Tag: 1991

Categories
Norway

August 26, 1991- We cannot delay says Brundtland

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 26th, 1991, the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland lays it out

Speaking to the industry at the international Environment Northern Seas Conference (sic.) in Stavanger in 1991, the prime minister stressed the danger of global warming:

“We cannot postpone dealing with global warming. We have enough scientific evidence about causes and probable effects to know that the costs of not acting will be very high and that a further delay of action will increase these costs even more”

.29 ; “Brundtland key note speech,” Environment Northern Seas International Conference and Exhibition, Stavanger, 26-30 August 1991,

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 Brundtland had been the poster-child for “development” as we then called it, in the 1980s. The “Our Common Future” process and report had popularised the term “sustainable development.”

The specific context was that the negotiations for a climate treaty were deadlocked because the United States wanted them to be – they were determined that whatever was (or wasn’t) signed in Rio the following year (i.e. June 1992) would be weak, and not place any commitments on the US.

What I think we can learn from this We knew 35 years ago that time was short.

What happened next – the Americans got their way – the UNFCCC contained no time tables or targets for reductions by rich countries. Meanwhile, Norway got rich exporting fossil fuels. Go figure. 

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 26, 1970 The Alkali Inspector’s report… 

August 26, 1973 – Sir Kingsley Dunham points out the C02 problem

August 26, 2003 – Australian “plan” to save biodiversity

August 26, 2006 – First “Climate Camp” begins

Categories
Australia

August 7, 1991 – “Draft Ecology Plans released”

Thirty four years ago, on this day, August 7th, 1991, the backlash against “greenhouse” and ecology action stepped up a gear.

The price of petrol would rise sharply under sweeping proposals for ecologically sustainable development revealed yesterday by a Government taskforce.

The ambitious plan to make industry sustainable by avoiding the overuse of resources was commissioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke.

The ecologically sustainable development working groups, which are writing policies for nine industries, released draft reports yesterday and called for public comment.

1991 Peake, R. 1991. Draft Ecology Plans Released. The Age, 8 August, p.15.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 353ppm. 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 there had been an upsurge in concern about environmental issues in the late 1960s, and the Federal Government had responded with the usual mix of new organisations (including a Minister for the Environment) and fine words. Everything had more or less died down/become predictable for a long time, until the late 1980s. In order to keep green groups onside for the Federal Election of March 1990 (it was going to be tight) the Hawke government had promised an “ecologically sustainable development policy process.”

The specific context was that the ESD had been a ‘success’ – in that the arguments for the status quo/no action had been exposed as lazy and half-baked. The problem was, the bureaucrats were in the wings, waiting to water down proposals, and feed tame journalists scare stories…

What I think we can learn from this is that we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. The same mechanisms are in place now, with an extra 80ppm in the atmosphere since then.

What happened next – Hawke was toppled by Paul Keating, who killed off all the green crap the way a lion kills another lion’s cubs when he acquires a new lioness. And the emissions kept climbing. 

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 7, 1979 – Cabinet Office wonk hopes to pacify greenies

August 7, 1995 – decent Australian journo reports on utter bullshit #climate economic “modelling”

August 7, 2003 – John Howard meets with business buddies to kill climate action

Categories
International processes Japan UNFCCC

June 23, 1991 – Japanese propose pledge and review

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 23rd, 1991,

At the start of the Geneva session, a German delegate complained that ‘during the last round of negotiations we used up a great deal of time discussing procedural questions and we were still unable to find answers to all of them “ (quoted in ECO, 20 June 1991). Eco noted that the climate negotiations finally started on 23 June, four days after the session opened. (ECO, 24 June 1991). Page 55 Paterson, M (1996)

On 23 June 1991, less than a year away from the Earth Summit in Rio where the final Climate Change Convention was supposed to be signed, talks finally began on the treaty itself. The first attempt to identify a route to consensus came from the Japanese delegation. They called their new idea “pledge-and-review”. It aimed to try and bridge the gap between the White House, with its ‘Just say no’ approach and the rest of the industrialized world, which sought legally binding commitments on emission, with specific targets and timetables. Under pledge-and-review, states would sign a convention devoid of any commitments at the Earth Summit. They would pledge what they could in the way of targets, and agree to review their commitments, and in the implementation of those commitments, at an interval to be agreed.

Page 39

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355.7ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was the US had been blocking negotiations with adamantine intransigence. The Japanese proposed a way forward, as did others.

What I think we can learn from this is that the “Pledge and Review” that we have – i.e. the Paris “Agreement” was always going to fail. People knew it was going to fail when it was first proposed in 1991.  

What happened next – the US opposition continued, and eventually the rest of the world blinked – the UN treaty signed in Rio had no targets, no timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. And guess what – emissions kept climbing, atmospheric concentrations kept climbing, temperatures went up, sea levels went up. Who knew?

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 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Philippines

June 15, 1991 – Pinatubo erupts

Thirty four years ago, on this day, June 15th, 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupts. It is the second largest volcanic eruption of the 20th Century

As per Wikipedia – 

“The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines‘ Luzon Volcanic Arc was the second-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century, behind only the 1912 eruption of Novarupta in Alaska. Eruptive activity began on April 2 as a series of phreatic explosions from a fissure that opened on the north side of Mount Pinatubo. Seismographs were set up and began monitoring the volcano for earthquakes. In late May, the number of seismic events under the volcano fluctuated from day-to-day. Beginning June 6, a swarm of progressively shallower earthquakes accompanied by inflationary tilt on the upper east flank of the mountain, culminated in the extrusion of a small lava dome.[4]

“On June 12, the volcano’s first spectacular eruption sent an ash column 19 km (12 mi) into the atmosphere. Additional explosions occurred overnight and the morning of June 13. Seismic activity during this period became intense. When even more highly gas-charged magma reached Pinatubo’s surface on June 15, the volcano exploded, sending an ash cloud 40 km (25 mi) into the atmosphere. Volcanic ash and pumice blanketed the countryside. Huge pyroclastic flows roared down the flanks of Pinatubo, filling once-deep valleys with fresh volcanic deposits as much as 200 m (660 ft) thick. The eruption removed so much magma and rock from beneath the volcano that the summit collapsed to form a small caldera 2.5 km (1.6 mi) across.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was volcanoes erupt!  See also 1816, the year without a summer (and a fun book called A Single Summer with LB, by Derek Marlowe, but I digress).

The specific context was the masking effect of the increased albedo probably reduced global temperatures for a bit.

“Global mean air temperatures were reduced, by up to 0·5°C at the surface and 0·6°C in the troposphere, for some months in mid-1992, in approximate accord with model predictions.” 

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(199605)16:5%3C487::AID-JOC39%3E3.0.CO;2-J

What I think we can learn from this – shit blows up. Also, lahars is a great word! (okay for scrabble but unfortunately laharic is not).

What happened next  The denialists latched onto volcanoes to confuse people about the causes of climate change. Because shitheads and assholes. 

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 15, 1994 – Canberra Times soils itself by publishing denialist claptrap – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Australia

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