Thirty-three years ago, on this day, June 8th, 1991, the UK Minister for the Environment, Michael Heseltine, went on a (futile) mission to the US to try to get them to be less of a blocker in the negotiations around the climate treaty that had to be agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of June 1992.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the climate negotiations were upon us in full flow. The UK had just adopted the stabilisation target at least. But it was clear that the administration of George HW Bush was digging in its heels and generally being douchey. Environment Minister Michael Heseltine was therefore dispatched to see what could be done.
What we learn from this is that even under John Major the UK was trying to be less terrible than the Bush outfit. And they’re always these behind the scenes games. It is actually one of those little incidents that would be nice to cover. Heseltine was fresh from challenging Margaret Thatcher for the leadership and precipitating her departure.
What happened next? The American anti climate clique went round spreading bullshit about Heseltine and there was actually very unusually a public rebuke of this. See questions in Parliament about the July 12th 1991 article in The Times. For all the good it did. And then less than a year later, the pantomime ended with the British dispatching another envoy, Michael Howard this time, to raise the white flag on behalf of the Europeans. Targets and timetables were dead. A Tale of Two envoys…
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.
Thirty three/two years ago, on this day, May 7th, 1991 and 1992, the Australian leader of the opposition’s trajectory shows an early (and permanent) retreat by “conservative” parties on the biggest question of the twenty-first century. Such leadership!!
For those coming late to the party: through the 1970s and 1980s a few politicians, from Liberals, Nationals and Labor, had warned of climate problems. The issue “blew up” in 1988 and 1989. The Liberals went to the federal election of March 1990 with a more ambitious carbon dioxide reduction target than the ALP. Yes, you read that right, more ambitious.
But then, as we see below, the new Liberal Leader, John Hewson, changed his tune (meanwhile, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who had no love for environmentalists or environmental issues. Whatsoever). So, with that said, check out the two quotes, a year apart.
The environment could be a victim of the move to reform Federal-state relations, Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Phillip Toyne said in Canberra last week.
He said environment groups see the special Premiers’ conference on federalism as posing a threat to a national ecologically sustainable development strategy.
“We think that substantial erosion of progress in the regulation and control of environmental management could be taking place,” he said.
“Much of the work is at departmental level, with the chairs of all of the various working groups coming from state bureaucracies.”
On Tuesday [7th], Prime Minister Bob Hawke met with the ESD roundtable, the umbrella body that has a general oversight of the work of the ESD working groups. About 30 people were there, including representatives from the greens, industry, the states, welfare agencies and some federal ministers.
Toyne said later: “I thought that there were some rather glib comments on the progress of the exercise.”
“it is absolutely extraordinary that there has been almost no scrutiny of the process by the media, very little information has reached us, and yet it could be profoundly affecting not only the outcomes for ecologically sustainable development but also many other aspects of national policy.”
Anon, 1991. Environment “A Victim of Reform”. Green Week, May 14, p.5.
And exactly a year later…
And in 1992, Dr Hewson captured the full flavour of the initiative in a speech to the Australian Mining Industry Council annual dinner on May 7, 1992, when he described it as sustainable development with a capital D. This move is really an exercise in fast-tracking, with an absolute limit of 12 months on government processes of evaluation, failing which the project gets automatic go-ahead.
This is dangerous, based as it is on the assumption that red, black or green tape is simply frustrating developments, rather than complex issues being carefully evaluated. There is also a quite dishonest attempt to list a long list of stalled projects without acknowledging that many had not proceeded for commercial reasons.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
This is another one of those “What a difference a year makes” Pivotal, blah blah blahs.
The context is that in 1991 the ecologically sustainable development process was underway. Yes, the greenhouse issue wasn’t as sexy as it had been because people have gotten bored. And there’s also been the small matter of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, and the military response. But it was still a “hot” issue. And there were concerns about things possibly being watered down. Fast forward to exactly a year later and the Liberals have given up on trying to get green votes. They are still feeling the “betrayal” of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
John Hewson, who had seen off Bob Hawke, and looked like he was going to defeat Paul Keating (because it was before the wedding cake gate), felt that he didn’t have to make the same green noises that people did a couple of years previously.
What we learn is that the mood music changes and that you can track it. And this was the time when, if there had been real leadership, we would have stuck to issues, but there wasn’t. So we didn’t. And here we are,
What happened next. The Liberals came to power in 1996, under John Howard, and dialled the indifference/hostility of the Keating gang up to 11. Or 12. 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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, April 9th, 1991, ex Federal Treasurer Peter Walsh shows he is basically a demented thug.
The former Minister for Finance, Peter Walsh, attacked Australia’s major conservation groups yesterday saying he hoped Australia’s largest company, BHP, would use common law to bankrupt Greenpeace for interfering with seismic testing.
Senator Walsh said the major environmental groups were trying to subvert economic development — an objective they had pursued with some success.
Launching a book which emphasised market solutions to environmental problems, Senator Walsh said extreme elements of the conservation movement were more concerned with “destroying” industrial capitalism than protecting the environment.
“One wonders how long a country which is unquestionably some distance down the Argentinian road will continue to allow organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation to subvert economic growth, and particularly the growth in the traded goods sector, to the extent that they do,” he said.
A long-time critic of the conservation movement, Senator Walsh fired a broadside at Greenpeace over its recent campaign to stop BHP’s oil exploration in Bass Strait. The organisation argued that the seismic tests would disturb whales which breed in the area.
He accused Greenpeace of hypocrisy in trying to stop oil exploration using petrol-powered rubber dinghies and a diesel-powered mother-ship.
“I hope that BHP sues Greenpeace under the common law and collects damages large enough to bankrupt the organisation.”
The book, Markets, Resources and theEnvironment, was produced by the Tasman Institute which Senator Walsh acknowledged many in the Labor Party considered “only marginally less obnoxious” than the League of Rights, or the Queensland National Party.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that there were battles going on over the making of environmental policy. The Ecologically Sustainable Development process was unfolding. There were negotiations, that Australia was part of, for the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit the following year.
Walsh was no longer in Parliament, and so was less constrained and was becoming the batshit crazy loon in public that he probably had been for a while. And he was hoping that mining giant BHP would beat up on Greenpeace. BHP was a bit more canny than that. Greenpeace was fat with new membership, (but it couldn’t keep them and would plummet. afterwards).
What happened next? Well, Walsh went on to be one of the founding members of the Lavoisier Group. Bless it.
What we can learn from this is that recently retired politicians have stood up resentments that they like to get off their chest, and it makes good newspaper copy. And they’re suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome… So you get to see fireworks, at least for a while.
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.
Thirty three years ago, on this day, February 22nd, 1991, a super-annuated physicist suffering Relevance Deprivation Syndrome, was boasting of his influence (probably fairly accurately, sad to say).
In a February 1991 letter to the vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, Robert Jastrow crowed , “It is generally considered in the scientific community that the Marshall report was responsible for the Administration’s opposition to carbon taxes and restrictions on fossil fuel consumption. Quoting New Scientist magazine, he reported that the Marshall Institute “is still the controlling influence in the White House.”
(Oreskes and Conway, 2010:190) [letter dated 22nd February]
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that from 1989 the George C. Marshall Institute and the Global Climate Coalition had been leading a public assault on the science and scientists. They were winning some victories, undeniably. Jastrow was motivated to overplay the George C. Marshall Institute’s influence but then again, he was largely right.
What we learn is that past their sell-by-date, physicists, overconfident who backed the wrong horses (see Jastrow in 1978, banging on about another ice age) are still useful to those who would like to stop something happening. You borrow their prestige, you create the uncertainty and especially doubt in the public mind, and you just slow everything down. And that’s what happened here.
What happened next. Team Fuckwit won the crucial battles in 1991/1992. Targets and timetables were excluded from the UNFCCC text. And Team Fuckwit kept winning battles and made a lot of money for rich people who wanted to stay rich or get richer. And there you have it.
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.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 9, 1991, an Australian politics and economics commentator Ross Gittins is, well, Ross Gittins…
MY suspicion was right: the column I wrote a few weeks back about the greenhouse effect drew a sheaf of letters from readers. I write on lots of controversial subjects, but none sends the readers scurrying to their word-processors like a mention of the environment.
I argued that, since the greenhouse problem is global and Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is tiny, there isn’t much we can do about it in the absence of an international agreement.
The letters were almost universally disapproving; some weren’t too polite about it. So are my views quite out of step with the Herald’s readers’? I doubt it. People who violently disagree with something they read in the paper are more inclined to put pen to paper than those who don’t.
Gittins, R. 1991. Thou shalt not stuff up the environment. Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October, p. 15.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the green moment that hit the headlines in 1988 was fading, and fading fast – even though the problems were real and getting realer. Meanwhile, Gittins needing to fill a newspaper column and get a rise out of his readers, was on display here
What I think we can learn from this is that the conversation was never very sophisticated morally or intellectually and we’ve probably gone backwards thanks to dementia, reaction formations, organised denial, you name it.
What happened next
Gittins kept scribbling, people got to read him. The emissions kept climbing. 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.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, July 22, 1991, the Australian radio program “The Science Show” (ABC Radio) had two climate denialists on. Oh joy.
(See Robyn Williams letter to The Australian, 1991, Dec 6, p.10).
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 356.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the Science Show had from its very beginnings been aware of the dangers of climate change. So Ritchie Caleer, who had been writing about the problem emphatically since the late 60s (and had been aware of it since the early 1950s), was a guest in 1975 on the first episode.
In 1991, the politics of it national of climate, internationally and nationally were getting hot. The negotiations for a climate treaty to be signed in June of 92 were going nowhere thanks to the resolute intransigence and blocking of the United States administration.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process was reaching its final stages, drafts were being written ahead of release within a couple of months. I don’t know if the Science Show had pro-climate action guests the week before the week after. But on this occasion, they had two idiots. One was Bill Nirenberg, one of the Jasons who you can read about in Merchants of Doubt. He had helped to write the 1983 NAS “changing climate” report, saying, “Oh, it’ll be long term and there’s nothing we can do anyway.” The other guest was Brian O’Brien, one of the more active climate deniers on the Australian scene. He was able to play on the fact that he had been the scientist for NASA, as if this somehow gave him expertise on climate science. O’Brian had written various screeds about climate policy, especially attacking the “Toronto Target”.
What I think we can learn from this is that even the best media has to allow dodgy people on because if you don’t, it is “censorship”. And especially 31 years ago, there was still need to “hear both sides of the argument.” And to be fair, I don’t know how Robyn Williams dealt with that at the time, maybe he did a very good job of sending a public health warning to listeners.
What happened next
The ecologically sustainable development process was killed off by new Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and his henchmen within the Australian Federal bureaucracy. The Rio Earth Summit, rubberstamped a piss-weak climate treaty, i.e. the Americans won. And in long term, everybody 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.
Twenty seven years ago, on this day, May 13, 1991, a UK
“Britain’s last Secretary of State for Energy wrote in May 1991 that ‘the environment has to be a priority in shaping global resources plans’ and expressed official support for nuclear power as an insurance policy against global warming, also pleading for higher prices for fossil fuels”
Boehmer‐Christiansen (1995; 184)- citing Wakeham, J. 1991. Nurturing a greener policy for world energy. The Times, 13 May.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was the United Kingdom was trying to paint itself as environmentally responsible both domestically and internationally, and also being a big fan of nuclear. So, nothing has changed.
What I think we can learn from this
The political games keep getting played. The players change often. The rules change slowly. Ultimately the game Remains the Same the losers future generations, other species.
What happened next
UK policy making on climate and energy remained pretty disconnected until the 2003 Energy White Paper and even then things have been seriously contested and a classic mess since then. The opportunities to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy have been mostly missed, thanks to an ongoing obsession with nuclear power and generalised animosity towards the measures you would need to take to tackle climate change. This is hardly a surprise.
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.
Thirty two years ago, on this day, January 10, 1991, the New York Times ran a story that has become very very familiar.
The earth was warmer in 1990 than in any other year since people began measuring the planet’s surface temperature, separate groups of climatologists in the United States and Britain said yesterday.
A third group, in the United States, reported record temperatures from one to six miles above the earth’s surface. These were recorded from balloons from December 1989 through November 1990.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .
The context was that the US had finally been forced to agree to take part in negotiations for a world climate treaty (what became, in June 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The denial and delay campaigns were kicking into gear (the so-called ‘Global Climate Coalition’ doing its predatory delay thing). Part of the context for the whole climate awakening was how warm the 1980s had been (mild by today’s standards, of course).
What I think we can learn from this
The “warmest year ever” meme does not, on its own, ‘wake up the sheeple’. If you want to have effective long-term action, you need effective long-term social movement organisations.
On this day, December 19 in 1991 a close observer of the negotiations for a global climate treaty warned that it might end up being useless.
Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund lamented that ‘We remain confident that the texts of a Convention will emerge. However, we are not at all confident it will be an effective Convention. Those square brackets exist for the purpose of defending the supposed interests of countries. But in so doing they may yet commit us to global catastrophe (quoted in ECO, 19 December 1991).
Paterson, M (1996) page 58
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 351ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
The negotiations for a global climate treaty had finally begun – despite the best efforts of the US to stop them from happening at all – in 1991. And it instantly became obvious that Uncle Sam was just gonna delay and block, block and delay…
Why this matters.
If you know your history, you will know that … you’re history
On December 2 1991, the Australian policy experiment of “Ecologically Sustainable Development” basically ended, just over a year after it began. It had been set up because the ALP’s Bob Hawke needed small-g green (the Greens didn’t exist yet) votes to win the 1990 election. The ESD process had rattled along,and there’s lots of interesting stories (see AOY posts here and here).
Well, with Hawke mortally wounded (politically), and the Fight Back! by fossil interests (including right-wing Labour and Federal bureaucrats – this isn’t just Those Evil Capitalists Over There), the ESD’s days were numbered.
“The Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups final report received a “cautious welcome” yesterday, although there were fears the Government might not act to implement the report’s recommendations.
Union, conservation, business and political groups were generally pleased with the 272-page report which contains more than 300 recommendations for measures to achieve development which is consistent with preservation of the environment. The report was issued yesterday by the heads of the working group, Professor Stuart Harris and Professor David Throsby. However, some groups believed the report had “not gone far enough.”
The president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Martin Ferguson, said the working group process had been “very useful” for setting an agenda but not for “developing solutions to Australia’s economic and environmental problems.” [THAT? Martin Ferguson??? Yes, that one… ]”
“When the chairmen released their work on Monday [2nd December], they took the opportunity to say the Opposition’s plan to cut the price of petrol would make it harder for the Government to meet its targets on reduction of greenhouse gases. Reducing the price of petrol by up to 19 cents a litre, as proposed by Dr John Hewson, could lead to greater use of petrol, in contrast to the theme of the Ecologically Sustainable Development taskforce of reducing energy use.”
Peake, R. 1991. A Tapestry That Weaves The Green With The Gold. The Age, 4 December, p.13.
[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 355ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]
The context was this –
Why this matters.
There was a time ‘rational’ (or at least sane and understanding of limits) policymaking could be cosplayed. Now, not so much. We should remember where we failed for the last consequential time. It will soothe us so much as everything falls apart.
What happened next?
The next Prime Minister, Paul Keating, buried the ESD. The next Prime Minister after him, Honest John Howard, buried Australia’s chance of responding to climate change in ways that could have saved something from the wreckage. And here we are.
