts tell me that the “Greener than Green” Christians have stitched up the numbers and that the conference will pronounce that He is at least medium green and that mining companies etc are the equivalent of Beezlebub.

Clark, D. 1990. Green Christians’ 12 commandments.   Australian Financial Review, 9 July

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 you can worship God or Mammon.  Many managed to convince themselves they could do both. To cover their sins (to themselves) they adopted a supercilious patronising tone, like the twuntish author here.

The specific context was that from 1988 to early 1991, rich people felt obliged to pretend to care.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can worship God/Gaia/the biosphere (pick your name) or you can worship Mammon.

What happened next. We worshipped Mammon. And now comes the bill (or “check” if you’re an American).

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 9, 1962 – rainbow bomb parties as hydrogen bomb explodes

July 9, 1965 – “Spaceship Earth” is launched, trying to get us to see our fragility (didn’t work)

July 9, 1987 – “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse” warns Broecker

July 9, 2004 – David Bellamy jumps the shark on climate change

 July 9, 2008 – President Bush operating at his peak intellectual capacity

Categories
Australia

June 8, 1990 – Greenpeace versus the polluters

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1990, Business Review Weekly reminded subscribers who the enemy was…

In the battle for hearts and minds, the environmentalists have it all over companies. The business sector’s difficulty in grappling with the environment issue will result, sooner or later, in a company director finding himself in the dock facing charges over pollution. Both NSW and Victoria now have legislation that can render executives and directors personally liable for environment protection offences. Many within the environment movement are looking for a test case of this legislation.

In this week’s cover story BRW writer Matthew Stevens examines the challenge that Greenpeace is throwing out to Australian companies. As Stevens reports, the local branch of the international Greenpeace organisation has thoroughly reorganised itself and is armed with the latest techniques developed in the US for direct action against companies. Greenpeace is out to achieve the greatest public humiliation of those it chooses to expose.

Uren, D. 1990. Editor’s note. BRW, 8 June.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that climate change had finally “broken through” in 1988, almost 10 years later than it might have (You can write a plausible alternative history that has it all kicking off in 1979-1980).

The specific context was that the Australian mining and more-general-capitalist interests had assumed the “fad” about the Greenhouse would blow itself out. By the end of 1989 it was clear it wasn’t going to, and so the fight back began in earnest…

What I think we can learn from this

As human beings is that people with money and power like things the way they are, more or less (while always thinking about how it would be nice to have MORE money and MORE power).

As “active citizens” that there may be a delay between an issue breaking through and the response – though this is perhaps less the case now with instantaneous comms and vast networks of tooled-up, cashed-up junk tanks…

Academics might like to ponder why they rarely warn the punters about this. Could it be they are too dim to even see the pattern?

What happened next  The fossil interests fought the greenies to a standstill – not intellectually, they lost all the arguments – but by tapping their friends in the Federal bureaucracy on the shoulder.  The “Ecologically Sustainable Development” policy process ended in farce in 1992.  The “National Greenhouse Response Strategy” was none of those things. The emissions climbed, the concentrations climbed and the consequences, eventually, arrived. We are in the Fafocene.

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.

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 8, 1973 – Australian Treasury dismisses carbon dioxide build-up. Yes, 1973.  – All Our Yesterdays

June 8, 1997 – US oil and gas versus Kyoto Protocol, planet – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

June 7, 1990 – Tasman Institute and a Nature letter about weathering

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 7th, 1990 a neoliberal attack-tank was launched, and a letter about weathering also appeared,

A privately funded economic think tank and joint venture between Australia and New Zealand called the Tasman Institute was launched in Melbourne yesterday.

Anon. 1990. Trans tasman think tank backed by big business. New Zealand Herald, 8 June p.5.

And

Letter in Nature about silicate and enhanced weathering by Sieffert https://www.nature.com/articles/345486b0

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that everyone was scratching their heads about what to do about th “Greenhouse Effect”

The specific context was that in Australia right-wing forces knew that they needed some new pieces on the chessboard 

What I think we can learn from this – organisations get formed to push a certain line, combat others. Once the initial impetus is gone, they may survive, but this will require them to pivot. If they can’t, they tend to die…

What happened next Tasman was a dead duck by 1997 – with Howard in the Lodge (the residence of the Australian Prime Minister) it was surplus to requirements. 

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

Also on this day: 

June 7, 1971 – Australians warned, on television, about ecological breakdown. #ABC – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia IPCC

 May 28, 1990 – “Global Warming is really here” (IPCC First Assessment Report)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 28th, 1990, the Canberra Times reports on the report of Working Group 1 (the science bit) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mussared, D. 1990. Global warming is really here: UN.  Canberra Times, May 28, page 11

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the IPCC had been agreed in 1988, with pressure from the United States Government, which was keen to avoid a repeat of the ozone issue, where uncontrollable scientists had “bounced” (in the perception of politicians and state functionaries) governments into action. It was not a precedent they wanted reinforced, so the IPCC was set up to head off things like the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases….

The IPCC was asked to produce reports in November 1988 and did so in record time. The Working Group 1 report was presented to Thatcher’s cabinet by John Houghton, head of the Met Office and head of Working Group 1.

What I think we can learn from this. The politicians were briefed. It is not a question of whether they knew enough. They did.

What happened next. The negotiations for a climate treaty were deformed by resistance from the United States, the Gulf states and then Australia. No targets and timetables were set for emissions reductions by rich countries. The IPCC sank into a routine of producing special reports as requested and assessment reports on a five or seven year cycle.

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 28, 1954 – Will we control the weather?!

May 28, 1956 – Time Magazine reports on “One Big Greenhouse”

May 28, 1969 – “Ecology and Politics in America” teach-in, Berkeley

May 28, 1982 – “International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity”  – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

May 11, 1990 – Money or the Planet. You decide (except you don’t).

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 11th, 1990, the Australian Financial Review ran the following, based on an early example of “the sky will fall if we give the greenies an inch” economic ‘modelling’. There’d be much more of this nonsense over the coming years – it’s a favoured tactic, because, well, it works.

Sustainable development is catching up with Australia fast. The economy is going through an investment boom which could provide the export revenue in the 1990s that would make our current account and foreign debt positions “sustainable”….

The accompanying table lists 26 major investment projects under consideration which Access Economics says appear to be in danger of environmental veto, including the Cape York spaceport (worth $350 million), the Very Fast Train project ($4.5 billion) and 24 resource and manufacturing projects valued at $11 billion.

Stutchbury, M. 1990. Environmental threat to investment boom. Australian Financial Review , 11 May.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that capital was having one of its periodic bouts of panic that the meatpuppets it owned in the nominal independent “State” (aka “politicians” and “senior civil servants”) might not respond to string-pulling quickly enough, and might end up – under popular pressure – passing laws that hindered the rights of the filthy rich to get filthier richer quicker. When that happens there’s hand-wringing and pearl-clutching and then reports produced about how the sky will fall if Intemperate Action is taken. There’s a sideline in issue denial (usually done with plausible deniability). There’s quiet words with key people about where they see themselves in five years (non-executive directorships etc or out on their ear) and the point is made that nobody is indispensable and that opposing political parties will be happy to receive donations etc.

What I think we can learn from this.It is about capital accumulation. Don’t get in their way unless you’re happy to be roadkill. This is the lesson all junior apparatchiks are taught. Those that learn it may last a while. Those who don’t learn it won’t, by definition.

What happened next No serious impediments have ever been placed on the ability of capital to “invest”/extract/whatever they want. Australia is becoming an uninhabitable slagheap, full of miserable angry people. The figures behind the Harvester Settlement will be squirming in their graves… Oh well.

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

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

Categories
Australia Coal Industry Associations

May 5, 1990 – Coal barons have to pretend to care

Thirty five years ago, on this day, May 5th, 1990, Australian coal merchants have to pretend to give a damn,

1990 Australian Coal Association conference dominated by environmental issues

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the 1988 conference (they had started in 1978, were bi-ennial) had not had environment on the agenda – the issue of climate change only properly broke through later that year. By 1990 though, international negotiations were pending, and the Australian government had already considered signing up to the “Toronto Target” of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2005. The coal lobby had, therefore, to show what Good Corporate Citizens they were. There was even talk of carbon capture and storage.

What I think we can learn from this

You can use trade association publications and trade conferences as a barometer of what is going on – not necessarily of what the leading actors think, but of what they are worrying about, and what they want other people (regulators, publics, boycott-considering NGOs etc) to think.

What happened next

The fightback against any meaningful climate policy began at about this time and has continued – with remarkable success – down unto this day. Australia’s coal exports grew and grew and grew and plenty of people got rich. During the commodity super-cycle of the 2000s John Howard used the profits accruing to the state (not as much as they could have been) to bribe middle-class voters so he could stay in power. It’s a bit like Thatcher’s use of North Sea Oil in the 1980s to fund unemployment benefits… And here we are.

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

Also on this day: 

May 5, 1953 – Gilbert Plass launches the carbon dioxide theory globally

May 5, 1953 – Western Australian newspaper carries “climate and carbon dioxide” article

May 5, 1973 – Miners advertise for a greenie to join them

May 5, 2000 – Business Council of Australia boss on “Strategic Greenhouse Issues” – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

March 24, 1990 – Labor politician has dummy spit on election night about needing small g-green votes

Thirty five years ago, on this day, March 24th, 1990, on the night of the Federal election, a retiring Labor Minister got stuck in to environmentalists.

“The backlash against environmentalists began very publicly on election night. Peter Walsh launched a bitter attack on them from the tally room, attempting to deny any influence they might have had on the outcome. He was joined in later weeks and months by a number of Cabinet ministers, largely but not exclusively from the economic portfolios, but careful evaluation of that election result makes Walsh’s assertion untenable.

Malcolm Mackerras (The Australian, March 1, 1993) summarises the result well: on the primaries, the Coalition had 43.5 per cent to Labor’s 39.4 per cent, the Democrats 11.3 and others 5.8 per cent.

However, Labor’s environment second-preference strategy was so successful that the two-way party preferred vote became 50.1 per cent for the Coalition and 49.9 per cent for Labor (which just fell over the line to win in seats).”

Toyne, P. 1993. Environment forgotten in the race to the Lodge. Canberra Times, March 8 p. 11.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the Australian Federal election, where the ALP gets a fourth term very narrowly, and crucially, thanks to small g green voters, though Peter Walsh, who was stepping down, didn’t like to be beholden to people he despised (people who believed in, you know, beauty and post-material values and all the rest of it.) Walsh was an old-fashioned Labor right, disdained these people, and must have hated that his party could only get back into power with their help. Thus, of course, vociferous denial and denunciation. 

What I think we can learn from this is that people like Walsh, and there are lots of them around, cannot abide fragility, especially their own. 

What happened next

Walsh acted out his fury and hate and presumably self-loathing in both his newspaper columns. See here LINK and here, LINK for example, and also as part of the Lavoisier Group. If ever you needed an Australian poster poster boy for anti-reflexivity, (link to video about this here) it’s Peter Walsh 

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 24, 1989 – Exxon Valdez vs Alaska. (EV wins)

March 24, 2010 – Scientists explain another bad thing on the horizon, this time on soil

March 24, 2004 – Launch of Coal21 National Plan

Categories
United States of America

Feb 9, 1990 – Carl Sagan on military spending vs. climate spending

February 9, 1990 – Carl Sagan vs climate complacency

Thirty five years ago, on this day, February 9th, 1990,Carl Sagan gave the keynote speech at the 5th “Emerging Issues Forum” at the University of North Carolina.

Here’s a video of the relevant clip

Now, there are policy makers who would like to respond as follows and you have perhaps seen this sort of opinion in the pages of, naturally the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It’s the first place to expect a complaint about having to change anything. 

‘It’s too uncertain’ they say. This is serious stuff. There are a few scientists with computer models and who can be sure that they know what they are talking about and you want us to turn everything upside down because some scientist say that things are going to get a few degrees warmer. It’s a few degrees warmer on the stage than it is in the audience. You don’t see any catastrophe up here do you? 

I’d like to pose the following question: Imagine this kinda thinking back in the height of the Cold War. You know the United States – so, let me ask a question – How much money do you think the United States has spent since 1945 on the Cold War? Sometimes they ask this question then from the back of the audience comes in answer ‘billions and billions‘. A huge underestimate – billions and billions. The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars. Trillion, that’s the big one with the ‘T’. What could you buy with 10 trillion dollars? The answer is: You could buy everything in the United States except the land. Everything. Every building, truck, bus, car, boat, plane, pencil, baby’s diaper. Everything in the United States except the land, that’s what we have spent on the Cold War. 

So, now let me ask: How certain was it that the Russians were going to invade? Was it 100% certain? Guess not since they never invaded. What if it was only let say 10% certain? What would advocates of big military buildup have said? We must be prudent. It’s not enough to count on only the most likely circumstance. If the worst happens and it’s really extremely dangerous for us we have to prepare for that. Remote contingencies if there is serious enough have the prepared for. It’s classic military thinking – you prepare for the worst case. 

And so now, I ask my friends who are comfortable with that argument, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t that same argument apply to Global Warming. You don’t think it’s 100% likely? Fine. You are entitled to think that. If it’s only a small probability of it happening since the consequences are so serious, don’t you have to make some serious investment to prevent it or mitigate it? I think there’s a double standard of argument working and I don’t think we should permit it.

And here is a great transcript etc of the whole speech.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2025 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Sagan had already tried to communicate the challenge, see his December 1985 address to some senators.

What I think we can learn from this is  that Sagan was a fantastic communicator.

What happened next Sagan died in 1996, far 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.

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

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