Tag: 1991

Categories
Australia Uncategorized

March 7, 1991 – Australian Labor Party bragging about its green credentials…

Thirty four years ago, on this day, March 7th, 1991, Senator Graham Richardson was claiming

‘Australia’s commitment was “the most progressive policy, I might say, of any nation in combating the threat of greenhouse climate change.’”

Senate Hansard 1439 (source)

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 that Graham Richardson had been the Federal Environment Minister between ‘87  and ‘90 and had pushed through various useful bits of legislation and tried to push others. But after the March 1990 election, he had expected to get and was promised, according to him – Defense, and then was given it, and then it was taken away. Hawke hadn’t done his numbers correctly, and Richardson was pissed and was secretly working for Keating, who, by this time, was glowering on the back benches. I don’t know the specifics of why Richardson was boasting about this, but presumably someone will have made a jibe about Labor’s position. 

What I think we can learn from this

Labor was still boasting its environmental credentials. This would change under Keating, who was kind of a proto camera, and got rid of all the green crap and stop talking about amorphous issues. 

What happened next

Richardson became Environment Minister again, very briefly in 1994, before being replaced by John Faulkner. Richardson then lurched further and further to the right, though he’d always been on the right of the Labor Party. 

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 7, 1988 – “We are ratcheting ourselves to a new warmer climate” 

 March 7, 1996 – Australia hauled over coals for its definition of “equity” #auspol

March 7, 2001 – CNN unintentionally reveals deep societal norms around democracy

March 7, 2012 – George Christensen and his culture war hijinks.

Categories
United States of America

February 18, 1991 – Governor Bill Clinton says would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 18th, 1991, it was reported that Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas had said he was open to deep emissions cuts…

The 1992 US election intervened as a factor in the negotiations during that year. All the potential Democratic candidates favoured a quantified target on C02 emissions on the European model. Clinton also said he would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004 (ECO, 18 February, 1991). This injected a dynamic into the US’s position, and it might well be possible to attribute some of the change in that position to this.

(Paterson, 1996: 87)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the international negotiations on a climate treaty had just begun. It was clear that the George HW Bush administration was opposed to strong action, but it wasn’t clear then perhaps, just how strongly they were (thanks to the success of the Sununu faction within the White House). The liberation of Kuwait by US forces and a “Coalition of the Willing” was underway, and a lot of people just assumed that George Herbert Walker Bush would definitely be a two-term president- that he would waltz it. So the Democrats who were putting themselves forward were doing it perhaps as long shots. They didn’t know at this point that Ross Perot would enter the race. 

Btw the numbers Clinton was suggesting were in excess of the “Toronto Target” proposals.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Democrats were all pushing for emissions reductions targets, as per “The American President” with Michael Douglas a few years later (for a good take down of that film, see Unclear and Present Danger podcast, btw). 

What happened next is Clinton managed to secure the nomination despite having to admit that he was a philanderer and a draft dodger. The darker allegations were largely swept under the carpet because he was the favored son. Clinton became president, for all the good that did anyone beyond business interests, and the rest is history.

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
Europe

December 16, 1991 – European Energy Charter becomes a Thing.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 16th, 1991 the European Energy Charter became The Law,

1991 16-17 European Energy Charter https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Legal/1991_European_Energy_Charter.pdf

The Energy Charter Treaty has been criticized for being a significant obstacle to enacting national policies to combat climate change, and for actively disincentivizing national governments from compliance with recent international climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement due to the threat of significant financial loss.

As of 2023, numerous countries have either left or have announced plans to leave the ECT. The European Union and Euratom took the final and formal step of exiting the Energy Charter Treaty, which will take effect one year after the depository has received the notification.[5]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that energy companies were eyeing up a very bright future. Lots of state-owned infrastructure was being sold off. And so there was money to be made. Yes, there was the minor irritation of the greenhouse issue. But the European Energy Charter was at hand. I don’t know who agreed it, whose idea it was, what problem that was trying to solve. What alternatives there were, what battles were fought, I need to find out, this is a research project. 

What we learn is that debates over how to regulate energy have an extremely long history. I’m not talking 30 years, I’m talking 100 and whatever. 

What happened next, well, the Energy Charter shunted along and then, in the early 2020s, the movement grew for it to be abolished. For reasons X, Y, and Zed. And the leading lights in this campaign were x, y, and Zed. And in 2024 the UK pulled out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Charter_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: 

December 16, 2002 – another knee-capping for renewable energy in Australia…

December 16, 2004 – “2 degrees of warming to be a catastrophe”

 December 16, 2008 – “The Australian” attacks on climate change

Categories
Australia Denial

 December 10, 1991 – denialist hosted by the “Tasman Institute”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, December 10th, 1991,

10 December 1991 Professor Robert Balling “Global Warming: The Facts behind the Heat” Tasman Institute seminar.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

denialists douchebag, carefully might still be alive at a think tank that was explicitly created to combat greenhouse issues. 

The context was that the Rio Earth Summit was coming up in June of 1992. And therefore, the spreading of bullshit lies and doubt among concerned political elites. And of course, the Tasman Institute gives these people a place to congregate, and they can then exchange notes and feel like they matter.

What we learn is that it matters to create doubt and confusion among elites. And it takes money.

What happened next, the denial-spewing of the Tasman Institute was important during the carbon tax battle of 1994-95, or noisy if not necessarily important; it was at least busy setting up rapid rebuttals of what was being proposed. The Tasman Institute was abandoned in 1997, because it was no longer needed, frankly.

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 10, 1978 – Academic workshop on “Climate/Society Interface” begins in Toronto…

December 10, 1985 – Carl Sagan testified to US Senators on #climate danger

December 10, 2006 – Shergold Group announced

Categories
Australia

October 24, 1991 – Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation launched

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 24th, 1991 AMEEF (Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation) was launched in Canberra by Martin W. Holdgate, then Director General of the IUCN,

(The Mining Review, Dec 1991 – p8-10.)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian mining industry had come in for a lot of flak, for environmental criminality, degradation, or whatever you want to call it. And this included the climate issue. 

They pushed back, calling their critics all the names under the sun, but they also needed some sort of positive front foot to put forward. And here we have the Australian Minerals and Energy Environment Foundation, which is one of those outfits that you can set up to dish out awards to yourself, and press releases and the occasional book. And this is a soothing lullaby to middle class people who want to believe that everything’s okay. Alongside this, there’s also been AMIC’s “Mining: it’s absolutely essential” campaign. They had done adverts and all the rest of it trying to TV adverts, newspaper adverts, etc.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are these basically hollow organisations made up of well-meaning, but probably naive or desperate scientists and bureaucrats. They do some good work, you could say, at the margins. They’re trying to change the system from within. It’s maybe better than sitting on your ass and complaining or making websites I don’t know. But if social movements had to tackle the Juggernaut, they need to see this as another tactic. But they won’t, because we’re not smart enough to solve the problems that we are causing with our smarts without cutting. 

What happened next I think it’s defunct? Website looks, ah, interesting. https://ameef.com.au/

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 24, 1967 – editor of Science warns about C02 build-up

October 24, 1983 – EPA releases study on sea-level rise

October 24, 2003 – Last flight of the Concorde

Categories
Denial Scientists

October 22, 1991 – Denialist says “no more than 1 degree of warming by end of 21st century”. Turd.

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 22nd 1991, the Cold Warrior physicist William Nierenberg, in the grip of Relevance Deprivation Syndrome and loving being part of the “George Marshall Institute” which he had co-founded, tells attendees of the World Petroleum Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina that there will be 

 no more than 1 degree of warming by the end of 21st century.

See Oreskes and Conway Merchants of Doubt page 189 (they say 1992, but I am fairly sure they’re wrong). See also Bolin 2007, page 72.

[from a chapter of Merchants of Doubt available here].

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the climate denialists were in full throat, trying to dampen enthusiasm for a climate treaty. The negotiations for this were going nowhere, but you never knew. So one way to seem “reasonable” was to say that if there was going to be any warming, it would be very, very mild. Nirenberg had been a lead author on the 1983 report by the National Academies of Science which had come out two days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s report, “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” The EPA report stands up. Nirenberg et al’s? It has aged like a glass of milk. 

Nirenberg was a tool and his prediction of “no more than one degree Celsius of warming by the end of the 21st century” is laughable and contemptible. And as a silly old man, he should have shown a bit of humility.

What I think we can learn from this is that there is such a thing as Relevance Deprivation Syndrome and that those of high status suffer the most from it.

What happened next I think Nirenberg kept being a denialist asshole till he died. Because God forbid that you admit that you were wrong. 

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.

See also

WORLD PETROLEUM CONGRESS 1991
Source: Energy Exploration & Exploitation , 1991, Vol. 9, No. 6 (1991), pp. 344-353 Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43753814

Also on this day: 

October 22, 1969 – Edmund Muskie mentions CO2 build up 

October 22, 1997 – US and Australian enemies of #climate action plot and gloat

Categories
Australia

October 10, 1991 – “United greens attack Hawke” for gross betrayal”

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 10th, 1991, on the one year anniversary of Australia setting an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target…

MELBOURNE: Accusing the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, of a “gross betrayal”, major conservation groups united yesterday to condemn the Federal Government’s proposed resource-security legislation.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said Mr Hawke was going ahead with the legislation despite a commitment last year that he would not.

He said the Prime Minister had made the pledge to himself and environmentalist-musician Peter Garrett, during a meeting between the three.

“He told us there would be no resource-security legislation. It was an unambiguous exchange of views and the intent was clear,” Mr Toyne said.

Anon. 1991. United greens attack Hawke. Canberra Times, October 11, p.10.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Ecologically Sustainable Development process was clearly being gutted. And Hawke was not defending it. It was a long time since the heady days of 1989, 1990 when people were voting green. Hawke had other things on his mind, such as a potential challenge from Paul Keating, and also the new Liberal leader, John Hewson with his so-called Fightback! neoliberal policy. So the green issues could go jump, basically.

What we learn is that for everything there is a season and seasons for environmental concern, rarely seem to last more than a year or two. And then the pull of greed and “must keep the economy bubbling along” comes back stronger than ever. And so it came to pass.

What happened next two months later, Hawke was gone. Paul Keating successfully challenged: he was not a fan of environmental issues. And especially the so-called amorphous greenhouse issue. And it’s fun when you read his memoirs or biographies, it just doesn’t crop up. It’s just staggeringly absent. 

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 10, 1977 – famous scientist Solly Zuckerman writes to top UK Civil Servant, warning about climate change

October 10, 1997 – Australian businesses say ‘yes’ to a decent Kyoto deal

Categories
Uncategorized

September 6, 1991 – Titan has a greenhouse effect…

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, September 6th, 1991,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 420ishppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that everyone in science of climate science and so forth, was aware of the whole greenhouse issue. And here was some nice science about the atmosphere of Titan, one of the moons of Saturn, and the greenhouse and reverse greenhouse or anti greenhouse effect on Titan. 

It didn’t, to my knowledge, have any bearing whatsoever on the politics of the time. That’s not why I’m talking about it; this site is already far too much about the politics and could do with a bit more science. So here we are. 

What happened next? People kept staring through telescopes figuring out the universe. Often quite expensive telescopes.

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 6, 2000 – Emission scheme defeated, it’s time for a gloating press release… #Climate #auspol

September 6, 2007 – “The Future of Coal under Cap and Trade” hearings…

Categories
Australia Business Responses Energy

August 18, 1991- Business Council of Australia says “fuck you, future generations,” rejects energy efficiency measures

Thirty three years ago, on this day, August 18th, 1991 the rich people told future generations (especially of poor people) to go fuck themselves.

The Business Council of Australia yesterday rejected proposals to make industry more energy-efficient.

The council criticised recommendations by the Federal Government’s taskforce on ecologically sustainable development to increase energy prices and impose new taxes, such as a tax on fuel with high carbon levels.

The council said the country’s future lay in continuing to develop its natural resources. Its executive director, Mr Peter McLaughlin, said the sustainable development process could significantly damage industry unless it adopted a “much more realistic tone”.

Peake, R. 1991. Business Rejects Lower Energy Use. The Age, 19 August, p.14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Business Council of Australia, the main club for big business, was shouting no at everything, a bit like Ian Paisley did. And even stuff that made absolute sense on any level of economic thinking was shouted down. I think there are two things going on there, around fear of a slippery slope, and also that regulation might be shown – gasp – to be beneficial.

What we learn; two things. First, in the midst of a culture war, the red mist or the green mist descends. And the other thing we need to remember is that all of the economic modelling that outfits like the BCA were relying on and commissioning, assumed perfect efficiency already. And no matter how many empirical examples were given to them, by Alan Pears and other energy efficiency advocates, if it didn’t fit the theory, it was discarded. It was ignored. And so if you believe that things are already perfectly energy efficient, agreeing to further energy efficiency measures is actually merely agreeing to wasteful government regulation in and of itself, which will then encourage more bureaucrats to breed in dark corners. 

What happened next, the BCA won, and the Australian housing industry is still miserably inefficient, of course. But the economic models that say it’s impossible for business to be inefficient, persist and have their death grip on the minds – if you can call them “minds” – of business elites. 

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 18, 1975 – it’s gonna get hotter, not cooler, say scientists

August 18, 1996, Ex-CSIRO #climate boss shows he has lost the plot

Categories
Science

August 13,1991 – clouds and silver linings

Thirty-three years ago, on this day, August 13th, 1991, we had our heads in the clouds.

Symposium on Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions. August 13-20, 1991, convened by the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, at the XX General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in Vienna.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists were looking at clouds because clouds matter. And you know, water vapour is a potent, albeit extremely short lived greenhouse gas. And this is in the context of the denialists launching their “It’s all water vapour” nonsense. 

What we learn is that there are always scientists saying “it could be x, it could be way it could be z.” And you know, sometimes they’re right. But sometimes it’s just ABC. 

What happened next? In 1992, we got the climate treaty. Which was piss weak thanks to Uncle Sam. 

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 13, 1882 – William “Coal Question” Jevons dies

August 13, 2007 – Newsweek nails denialists