Tag: 1993

Categories
Manchester United Kingdom

September 21, 1993 – Manchester says “no, not hot air”. Yeah, right.

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 21, 1993, the well-meaning but being-used people running the “Partnerships for Change” summit defended themselves from attack.

MANCHESTER, England — Organizers of a world environment summit designed as a sequel to the Rio Earth Summit Tuesday dismissed criticism that the international conference was producing more hot air than hard results.

Conference chairman Martin Holdgate defended the goal of the Partnerships for Change summit in Manchester, saying its purpose was to find practical solutions to international environment problems.

Haycock, G. 1993. Environment summit not flawed, say organizers

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that at the 1992 Earth Summit UK Prime Minister John Major had offered to host the follow-up conference. This then got split in two, with the “Partnerships for Change” thing, and then a Global Forum supposed to happen in June of the following year (it almost didn’t). Partnerships for Change was rendered effectively useless because the UNFCCC was ratified more quickly than had been expected and it was therefore obvious that the actual negotiations were going to start relatively soon (as they did in Berlin in March April of 1995).

Fun facts – at this Partnerships for Change someone stole the videotape of John Major’s welcome, and also John Gummer (Lord Deben to you) was herded onto a tram and not allowed off.

What I think we can learn from this – just variations of the circle jerk.

Whether or not any given meeting “achieved” its objectives or not is neither here nor there. It comes down to implementation by social movements and civil society organisations that can monitor implementation. Not got those? Then you are left with the usual boom and bust cycle and So It Goes.

xxx

What happened next –

 is that partnerships to change was quickly forgotten the global forum all so quickly forgotten and the cop process began in earnest.

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

References

Categories
Agnotology Denial Propaganda United States of America

September 14, 1993 – scientists suffer backlash (not outa thin air though)

Thirty years ago, on this day, September 14, 1993, the New York Times reports on industry efforts to intimidate scientists into shutting up.

As the Clinton Administration prepares to announce in the next few weeks a plan for controlling waste industrial gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, conservatives and industry groups have mounted a renewed assault on the idea that global warming is a serious and possibly catastrophic threat.

Stevens, W. 1993. Scientists Confront Renewed Backlash on Global Warming. New York Times, September 14.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clinton had already lost the BTU energy tax battle and was trying to recover some reputation by proposing other forms of CO2 legislation. But crucially those members of the coalition that had defeated the BTU were not downing weapons, they were up for another fight, to consolidate the break, as they say in tennis…

What I think we can learn from this is that at-will lose the opponents of action are gonna keep coming at you. And they learn from both their defeats and victories…

What happened next

The industry goons’ next famous victory was rendering Kyoto meaningless before it even happened.

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
International processes UNFCCC United Nations

August 27, 1993 – international negotiations edge forward

Thirty years ago, on this day, August 27, 1993, the post-Rio Earth Summit process was edging forward.

1993 End of INC negotiations at which – first tentative but informal discussions of the adequacy of the commitments contained in articles 4.2(a) and (b) of the convention (Paterson 1996, page 67)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in May 1992, following a prolonged fight, the Americans won an infamous victory by removing target and timetables from the text of the climate treaty. This victory was short-lived however because it was obvious that emissions reductions were going to be needed. And the international negotiating committee saw this by August of 1993 at which point various nations had already ratified the UNFCCC and it was well on the way to meeting the threshold for ratification, and therefore the first “Conference of the Parties” –  an international meeting which in the end took place in Berlin in March-April 1995.

What I think we can learn from this is that blocking victories doesn’t necessarily last terribly long – you can take something off the agenda but it will crawl and slither its way back onto the agenda whether it’s good or bad. And therefore the work of containing and corralling and controlling is never-ending. The kind of people who wrote The Powell memorandum, they understand that. And they have to the deep pockets to fund a culture war. Progressive groups, because they tell themselves the myth of the neutral State and of the information deficit, are constantly surprised that they have to keep fighting. Also, they’re also, almost by definition, worse off for funding.

What happened next

At the Berlin meeting in 1995 the Berlin Mandate was agreed, meaning that rich countries were going to have to cut their emissions. Or rather, they were going to have to turn up to the third COP with a number in their heads for emissions reductions.  They did this. It was inadequate, and then the USA and Australia walked away.

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

July 6, 1993 – Australian bipartisanship on climate? Not really…

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 6, 1993, the Canberra Times reported on how everyone had a beef with the Keating government on climate…

The agreement between Commonwealth and state and territory governments on broad environmental issues was widely criticised yesterday by both sides of the debate during an environmental law conference in Canberra

The chief protagonists were Phillip Toyne, former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation and now Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Centre for Environment law, and Dr Brian O’Brien, a Penh based consultant and physicist and former chairman of the WA Environmental Protection Authority. 

1993 Campbell, R. 1993. Both sides criticise green agreement. Canberra Times, 6 July, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labour government of Paul Keating had just won the “unwinnable” election of 1993, despite the economy having been in the toilet. The ALP had been silent on the greenhouse issue, as had the Liberals, and the concern of 1988-1991 a distant memory.

What I think we can learn from this is that you can have two people attacking a government from “opposite perspectives” (so Toyne is a greenie and O’Brien as “nothing to see here everything is okay” kind of guy) but that doesn’t mean that the government is right. It can simply mean, as it does in this case, that one lot of critics are simply wrong. 

But we so often take triangulation as the safest course. And of course, “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.”

What happened next

Toyne ended up as a civil servant, albeit briefly, trying to get a carbon tax through. O’Brien kept trading on his time with NASA. And being an ass. The carbon dioxide kept accumulating.

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
Denial

July 2, 1993. Denialists versus the facts, again.

Thirty years ago, on this day, July 2, 1993, the FT reported on a conference where a long-suffering climate expert tried to correct the childish bullshit of Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels

Conference Report: Global warming – fact or claim? FT Energy Newsletters – Power Europe July 2, 1993 Section: Pg. 3 The hothouse spectre of global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has become a driving force in the environmental policies of many countries. Flohn versus Lindzen and Michaels.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the UNFCCC had been agreed the previous year, and ratification by enough member states to make it a “thing” was proceeding quicker than had been thought. Meanwhile, the IPCC was working on its next assessment report. And the denialists kept on going.

What I think we can learn from this

Idiots going to idiot.

The debating technique known as a Gish Gallop.

What happened next

Lindzen and Michaels kept being idiots.

Flohn died in 1997.

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
France International processes

June 16, 1993 – Oooh, an international conference….

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 16, 1993, an OECD/IEA conference “International Conference on the Economics Of Climate Change” ended in Paris.

What a doomed species we are.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The Earth Summit happened. And now everyone was gonna have to figure out the economics of climate change. The IEA and the OECD were good venues for this, both of them with one foot in the technology. So see for examplethe carbon disposal symposium in Oxford earlier in the year. And IEA had been playing around with the science since well, February of 1981, at the latest. IEA had been looking ideas about what would you do about the economics of climate change? This stuff had been discussed as far back as the mid 1970s by Nordhaus for IASSA 

What I think we can learn from this

And the same sets of ideas get moved around the chessboard. And then a new game starts and they set the chess pieces up. And round and round and round it goes. Questions of political and social cultural power, are, of course, bracketed or sidestepped altogether, because that would be normative and not easily quantified. And might take you towards things like new international economic orders, an old unpopular (with the rich) idea from the 1970s…

What happened next

The carbon dioxide kept accumulating. And the economists and so forth, kept flying from conference to conference. 

See also – Stern admits he under-estimated speed of changes

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
United States of America

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton runs up the white flag on BTU tax 

President Bill Clinton and his allies in Congress confirmed the obvious on Tuesday: There will be wholesale revisions in his five-year budget plan, including major changes in a proposed energy tax.

Negotiations are continuing with dissident Democrats in the Senate over the details as the president fights to collect enough votes from his own party to pass his plan.

Despite the impending changes, which will include more spending cuts and fewer taxes, none of the Senate’s 43 Republicans is expected to vote for the plan, their leaders said.

On the chopping block is Mr. Clinton’s proposal to tax the heat content of fuels – the so-called Btu tax.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clinton and Gore had underestimated the strength and guile of the opposition to the BTU. And key Democratic senators had been flipped.

What I think we can learn from this is that the bad guys are very good at what they do. Money buys the smartest people, or the ones with the best low cunning.

What happened next

Congresspeople who had voted for it lost in the 1994 elections “got BTU’d”. Did the Australian bad guys learn from this? Never saw it mentioned but I wasn’t looking.

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

May 26, 1993 – more “green jobs” mush

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 26, 1993, there was more hold-hands-and-sing kumbaya stuff about green jobs.

This report arises from the growing recognition by governments, industry and the community that ecologically sustainable development offers many opportunities for profitable investment and therefore for employment growth, as well as being essential for ecological survival. The community is also faced with the pressing task of finding opportunities to create more jobs and the environment industry is an obvious place to look.

The inquiry was proposed to the then Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories [Ros Kelly] by the Committee and the Minister then formally referred the matter for inquiry to the Committee on 26 May 1993.

 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Labor government of Paul Keating was extremely hostile to environmentalists, and environmentalism. One way of kind of sort of squaring the circle and giving the least radical greenies something to do, and keep them from making common cause with the radicals, was to set up things like Green Jobs Inits and have Parliamentary processes and investigations. This gets people busy giving evidence and it gives them the frisson of addressing a politician. And basically just keeps them out of mischief. 

The report when it comes out, if it’s one that you can live with, you do a press release, and the speech and the “grip and grin” with the author. If it’s not, you release it on a Friday afternoon, ahead of a bank holiday or a big sporting event. And you play a dead bat in the media. More generally, it’s a win win.

What I think we can learn from this

The game is the game and the system (“man”) has ways of coping with potential upsets.

What happened next

The Green Jobs unit went nowhere. Keating had two big significant events on the environment in 1994/5. One was the loggers’ blockade of Canberra and the other was the carbon tax being defeated and the economic modelling of ABARE being used to block ambition for Australia at the international negotiations. 

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
Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation United States of America

May 19, 1993 – President Clinton begins to lose the BTU battle…

Thirty years ago, on this day, May 19, 1993

Senator David Boren comes out against BTU tax, after Burson Marstellar astroturf campaign (see Agrawala and Andressen, 1999: 470)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

There had been enormous – and ultimately successful – local lobbying efforts. Boren had been picked off, in a kind of Serengeti strategy thing, but in the political sphere rather than the scientific. And this really spells the end for Clinton’s BTU. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the opponents of climate action, smart, determined, strategic and well funded. These characteristics do not necessarily apply to the proponents of action, unfortunately. 

What happened next

Clinton had to kill the BTU energy tax. And that was basically it for Clinton and domestic climate action (imo). It also meant that the opponents of action really had good proof of concept, and presumably, the Australians were looking at this and saying, “that’s how it’s done.”

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 Carbon Pricing

 April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 28, 1993, after returning from Washington, Australia’s environment minister changed her tune.

 Australia would watch closely the international trend towards an energy tax and the effect such a tax would have on curbing greenhouse gases, the Minister for Environment, Ros Kelly, said yesterday.

AAP, 1993. Aust to monitor energy-tax experience: Kelly. Canberra Times, 29 April, p. 15 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ros Kelly had just come back from a visit to the United States where President Clinton had given her a shout out at a press conference where he talked about his BTU tax proposal, which he had launched in February of that year.  Kelly had in 1992, been explicit in saying a carbon tax was off the table for Australia (see here). 

So this represented a bit of a turnaround, and will have alerted anti-climate people in the BCA and AMIC  to the need to get their ducks in a row ahead of another battle.  It will have been another reason to set up the “Industry Greenhouse Network”…. 

What I think we can learn from this is that issues or solutions that get dumped can be brought back because of the variety of political and personal factors. And this will be noticed because anti climate action activists remain vigilant, of course; that’s their job.

What happened next

Kelly didn’t last much longer as Environment Minister because of a scandal. Her replacement, Graham Richardson didn’t last. Because well, Graham Richardson. But then the next one, John Faulkner expressed interest in bringing in a carbon price or at least a basic carbon tax. And then the battle was on again 

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.