Tag: Al Gore

Categories
United States of America

March 25, 1982 – congressional hearings and CBS Evening News report

Forty two years ago, on this day, March 25th 1982, there was network news coverage of “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The CBS Evening News for March 25, 1982 included a two minute and 50 second story by David Culhane on the greenhouse effect. Chemist Melvin Calvin raised the threat of global warming, Representative Al Gore called for further research, and James Kane of the Energy Department said there was no need for haste. 

(Sachsman, 2000)

You can see the clip here

Carbon Dioxide and Climate : The Greenhouse Effect hearings of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 97th Congress, March 25 1982 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002758682

See also https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6584134

See also the detailed account in Nathaniel Rich’s Losing Earth

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341.5ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that climate change was becoming a real cause of concern among scientists and a very small band of civil servants and elected politicians who were in close touch with these scientists. There had already been hearings in 1980, led by Senator Paul Tsongas, who was communicating with scientists like Wally Broecker. And here was another set of hearings, this time within Congress, with Al Gore in the mix too.  It’s also happening just after the AAAS meeting in Washington, DC, with James Hansen and Herman Flohn expressing real concerns. It’s happening just as the Reagan administration, believe it or not, has got the “carbon dioxide science and consensus” meeting going. So the timing is good. 

What we learn is that within the policy subsystems, people are building meetings, reports, seminars, networks, fighting to edge the issue closer and closer to being “on the agenda.” You can say what you like about Al Gore – I’m sure much of it is true. But he has persisted. It’d be interesting to know what Roger Revelle thought of Gore’s efforts in the 80s. 

What happened next? There were more hearings in 84. And then in 85, the whole issue started to be turbo-charged, because of a meeting of scientists in Austria, in the city of Villach. And after that, they kept trying harder and harder. And yes, got it onto the agenda, in the summer of 1988. 

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: 

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

March 25, 2013 – Australian Department of Climate Change axed

Categories
United States of America

February 28, 1984 – Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect hearings

Forty years ago, on this day, February 28th, 1984, Al Gore and other politicians (Republicans too) held hearings, and not the first, about carbon dioxide build-up.

Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect, hearings of House Committee on Science and Technology, 98th Congress, Feb 28 1984.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00275567u&view=1up&seq=3 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 344.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that people like Gore, were interested in the climate issue and in close contact with Roger Revelle (who had taught Gore at Harvard), James Hansen, etc. There had been hearings in 1982. And in September 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency had put out a report on “Can we delay a greenhouse warming?” (the answer was “almost certainly not”.)

What we learn is that holding hearings is a relatively straightforward way of well, “hearing,” the latest science, showing your voters that you care, disseminating the message; you might even make it newsworthy (as had happened in 1982). So it’s a good tactic. Like any tactic, it can be overused. 

What happened next, Gore and other senators kept plugging away. After the Villach conference in 1985 in October 1985, they had a bit more of a fire in their belly about it. And they managed to get Carl Sagan, who was a rock star, and others. And then they finally broke through in ‘88, with drought, heatwaves and James Hansen…

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: 

 Feb 28, 2003- Australian business lobby switches from opposition to “no position” on Kyoto ratification #auspol

 February 28, 2010 – Australian Prime Minister says won’t walk away from climate. (Then does, obvs.)

Categories
Carbon Capture and Storage

February 9, 2007 – Virgin on the ridiculous

Seventeen years ago, on this day, February 9th, 2007, Richard Branson waved his cheque book around for a bit of planet saving…

The Virgin Earth Challenge was a competition offering a $25 million prize for whoever could demonstrate a commercially viable design which results in the permanent removal of greenhouse gases out of the Earth’s atmosphere to contribute materially in global warming avoidance.[1] The prize was conceived by Richard Branson, and was announced in London on 9 February 2007 by Branson and former US Vice President Al Gore.[2]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 384.1ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth had come out. The first Climate Camp had happened. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC had just come out. And everyone was wanting to say that they were going to save the world. Whether it was the “grassroots” activists,  the billionaires or the States or the technology people. And so these sorts of competitions were announced. 

What we learn is that everyone wants to feel like they’re the good guy, even if they own an airline. 

What happened next? Oddly, the money never got dispersed. And CCS still hasn’t 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.

Also on this day: 

February 9, 1956 – Scientists puzzle over where the carbon dioxide is going….

Feb 9, 2014 –  A Farage-o of nonsense about climate change

Categories
Denial

May 18, 2006-  Denialist nutjobs do denialist nutjobbery. Again.

Seventeen  years ago, on this day, May 18, 2006, American denialists tried to confuse the public, again.

Following the release of the film, An Inconvenient Truth, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group funded in part by ExxonMobil, launches an advertisement campaign welcoming increased carbon dioxide pollution. “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life,” the ad says. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 5/2006; New York Times, 9/21/2006]

May 18, 2006-May 28, 2006: Global Warming Skeptic Organization Launches Pro- Greenhouse Gas Advertising Campaign

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=CEIadverts200605#CEIadverts20060

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 385.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was coming out, and therefore the denialists wanted to be able to get journalists to quote “an opposing view” for what is laughably called “balance.” And so they reused their “greening Earth co2 is plant food” claim because it’s simple, and seems commonsensical. 

What I think we can learn from this

And this is part of the manipulation of the media that had already been identified by Boykoff and Boykoff in 2004 – “Balance as Bias”. This is a classic example of the way that cashed-up and well-connected entities can game the system. And of course, if their views aren’t quoted, people can then flak the journalist and say “classic liberal censorship,” “echo chamber,” et cetera. So it’s a win win. 

What happened next

The CEI kept doing this bullshit, without shame, without remorse, because that’s who these people are.

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

 April 21, 1993 – Bill Clinton says US will tackle carbon emissions.

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 21, 1993, new President Bill Clinton made some promises, while giving a shout out to an Australian politician who had bottled a carbon tax.

His stand is a reversal of that taken by the former US President, Mr Bush, who refused at the Earth Summit to support specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or to back the biodiversity treaty.

At the start of his speech, Mr Clinton made an unexpected acknowledgement of Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Mrs Kelly.

“We should introduce a guest from another country who is here with us – the environmental minister from Australia, Ros Kelly,” he said. “Would you stand up? We’re glad to have you here.”

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. Australian Financial Review 23 April p.9.

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

Clinton had come to power in the 1992 Presidential election without ever really saying terribly much about climate change on the campaign trail (his running mate Al Gore had a book come out during the campaign – “Earth in the Balance.”)

This ‘Earth Day’ announcement came two months after the Feb 17 1993 starting gun for a short, sharp and er – failed – attempt to put a tax on petrol (or ‘gas,’ as the Americans call it).

What I think we can learn from this

Those looking to tax energy to a) reduce emissions and b) pay for research and development into renewable energy, do not have a particularly glorious track record.

What happened next

Clinton’s BTU tax was defeated (you can read about it later this year on this site, or, if you’re really impatient, see here). But not before it was reported in Australia (see tomorrow’s post!).

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

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
Energy United States of America

February 17, 1993 – President Clinton proposes an Energy Tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, February 17, 1993 , new President Bill Clinton  gave his state of the union address and said an energy tax was in the cards…

“Our plan does include a broad-based tax on energy, and I want to tell you why I selected this and why I think it’s a good idea. I recommend that we adopt a Btu tax on the heat content of energy as the best way to provide us with revenue to lower the deficit because it also combats pollution, promotes energy efficiency, promotes the independence, economically, of this country as well as helping to reduce the debt, and because it does not discriminate against any area. Unlike a carbon tax, that’s not too hard on the coal States; unlike a gas tax, that’s not too tough on people who drive a long way to work; unlike an ad valorem tax, it doesn’t increase just when the price of an energy source goes up. And it is environmentally responsible. It will help us in the future as well as in the present with the deficit.”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton%27s_First_State_of_the_Union_Address

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 357.4ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Vice President Al Gore had been switched onto the climate problem while studying at Harvard (Roger Revelle had taught him). He had had a book called “Earth in the Balance” come out while he was on the campaign trail. He thought you could raise money to reduce the government deficit while also cutting emissions….

What I think we can learn from this

War game the heck out of your proposal, with red team and blue team and all that…

What happened next

Resistance from the “energy lobby” (who knew?!) Brutally successful opposition too.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41041-1/republican-leaders-btu-tax

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

References and see also

Erlandson, D. (1994) The Btu Tax Experience: What Happened and Why It Happened.  Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 173 (1994-1995) Vol. 12, no 1. 

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=pelr

Categories
United States of America

September 23, 1986 -Joe Biden suggests urgent #climate action…

On this day 23 September 1986, Senator Joe Biden (what happened to THAT guy?) launched the “Biden Initiative on Global Warming.”

Yes, 1986.

The excellent book by Howe, “Behind the Curve” contains this 

“Throughout the mid-1980s, Al Gore and his fellow congressional Democrats continued to push the Reagan administration to begin dealing with the problem of climate change. In 1986, Senator Joe Biden introduced an initiative mandating that the president commission an executive-level task force to devise a strategy for responding to global warming – a strategy the president was meant to deliver to Congress within one year. The initiative became the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, which the president signed. The bill in the end required very little real commitment from the administration, but it demonstrated an expanding congressional interest in climate change that raised the domestic political profile of the State Department’s negotiations with UNEP and the WMO leading up to the IPCC. It also led to more congressional hearings on the issue, which helped keep global warming in the news and thus on the public agenda.”

(Howe, 2014:160)

The Biden Initiative on Global Warming, Sept 23 1986                 https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/2891

“Directs the President to establish a Task Force on the Global Climate to research, develop, and implement a coordinated national strategy on global climate. Requires such Task Force to transmit a United States Strategy on the Global Climate to the President within a year. Requires the President to then report to specified members of Congress on such report.

Directs the President to appoint an ambassador at large to coordinate Federal efforts in multilateral activities relating to global warming.

Directs the Secretary of State to promote the early designation of an International Year of Global Climate Protection.

Urges the President to give climate protection high priority on the agenda of U.S.-Soviet relations.”

On this day the PPM was 345.48 ppm.

Now it is 420ish – but see here for the latest.

Why this matters. 

The pre-1988 activity matters, so we know just how long we’ve been talking about maybe eventually doing something about “it.”

What happened next?

Oh, don’t the wheels grind slowly (or spin aimlessly).

Categories
UNFCCC

June 23, 1997 – Australian Prime Minister skips climate meeting to fanboy Thatcher #auspol

On this day, 23rd June 1997, world “leaders” gathered in Rio for a meeting packed with self-congratulatory speeches, this one to celebrate (if that is the word), five years since the Rio Earth Summit. (The 1992 Rio Earth Summit is the one that gave us the Biodiversity Treaty and the UNFCCC).


In the US the American Petroleum Institute was taking out full page ads to put pressure on President Clinton. In Australia Clive Hamilton co-ordinated the release of an open letter from 131 economists about the cost-effectiveness of early action.

Meanwhile, this good reporting by an Aussie journo gives you a sense of what happened. (John Howard didn’t go to Rio +5, but then his predecessor Paul Keting had not gone to Rio itself).

John Howard was too busy meeting Baroness Thatcher to attend Earth Summit II in New York this week. It was a controversial decision in light of our position on greenhouse gases.

FIRST thing on Monday morning, as Earth Summit II began in New York, the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, brought his huge bulk into the chamber of the United Nations General Assembly – the venue for the biggest environment conference since the Rio Summit in 1992.

A few minutes later, the US Vice- President, Al Gore, made a passionate but carefully worded speech welcoming delegates from over 70 countries. For a few minutes he even wandered into the throng on the floor of the General Assembly, and took a seat with the rest of the US delegation.

Both of these leaders were having a back-slappingly, hands-hakingly good time. Both seemed to be making the most of the opportunity to meet and talk with other leaders. For both men the reason for their presence was because they have a political imperative to make a statement about their concern for the environment.

James Woodford, Leaders Warm To The Task. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June 1997

Why this matters. 

They pile promise upon promise, don’t they? Maybe the promises are what the Angel of History is seeing, as part of the wreckage upon wreckage hurled in front of his feet?

What happened next?

The next big event in the circuit was COP3, in Kyoto. An agreement was made that – as per the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities agreed at Rio – rich countries would go first in cutting emissions. The US and Australia never went with it. The fossil fuel use exploded. The atmospheric concentrations went up and up.

Categories
International processes United States of America

May 12, 1989 – USA says it will, after all, support the idea of a #climate treaty

On this day, May 12th 1989, the Bush Administration of the United States finally reversed its position of opposition to a climate treaty (“too soon, let’s do more research” that sort of thing).

Now it said it would that it would support negotiation of a framework convention on climate change.

Why the end to the foot-dragging? It may have had something to do with the embarrassment of being caught red-handed trying to silence climate scientist James Hansen (something they’d keep trying to do).

See Los Angeles Times article here.

WASHINGTON — 

The White House, in an apparent softening of its position on a major environmental problem, has dropped its opposition to a formal treaty-negotiating process on global warming, it was learned Thursday.

Until now, the United States had been alone among major Western economic powers in opposing such an initiative.

The change of position was outlined in a cable dispatched Thursday to U.S. delegates at an environmental conference in Geneva sponsored by the United Nations.

Saying it was essential for the United States to exercise a leadership role, the cable said, “We should seek to develop full international consensus on necessary steps to prepare for a formal treaty-negotiating process.”

Why this matters

They have to be dragged every millimetre. Stop dragging and they pull back. That’s how it has always been.

What happened next

The US administration – doing what its oil and auto-industry wanted – blocked and delayed, delayed and blocked the start of the negotiations, the negotiations themselves and ever since. And here we are.

Categories
Australia United States of America

May 3, 1990 – From Washington to Canberra, the “greenhouse effect” has elites promising…

On this day, May 3 1990, different things happened around the world that are worth remembering.

First, in Washington DC a whole bunch of legislators had got together and announced that there should be a global Marshall Plan for Climate and Environment blah, blah, blah. It finished on the 2nd, so I am cheating (but already had two posts yesterday, so sue me.) It was reported on the 3rd in the New York Times.

The usual well-meaning words sincerely meant as well, but not connected to a set of social forces that could make it so.

Meanwhile, in Australia, probably more or less the same time, The Primary Industries Minister John Kerin, was telling the Australian Mining Industry Council Annual General Meeting annual that there was a good chance of a of a referendum allowing the federal to Commonwealth Government to gain powers over environmental issues from the States. This would have scared the bejesus out of The AMIC people.

Seccombe, M. 1990. Chance for green referendum, says Kerin. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May. CANBERRA: Public support for Federal Government power to make national environment laws had grown to the point where a referendum could now succeed, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, said yesterday. Mr Kerin raised again the need for the Commonwealth to wrest power from the States – first broached by the then-Minister for the Environment, Senator Richardson, last year – at the annual seminar of the Australian Mining Industry Council in Canberra.

It was not to be Australia remains a quarry with the state attached.

What happens next?

Well, the global Marshall Plan idea got filed in the circular file. Noise towards a referendum got quietened down, and the whole issue of climate got kicked into the “ecologically sustainable development process” long grass. And AMIC a couple of years later became so toxic that it had to change its leader and rebrand but not until it had helped in defeating another carbon tax proposal…