Tag: 1997

Categories
Australia UNFCCC

April 28, 1997 – John Howard says Australia should not have signed climate treaty (UNFCCC)

Twenty seven years ago, on this day, April 28th, 1997, Prime Minister John Howard says Australia should not have signed the UNFCCC. Classy guy.

On 28 April 1997 on ABC Radio National, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, stated publicly that he believed that Australia should never have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This was the culmination of over a year of backpedaling by the Australian Liberal-National Party Government on the issue of climate change due to purported negative economic impacts.”

Yu and Taplin, 2000 The Australian Position at the Kyoto Conference in Gillespie and Burns (eds) Climate Change in the South Pacific: Impacts and Responses in Australia, New Zealand, and Small Island States, Kluwer

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was the COP3 (Kyoto) conference coming at the end of year, and the Berlin Mandate of 1995 meant that rich nations (including Australia) were supposed to turn up and agree to a CUT in emissions.

What I think we can learn from this

Howard has never been a “conservative”. He’s a radical statist directing taxpayers’ money and assets towards his mates. Like Thatcher squandering North Sea Oil, he squandered the commodity supercycle. Prick.

What happened next

Howard had ten years to destroy everything decent about Australia. Job’s largely done, though there are mopping up operations ongoing. And resistance, of course.

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: 

April 28, 1975- Newsweek’s “The Cooling World” story.

April 28, 1993 – Australia to monitor carbon tax experience

Categories
Australia

October 13, 1990/97 – Ros Kelly defends the Interim Planning Target vs Australia does nothing

Thirty three years ago, on this day, October 13, 1990, Australian Environment Minister Ros Kelly defended the decision taken to have loopholes in the climate change target…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 13, 1997, Australia was busy saying “yeah, nah” to the world…

The Minister for the Environment, Ros Kelly, defended the Government’s conditional greenhouse target, saying an unqualified one would have been “irresponsible”.

On Thursday, Cabinet agreed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent on 1988 levels within the next 15 years.

However, no action will be taken that might adversely affect Australian international competitiveness.

Lamberton, H. 1990. Kelly defends greenhouse ‘conditions’. Canberra Times, 13 October, p 3

Greenhouse countdown

The temperature is rising in the debate over greenhouse and Australia is coming under increasing pressure to declare its hand ahead of the Kyoto summit. A lot is at stake, writes Lenore Taylor.

Every world leader John Howard speaks to about greenhouse gas emissions wants him to answer one question. What can Australia do?

Bill Clinton asked him at the White House. Tony Blair asked him at 10 Downing Street. Neither got an answer.

Australia has invested enormous diplomatic and political energy explaining what it can’t do – and according to the Government it definitely can’t agree to any absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

But it has failed to say what it can do.

Taylor, L. 1997. The heat is on. Australian Financial Review, 13 October, p. 16. 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354/363ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was in 1990 the Australia Federal Government had made a promise with tricksy caveats that had kept its domestic allies – or people that needed to pretend they agreed – on side and allowed for the international reputation not to be too much in the toilet. Seven years is a long time in politics. In 1997 John Howard was doing his level best to to minimize Australia’s commitments under the UNFCCC that Ros Kelly had signed. The State and corporate interests, as they saw them, had not really changed – Howard was simply being more honest about it all, because he was being forced to be honest with his back up against the wall.

What I think we can learn from this

That it is too easy in every sense to tell stories about government policy-based entirely around public utterances or perceived personalities of state functionaries leaders. I have been guilty of that of course, we all have. But we also need to remember that states are battlegrounds of and reflections of powerful interests, be they ideological such as churches but also private companies and multinationals etc. Within this mix you’ll also find the usual collection of unions and civil society busy-bodies and do-gooders and somewhere at the bottom the usual collection of, well, people who are trying to figure out if they can afford to stay alive next week and both heat and eat.

What happened next

Australia kept up the criminality.

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 Kyoto Protocol

October 10, 1997 – Australian businesses say ‘yes’ to a decent Kyoto deal

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 10, 1997, the Melbourne Age ran a front page story about businesses looking forward to Australia agreeing to actual emissions cuts…

Canberra — The Federal Government’s hard-line stance against greenhouse gas reductions has failed to win the support of Australian business.

Two-thirds of 630 company directors in a national survey across a range of sectors supported global reduction targets for Australia, with 70 per cent of those favoring a legally binding agreement.

However, directors were almost evenly divided on how targets should be set, with 50 per cent supporting a uniform goal across all countries and 48 per cent supporting different targets reflecting local economic conditions.

The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, said this week the Government would not sign an agreement unless Australia was allowed to continue increasing emissions.

He said binding, uniform targets would unfairly damage the economy, costing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in potential investment in energy and energy-intensive export industries.

The survey on environmental realism, by KPMG and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, found that 69 per cent of directors regarded environmental measures as a cost but also as an opportunity for innovation leading to improved commercial performance.

Miller, C. (1997) Business Supports Gas Emission Cuts. The Age, October 10, page 1

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 363.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was Australian Prime Minister John Howard was trying to claim that business was united in opposition to a strong deal at Kyoto in which Australia agreed to be ambitious.

Someone had the bright idea to actually do an anonymous survey of business and it turns out the results were not what Howard had said. Therefore this was front page news

What I think we can learn from this

That it is good to to not take the claims of your opponents at face value and to actually test their claims especially if the claim is that “business is united behind policy X or Y”, because almost by definition there are businesses who would benefit from the status quo being shaken up and they would like the state to do some shaking up.

New businesses may be able to form trade associations and get their case under the noses of the right ministers, make ministers think “this is a constituency that can’t be ignored/fobbed off or told to piss off “ Whether those new and small trade associations can get in the media and start challenging existing “common sense” and create a new common sense is another question

What happened next

 Howard sent Robert Hill as Environment Minister to Kyoto. Australia got an incredibly generous deal, partly through good luck but also exhaustion. And essentially were told they could just keep emitting what the hell they liked. 

It was a disgrace it was possibly the most shameful moment in Australia’s climate diplomacy against some stiff competition

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

June 23, 1997 – RIP Hermann Flohn

Twenty six years ago, on this day, June 23, 1997, German climatologist Hermann Flohn died.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 365.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this – Flohn was aware of Guy Callendar’s work. During the war he had written about the greenhouse effect. By the late 1950s/early 60s was part of the small band of people paying close attention to what was going on. He was present at the January 1961 meeting in New York of the New York AAAS.

By the early 1970s he was briefing senior politicians including Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. He was engaging with Australian scientists in the 1970s, and in 1982 he was at the 148th meeting of the American Academy for the Advancement Association for the Advancement of science and was quoted in the New York Times on 7th January 1982 and then in the Christian Science monitor in February 1982

In 1993 he had the pleasure of being on a platform with Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels who were denying, well, 19th century physics.

Flohn has not had enough credit for what he did.

What I think we can learn from this

 The official histories don’t always give enough credit to people who deserve 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.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”

(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820) 

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”

He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much. 

What happened next

And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look. 

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 Denial

May 10, 1997 – Murdoch rag in denialist shocker 

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 10, 1997, The Australlian gave more oxygen to a frankly idiotic (I can say it because he’s now safely dead) scientist called Brian O’Brien.

SCIENTISTS continue to make dire predictions about the effect of greenhouse gases despite clear evidence the planet will not be as badly affected as first thought, a leading atmospheric scientist says. [really?]

Former Nasa space scientist Dr Brian O’Brien said self-interested scientists and conservation groups propped up the “greenhouse industry” with exaggerated claims in order to preserve their respective patches..

Lunn, S. 1997. Greens let off gas over greenhouse. The Australian, 10 May, p.45

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian government of John Howard had launched a diplomatic offensive against Australia having to take on any actual reduction commitments at the upcoming Kyoto negotiations in December. Whether O’Brien had been asked or was freelancing here is hard to tell but the denialist effort to say that climate change was overblown fits in the context of trying to reduce the political cost of being a dick.

O’Brien is now dead so I can say what I think which is that he was a foolish overconfident old man when the climate issue took hold and he enjoyed the notoriety of being a denialist and a dressed up his b******* and leaned heavily on his background with NASA.

What I think we can learn from this

We have to see specific denialist outbreaks against the political environment of the time and not just as symptoms of of old white male derangement.

What happened next

The denial coalesced around something called The Lavoisier Group by 2000. It kept the flame of climate denial alive until 2007/8, when other groups got heavily involved as well.

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 Denial Uncategorized

 March 14, 1997 – Australian senator predicts climate issue will be gone in ten years…

Twenty six years ago, on this day, March 14, 1997, a Liberal senator spews his usual nonsense.

Senator Parer seems to be an exception. For instance, at the Australasian Institute of Minerals and Metallurgy Annual Conference at Ballarat Senator Warwick Parer said: “I don’t have any figures to back this up, but I think people will say in 10 years that it [greenhouse] was the Club of Rome” and “The attitude of this government is to look for ways to allow projects to go ahead.” The SMH (14.3.97 ‘Greenhouse effect? No worries says Parer’.).

(Duncan, 1997:83)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Warwick Parer – and I can say this because he’s dead – was a shonk and he caused political problems for Howard. He was the kind of old white man who wants to believe that physics doesn’t exist. And so he came out with that idiotic line about in 10 years, dot, dot dot. And Howard was busy, by this time, trying to do nothing or commit Australia to nothing around the Kyoto Protocol.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men who don’t like the consequences of industrialization will try to wish it away. And they will predict that the whole fad will die. And it hasn’t, and it won’t

The basic question of how we’re supposed to survive the 21st century behaving as we do, has not yet been answered. 

What happened next

Parer was sacked as Minister in 1998. He produced an anti renewables report in 2002. He died in 2014. 

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

Transcript of Kerry  O’Brien and John Howard –https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10644

Categories
Denial Kyoto Protocol United States of America

December 26, 1997 – #climate denial machine exposed again and again

On this day, December 26 in 1997, the doubt and denial machine that was sharpening its talons and running tests on its deadly bullshit spreaders on December 25, 1989 had won a famous victory at Kyoto, lowering ambition, diverting policymaker attention into easily-scammed “emissions trading” and so on.  This was no secret – the mainstream press were perfectly willing to publish articles that laid it out bare. 

“With their protestations of dire economic catastrophe as a result of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, U.S. manufacturers are crying wolf for the second time. The first time was a decade ago in response to the Montreal Protocol, which required a 50 percent cut by 1998 in emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which deplete the earth’s protective ozone layer.”

Arjun Makhijani. A. 1997. Crying Wolf About Kyoto. Washington Post, 26 December.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 364ppm. At time of writing it was 419ishppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

The context was this – 

Between 1989 and 1997, “our” fate was sealed – the final nail in the coffin. We’d ignored scientists warnings about carbon dioxide build-up from the 1950s until 1988 (there really was enough evidence by the late 1970s, as this site has tried to flag). From 1989 to 1992 the US – formal administration and informal government (the corporates) did all it could to stop a climate treaty from happening. Once they lost that battle they switched to making sure the treaty was toothless. In this they succeeded. At the first COP, in Berlin, in 1995, the rest of the world had tried to get some teeth, even if only molars, not incisors, back in the mouth. This was the “Berlin Mandate” which said rich countries should come to Kyoto (the third meeting, in late 1997) with a text to reduce their own emissions.  Uncle Sam said nope, and again, “lost” but really won. 

And here we are.

Why this matters. 

It is not just bad luck that we are where we are. When something could have been done, it wasn’t, because a significant portion of the rich and powerful didn’t want it to, others who could have stopped them within the elites were quiescent and the social movements were outgunned.

What happened next?

The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol (Australia only did in 2007).  The COP circus has staggered on.  So it goes…

Categories
Denial Industry Associations Kyoto Protocol United States of America

November 5, 1997 – Global Climate Coalition co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference

On November 5, 1997, twenty five years ago today, the Global Climate Coalition [bunch of oil companies, automobile companies and assorted denialists] co-ordinates an anti-Kyoto conference. With the third meeting of the UNFCCC (United Nations agreement on climate) looming, denialists funded by the oil and car industries (among others), met to try to make life even harder for the Clinton Administration.

1997  “On November 5, the GCC coordinated a national conference opposing the Clinton Administration’s involvement in the Kyoto conference. The conference was sponsored by a number of radical anti-environmental organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, People for the West!, and the Environmental Conservation Organization  

A CLEAR view Vol 4, Number 16

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was xxxppm. At time of writing it was 416ppm- but for what it is now,well, see here for the latest.]

Why this matters

“Our” failure to act on climate is not JUST down to ignorance/laziness etc. It has also been helped on its way by determined and clever opponents of action.

What happened next

The Kyoto Protocol was agreed, but neither the USA or Australia ever ratified it. It limped into existence because Russia DID ratify it, as a quid pro quo for getting into the World Trade Organisation.   Kyoto was supposed to be replaced in 2012, but the 2009 Copenhagen meeting ended in chaos etc. And then Paris and… oh, what a shitshow.

Categories
Uncategorized

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

On May 19, 1997, 25 years ago, and months before the Kyoto meeting at which the world’s richest countries are supposed to agree binding emissions cuts, the Chief Executive Office of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, John Browne of BP, makes a speech at Stanford University.

This marks the end of the united anti-climate front of the oil majors, exemplified by the “Global Climate Coalition.”

Browne said, in part

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.” He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

You can read the whole thing on the Climate Files website.

And here’s the video.

What happened next

BP changed its logo.

Why this matters

Fracture points and critical junctures that turn out to… well, not matter as much as they seemed to. What can ya do?

See also

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”. (Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)