Tag: 1997

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)