Categories
Ignored Warnings

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, June 3, 1994, news reached the colonies of an event that had actually happened on Wednesday June 1… – Greenpeace International’s release of ‘The Climate Timebomb’.

Anon, 1994. World is facing a climate time bomb: Greenpeace. Canberra Times, 3 June, page 7

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360.9ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Greenpeace trying to get people to understand that the increasing number of weather disasters and extremes are in fact a climate time bomb. The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change had been ratified. And by enough countries the UNFCCC itself the text was no great shakes and Greenpeace was well aware that more needed to be done. And were trying to get insurers and reinsurers interested. 

What I think we can learn from this is that using “natural disasters” to convince people that climate is a pressing issue hasn’t really worked. Because people have short memories, because of shifting baselines, because people don’t want to stare into the abyss. And because until recently attributing any specific disaster or event to climate was problematic at best. 

What happened next

Greenpeace kept trying to do what it could on climate. And you can have criticisms – I do – but they’ve been on the side of the angels as opposed to the fossil fuel shills.

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 IPCC Science

November 21, 1994 – Skeptic invited to engage with IPCC (Spoiler, he doesn’t)

On this day, November 21, an invitation to climate “skeptic” Pat Michaels to take part in the IPCC’s second assessment report was sent by a lead author, Tom Wigley.

“Patrick Michaels was invited to contribute to Chapter 8. He declined to do so. One of the lead authors of Chapter 8, Tom Wigley, wrote to Pat Michaels on November 21, 1994, and on February 21, 1995, soliciting comments on the portrayal of Michaels’s Franklin Institute paper in a December 8, 1994 version of Chapter 8. Prof. Michaels did not respond to these requests.”

Gelbspan, R. (1998)   Page 235 [Compare to Saudis not attending ad hoc group that Houghton organised at end of 1995 in Madrid!!  Easiest way is to not turn up, then continue sniping!!]

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 359ppm. At time of writing it was 417ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

The first IPCC assessment report, in 1990, had come under attack by the usual suspects of oil industry lobbyists and various goons (see here).  The climate denial machine geared up, knowing that they would need to get ahead of the game for the second assessment report, to weaken and discredit in advance.

Why this matters. 

We need to remember that the scientists did provide the information. The politicians chose to ignore it. The social movements were not good enough – they were outgunned and outspent. The propaganda blitzes, and the institutional biases away from truth and sanity were too strong.

What happened next?

Michaels declined Wigley’s offer.

The second assessment report came out, and sure enough, the denialist machine launched as ferocious attack on it as it could manage.

Categories
Australia

October 31, 1994 – Four Corners reports on Greenhouse Mafia activity

On this day, October 31 in 1994, the ABC explained what was going on with Australian energy and climate policy.

“ABC Four Corners special on Monday when veteran ABC science reporter Gavin Gilchrist exposes an industry that has “failed dismally to match both the words and sentiment of national greenhouse response strategy”. Gilchrist looks at the Victorian model of electricity reform and the “white-anting” of national minimum energy performance standards – or MEPS – by manufactures and government.” 

Fries. P. 1994. Insert. The Australian Financial Review, 28 October, p.3.    

See also this in SA Greenhouse News #3

“At the ANZMEC meeting in September 1994, Ministers considered whether to proceed with mandatory MEPS, but did not agree to do so because of the position taken by the Victorian Minister for Energy, who was opposed to regulations of any kind, and who did not believe that the case for mandatory MEPS was strong enough to overcome the preference for ‘market forces’. This was a clear case of ideology getting in the way of rational policy making.”

And

The industry has since pointed out publicly (on the ABC’s Four Corners program on 31 October 1994) that the only practical and fair way to implement MEPS is through regulation, something which was never in dispute in all of the negotiations leading up to the ANZMEC meeting. The minimum energy performance standards proposal was ANZMEC’s first opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the NGRS, and it conspicuously failed to do so. Whatever happens with MEPS now, the episode has demonstrated to the public and to the appliance industry how tenuous is the ANZMEC commitment to the NGRS, and how easy it is for individual State Ministers to delay or even derail its key programs. 

from Feb 1995 Can the Future be Rescued report by The Australia Institute]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 356.21ppm. At time of writing it was 421ishppm.

The context was this – There was a battle going on around whether the Keating government would introduce a carbon tax (it didn’t).

Why this matters. 

We have known the truth, it has been broadcast (literally).

What happened next?

Gilchrist did some very solid reporting for the Sydney Morning Herald about what the “Australian Industry Greenhouse Network” was up to, and wrote a great book – “The Big Switch”.

Categories
United Kingdom

January 25, 1994: UK government releases “Sustainable Development Strategy”

. On this day, the United Kingdom government, led by John Major, released its “Sustainable Development Strategy”, which was going to return the UK carbon emissions levels to 1990 levels by the year 2000. And this was achieved, yep, great… except it was all part of the dash for gas and de-industrialization (off-shoring production).

What happened next? The UK government, by this time had already killed off a European Community-wide carbon tax proposed by the Danes for two reasons (at least) – because of the political difficulties around Maastricht and also pit closures. 

And the incoming Blair Government, set itself a 20% reduction target by 2010 because it thought this would be relatively easy. 

However, by 2000 it was obvious (or rather, the late-lamented Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution pointed out) that emissions reductions weren’t going to continue, and would in fact increase. Cue much talk of nuclear and CCS. Of course.

HMG still not doing nearly as well as it would like to say that it is doing. We have been making bold promises about climate action, taking credit for accidents, and dodging the blame for everything else.