Tag: 1995

Categories
Denial United States of America

November 16, 1995 – another skirmish in the IPCC war

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 16, 1995, a denialist douche-bag testilies…

On November 16, 1995, Patrick J. Michaels, an associate professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives, on issues related to human-induced (or anthropogenic) climate change.

Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 202

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Michaels and a small band of others had for reasons of their own and (in Michaels case, money and attention), decided to attack and smear climate science and climate scientists. And in 1995 the big effort was to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to anyone who would listen. And they had enough Republican friends, especially in the House of Reps and Senate, to be able to do what the proper scientists were doing, which was create venues for discourse. 

What I think we can learn from this is that “ideal speech communities” can get hijacked and perverted by lying liars. The lying liars could never admit that they were wrong. Too demanding, emotionally.

What happened next

The attacks on the IPCC and in this case, especially Ben Santer continued, but they reached such a high vicious pitch that members of the Global Climate Coalition started to worry about their reputations and started to leave. But it didn’t matter. The denialists had won.

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
Uncategorized

November 10, 1995 – Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni executed

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, nine men, including the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa were executed.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Nigeria was a brutal dictatorship with local warlords making loads a money. Ogoni were getting screwed.

The military dictatorship in Nigeria had decided to execute a bunch of Ogoni leaders who were protesting against the despoilation and the extractivism that had been going on for decades as funded by what has perpetrated by outfits like our friends at Shell who were having a rough time of it in the second half of the 1990s. 

What I think we can learn from this

That the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

What happened next

Nigeria stopped being an official actual military dictatorship. The shituation for the Ogoni is not hugely better.

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

  • Canadian author J. Timothy Hunt‘s The Politics of Bones (September 2005), published shortly before the 10th anniversary of Saro-Wiwa’s execution, documented the flight of Saro-Wiwa’s brother Owens Wiwa, after his brother’s execution and his own imminent arrest, to London and then on to Canada, where he is now a citizen and continues his brother’s fight on behalf of the Ogoni people. Moreover, it is also the story of Owens’ personal battle against the Nigerian government to locate his brother’s remains after they were buried in an unmarked mass-grave.[93]
  • Ogoni’s Agonies: Ken Saro Wiwa and the Crisis in Nigeria (1998), edited by Abdul Rasheed Naʾallah, provides more information on the struggles of the Ogoni people[94]
  • Onookome Okome’s book, Before I Am Hanged: Ken Saro-Wiwa—Literature, Politics, and Dissent (1999)[95] is a collection of essays about Wiwa
  • In the Shadow of a Saint: A Son’s Journey to Understanding His Father’s Legacy (2000), was written by his son Ken Wiwa.
  • Saro-Wiwa’s own diary, A Month and a Day: A Detention Diary, was published in January 1995, two months after his execution.
  • In Looking for Transwonderland – Travels in Nigeria, his daughter Noo Saro-Wiwa tells the story of her return to Nigeria years after her father’s murder.
Categories
Denial Germany

November 10, 1995 – moronic “Leipzig Declaration” by moronic denialists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, November 10, 1995, idiot denialists do idiocy in Leipzig

1995 Nov. 9-10, 1995

Leipzig Declaration International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany and follow up on on Nov. 10-11, 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.phptitle=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the denialists had been in full throat since 1989. In Leipzig, a bunch of denialists were making one of their periodic idiotic declarations that they don’t believe in 19th century physics.

And because it contains doctors and professors and maybe even a couple of Nobel Prize winners in different fields, it’s gonna get some media attention. It’s gonna get quoted in various Parliaments and so it came to pass. It’s a tactic that they use to try and puff themselves up, to pretend that they have some credibility. It sounds scientific, it sounds responsible and adult. But it’s actually just the petulant musings of a bunch of damaged boys (and it is mostly boys) who don’t like the fact that there are consequences at a physical level for their dreams of avarice and domination. Yeah, I’m all out of sympathy today. 

On the same day, the Leipzig twunts were being rewarded for their cowardice, a bunch of brave black people were being murdered for their courage. 

What I think we can learn from this

you can rely on rich old white privilege men to have a higher fuck Todd potential, quote quotient. You can rely on military dictatorships to murder Earth defenders.

What happened next

The denialists kept denying; the Leipzig Declaration was joined by the Oregon petition. All part of the larger asshole manoeuvres. And future generations continued to get screwed. 

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

May 12, 1995 – Another bet between cornucopians and realists

Twenty eight years ago, on this day May 12, 1995, the bet between those who think Technology Will Save Us and those who think that, you know, there are limits, kept going.

The Simon APS News article offers to bet environmentalists “…that any trend in material human welfare will improve rather than get worse.” This article echoes an editorial essay entitled “Earth’s Doomsayers Are Wrong” that appeared in the 12 May 1995 San Francisco Chronicle open forum. Simon then said that “Every measure of material and environmental welfare in the U.S. and the world has improved…” and that “All long run trends point in exactly the opposite direction of the doomsayers” Thus he implied that few, if any people would likely accept his bet since for the past 25 years the pessimists have been “proven entirely wrong.” When my Stanford colleague, Paul Ehrlich, and I took up his challenge1 and named 15 environment-related trends we were willing to bet would deteriorate, Simon refused claiming to the Chronicle (18 May 1995) that “I do not offer to bet on the progress of particular physical conditions such as the ozone layer” (as if its decline were not a negative measure of environmental welfare!).   

Schneider – https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.8ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that in March 1995 the first meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change “conference of the parties” (COP) was about to happen in Berlin. So, everyone was thinking about the future of climate action. Julian Simon, a cornucopian, had been taking bets with Paul Ehrlich and others and winning them. Simon’s bets were useful just-so stories for “owning the libs,” as we now call it, for generations of what’s the polite word … idiots.

What I think we can learn from this

You can be really smart and dumb as a rock at the same time especially if you you have an inability, for psychological reasons, to accept the basic fact that there are indeed limits on human ingenuity and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb damage.

What happened next

Julian Simon died without ever seeing his bets for what they were. And sadly Steven Schneider died when we needed him most.

The atmospheric CO2 kept accumulating and the damage has 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
Germany UNFCCC

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

April 7, 1995 – First “COP” meeting ends with industrialised nations making promises…

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, April 7, 1995, the first (of many!) “COP” events ended in Germany. The main outcome, the so-called Berlin Mandate, which meant rich industrialised countries had to come up with an agreement to cut their own emissions….

1995 The first UNFCCC Conference of Parties took place on 28 March – 7 April 1995 in Berlin, Germany. It voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries’ abilities to meet commitments under the Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI  (See Flavin, 1995 account).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The UNFCCC text agreed for the Rio Earth Summit had been weak, thanks to the best efforts of the United States and a selection of (hydrocarbon) allies.  There was nothing in there about targets and timetables for rich nations to make reductions. Three years later, that question was back on the table…

What I think we can learn from this

The “original sin” – the attitude of rich nations (and esp. Uncle Sam) during the period 1988-1992 – has cast the longest shadow, and one that people who grew up since then don’t even understand, let alone have the vocabulary to name.

What happened next

The Berlin Mandate culminated (if that is the word?) in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.  Australia gouged out an incredibly generous “reduction” target (de jure 12% increase in emissions, de facto 130% – and STILL did not ratify!).

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 Uncategorized

February 6, 1995 – Australian business versus a carbon tax

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, February 6 1995, co-ordinated action to defeat a carbon tax was on display

 “As part of its media strategy, the network sent out a series of five news releases on 6 February 1995 under the banner Carbon Tax Threatens Regional Jobs. The releases focused on the regions that would be most affected by the introduction of carbon tax.”

(Worden, 1998: 87)

The Business Council of Australia press release is a corker. A carbon tax  “could jeopardise more than 47,000 jobs and $43 billion in production in the nation’s export energy industries” and have “a serious impact on Australia’s oil and gas, coal, metal products, petrochemicals, pulp and paper and cement industries” (Thomas 1995)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 361ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures.

The context was

John Faulkner, the Federal Environment Minister, had a proposal for a carbon tax that would fund research and development of renewable energy. Business organisations hated this so they dusted off their 1990-2 playbook and improved it. Press releases from various actors were coordinated, to influence the minds of those people (especially ministers) who were attending two round tables on consecutive days.

What I think we can learn from this

When threatened (or merely feeling threatened), business is very good at putting aside their individual differences and presenting a united front. They have the resources, and Secretariat usually, to do that. Whereas those advocating for a better world tend to be running on the sniff of an oily rag.

What happened next

Faulkner’s plan was defeated. Australia didn’t get a price on carbon until 2012.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Thomas, C. 1995. Business Council Hits Plan For Carbon Tax. The Age, 7 February, p.50.

Categories
United Kingdom

January 22, 1995 – UK Prime Minister John Major told to implement green taxes on #climate

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, January 22, 1995, John Major was given an opportunity to have a legacy that wasn’t a cones hotline or sleaze. Oh well…

“THE PRIME Minister’s own advisers will this week publicly challenge him to introduce green taxes to ‘radically change the way society works’. They could even replace income tax. In their first annual report, experts appointed by John Major urge him, as a priority, to put environmental protection at the heart of government economic policy. The panel, headed by Sir Crispin Tickell, warden of Green College, Oxford, and Britain’s former ambassador to the United Nations, will argue that conventional taxes on wages and employers’ national insurance contributions should gradually be replaced by taxes on the use of energy and natural resources by industry and consumers.”

Ghazi, P. (1995). Go for green tax, says Major’s team. The Observer, 22 January, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2023 it is 418.

.

The context was that the UK government had signed up to the UNFCCC at the Rio Earth Summit, and there was rhetoric flying around about not merely stabilising emissions but reducing them.  This was underway because coal plants were being closed, but some people were trying to get longer-term thinking going, including Crispin Tickell, who had been trying to get the British state to take climate seriously since the late 1970s… To be fair, their task was that much harder because of an attempt in 1993 to dress up a VAT increase as an environmental measure, which had poisoned the well (see a blog post in March for more details…)

What I think we can learn from this

Possibly good ideas have been lying around for decades. Getting any of them implemented requires more than just mandarins (i.e. mandarins are necessary but not sufficient).

What happened next

Nothing significant

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Ghazi, P. (1995). Go for green tax, says Major’s team. The Observer, 22 January, p.5.

Categories
Australia Carbon Pricing

January 6, 1995 –  Australian business interests battle a carbon tax with “nobody else is acting” argument

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, January 6, 1995, as part of a broad attack on a proposed carbon tax, business whined “yeah, but no other country is doing anything.”

”THE business push for a cautious approach by the Federal Government on greenhouse gas controls has been given a boost by a new study which shows only a handful of countries will meet their emission reduction targets.

The study, prepared by industry groups, shows only five of the 36 countries  which are key members of the International Panel on Climate Change appear likely to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2000.”

Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5.  (See also the editorial – Anon. 1995. The trouble with a carbon tax. Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.12)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 360ppm. As of 2023 it is 419

.

The context was that Australian business interests had already defeated a carbon tax proposal in the lead up to the Rio Earth Summit, and were mobilising an even broader coalition of actors and ‘arguments’ (including our old friend ‘the sky will fall’ economic modelling) in this effort.

What I think we can learn from this

The fact that doing anything about climate change is a really hard collective actor problem is used to make climate change a really hard collective actor problem, and to ‘justify’ (excuse) doing nothing, and engaging in predatory delay.

What happened next

The business lobby effort was successful (for multiple reasons). The carbon tax was abandoned.  Attention switched to emissions trading schemes. No actual carbon price came into play until 2012. And was then swiftly killed off by the next Australian government. The emissions and the atmospheric concentrations? They climbed. Of course they did.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Dwyer, M. & Wilson, N. (1995). Study argues against $320m carbon tax. The Australian Financial Review, 6 January, p.5

Categories
Australia

December 29, 1995 – Sydney Morning Herald points out year has been hottest yet…

On this day, December 29 in 1995, the Sydney Morning Herald had a front page story from its very very competent and clear environment beat hack.

“With 1995 in its dying days, global records compiled by British climate scientists show that it has been the planet’s hottest year since reliable records began.

With 11 months’ data from every continent and ocean, they are confident that it will emerge as the hottest year in the past 140, putting pressure on world governments to take more seriously the negotiations for the Climate Change Convention”

Gilchrist, G. (1995) Scorcher Of A Year Rekindles Fears Of Greenhouse Mayhem. Sydney Morning Herald, 29 December , p1.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 361ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Things had been heating up, fairly steadily. 1995 was also a “hot” year in terms of climate science and the fights around it, with the denialists getting barbed wire wrapped around their baseball bats and swinging for the offences…

Why this matters. 

We have watched it warm up

What happened next?

In response to this, Australian policymakers said. “We’re gonna make it easier to dig up and burn/sell coal. Obvs. And kneecap anyone who tries to get in the way. Double obvs.”

And that is exactly what they did, Labor or Liberal. And here we are.

Categories
Antarctica Ignored Warnings

Jan 23, 1995 – The Larsen B starts to break up with us.. (Ice, Ice, baby)

January 23 1995, the Larsen B ice sheet starts to splinter. This is in Antarctica. And it probably gave us the opening scene of “The Day After Tomorrow”, a not very good disaster flick from 2004f essentially a retread of nuclear war movies of the 1980s. 

The MP Chris Mullin, refers to this in his diary entry of the same day, but I cannot get hold of it right now – will update when I do.

Meanwhile, this from Squall, a wonderful newspaper from the 1990s.

Why this matters. 

The signs of the times have been with us too long before. Those poor children protesting as part of youth strike don’t always realise that since long before they were on planet they have been betrayed again and again.

 What happened next?

 We got more and more sure that the Antarctic is not stable. We’ve had warnings since 1978, (see Jan 26th post). And now well, it’s really not looking good, is it?