Tag: Bill Clinton

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 10, 2001 – Podesta defends the Clinton-Gore climate record from Bill McKibben’s criticism

Twenty five years ago, on this day, January 10th, 2001,

A letter by John Podesta to the New York Times, defending the Clinton Record from an attack by Bill McKibben, is published. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/opinion/l-white-house-acted-on-global-warming-358517.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 370ppm. As of 2026 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that 8 years of Al Gore as Veep hadn’t ushered in the ecotopia.  There was the “BTU tax,” foiled by fossil fuel interests in 1993 and then the pre-emptive strike against the Kyoto Protocol.  So, not much to post about.

 The specific context was that Gore had had the 2000 election stolen out from under his nose by the Supreme Court mates of his opponent’s dad – George HW Bush.

What I think we can learn from this is that there are no saviours.  At absolute best politicians can be forced to nudge things into a slightly less rapidly suicidal direction. You want actual change, you need social movements. But they tend to flame out after a few years (repression is exhausting, after all)  

What happened next is Gore dusted himself off and gave the world “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.

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, obv

Also on this day: 

January 10, 1978 – World Meteorological Organisation outlines World Climate Programme…

January 10, 1991 – “Separate studies rank 1990 as world’s warmest year”  #ShiftingBaseline

January 10, 2023 Labour launches a Climate and Environment Forum

Categories
Australia United States of America

November 22, 1996 – Clinton in Australia, gives climate speech about Great Barrier Reef…

Twenty nine years ago, on this day, November 22nd, 1996, freshly re-elected US President Bill Clinton is in Australia….

“Finally, we must work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. These gases released by cars and power plants and burning forests affect our health and our climate. They are literally warming our planet. If they continue unabated, the consequences will be nothing short of devastating for the children here in this audience and their children.

“New weather patterns, lost species, the spread of infectious diseases, damaged economies, rising sea levels: if present trends continue, there is a real risk that sometime in the next century, parts of this very park we are here in today could disappear, submerged by a rising ocean. That is why today, from this remarkable place, I call upon the community of nations to agree to legally binding commitments to fight climate change.”

Remarks on the International Coral Reef Initiative in Port Douglas, Australia | The American Presidency Project

Prime Minister John Howard dissed it of course – see Gordon, M. 1996. “Howard defends stand on emissions.” The Australian, November 25, p.4.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Clinton had started his first term with promises of climate action, and then had his arse handed to him over the BTU tax.

The specific context was that Clinton had just won re-election, defeating Bob Dole, and knew that there would be fun and games ahead, internationally, because the Kyoto conference was coming up in December 1997. Given the Australian stance at COP2, it was clear there was gonna be Australian resistance and shitfuckery.

What I think we can learn from this – Clinton was not stupid. Corrupt, venal, slimy, yes. Stupid, no.

What happened next – Australia spent 1997 demanding special treatment, and got it, carving out an increase in emissions as its emissions “reductions” target.

Obama made some nice speeches.

http://www.news.com.au/national/18-years-on-us-president-barack-obama-follows-bill-clinton-to-queensland-for-the-same-outcome/news-story/32318f45fbde89461f9e5fba8db343c0   

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: 

November 22, 2000 – protests at COP6 at The Hague

November 22, 2002 – private business battles on #climate become public in Australia

November 22, 2004 – another denialist screed foisted upon the world

Categories
United States of America

October 19, 1993 – Clinton handwringing

Thirty two years ago, on this day, October 19th, 1993, 

“We simply must halt global warming. It is a threat to our health, to our ecology and to our economy. The problem frankly affects every sector of the economy.” Clinton, William J. 1993. Remarks at the White House Conference on Climate Change, October 19

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 357ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 425ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the US had gutted the UNFCCC (insisting that targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich nations be removed or else) and then ratified it quite swiftly in December 1992. Al Gore, Clinton’s veep had published “Earth in the Balance” the previous year. Ah, such sweet and innocent times.

The specific context was that Clinton had already by this time had his ass handed to him over the BTU tax, so all this was compensatory bollocks.

What I think we can learn from this is that a lot of what comes out of politicians mouths is just PR blandishments designed to distract you while your pocket is picked and your future is looted. 

What happened next – Clinton’s emissions got him into trouble a few years later (i.e. he abused his position of power, for the umpteenth time). Nothing meaningful was done about US emissions. And the future continued to be looted, and the present started to catch up with the future, until we entered the Fafocene.

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: 

October 19, 2002 – Doctors for the Environment Australia, becomes a thing.

October 19, 2010 – Greenpeace trolls ANZ Bank 

October 19, 2011 – First UK CCS competition fizzles out

Categories
United States of America

February 18, 1991 – Governor Bill Clinton says would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004.

Thirty four years ago, on this day, February 18th, 1991, it was reported that Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas had said he was open to deep emissions cuts…

The 1992 US election intervened as a factor in the negotiations during that year. All the potential Democratic candidates favoured a quantified target on C02 emissions on the European model. Clinton also said he would give “serious consideration” to cuts of 20-30 per cent by 2004 (ECO, 18 February, 1991). This injected a dynamic into the US’s position, and it might well be possible to attribute some of the change in that position to this.

(Paterson, 1996: 87)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 355ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the international negotiations on a climate treaty had just begun. It was clear that the George HW Bush administration was opposed to strong action, but it wasn’t clear then perhaps, just how strongly they were (thanks to the success of the Sununu faction within the White House). The liberation of Kuwait by US forces and a “Coalition of the Willing” was underway, and a lot of people just assumed that George Herbert Walker Bush would definitely be a two-term president- that he would waltz it. So the Democrats who were putting themselves forward were doing it perhaps as long shots. They didn’t know at this point that Ross Perot would enter the race. 

Btw the numbers Clinton was suggesting were in excess of the “Toronto Target” proposals.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Democrats were all pushing for emissions reductions targets, as per “The American President” with Michael Douglas a few years later (for a good take down of that film, see Unclear and Present Danger podcast, btw). 

What happened next is Clinton managed to secure the nomination despite having to admit that he was a philanderer and a draft dodger. The darker allegations were largely swept under the carpet because he was the favored son. Clinton became president, for all the good that did anyone beyond business interests, and the rest is history.

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 United States of America

October 6, 1997 – Australia says nope to uniform emissions 5% cut. Assholes.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, October 6th, 1997,

Senator Robert Hill, the federal Minister for the Environment, rejected Japan’s proposal of a 5% uniform reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2012 on the basis that it would result in unacceptable job losses in Australia (ABC television 7.00 pm news 6.10.97)

(Duncan, 1997:10)

Same day President Bill Clinton hosts pre-Kyoto climate conference at the White House… (see New York Times coverage here).

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 364ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that John Howard as prime minister had taken hostility of Australian political elites to the climate treaty from a solid eight through to 11. (“This one goes up to 11.”) And he had sent diplomats around the world over the course of 1997 to try and convince everyone that Australia deserved special treatment at the impending Kyoto meeting, without much success, it has to be said. The Americans were mocking him. Anyway, this above one attempt to break the logjam by the hosts. The Japanese posed an across the board 5% cut from everyone. Now this wouldn’t have been in keeping with the science but it was a bid worth making. The fact that Australia just turned round with a flat rejection tells you plenty.

What we learn is that Australian political elites just don’t give a shit about the future. All they care about is filling their own pockets with loot in the here and now. This is not uncommon, of course.

What happened next? Howard was rewarded for his efforts. Australia managed to get not only 108% so called reductions target, i.e. they got to increase their emissions. But also just through sheer trickery and nastiness they managed to get a land clearing clause backdated to 1990. So that in effect, the emissions reduction target was 130% essentially, de facto if not the jure. 

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: 

October 6, 1988 – coal lobby says greenhouse effect “greatly exaggerated”

October 6, 1989 – Hawke Government given climate heads up by top scientist

October 6, 2005 – carbon capture is doable…

Categories
United States of America

June 8, 1993 – Clinton defeated on his “BTU” tax.

Thirty years ago, on this day, June 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton runs up the white flag on BTU tax 

President Bill Clinton and his allies in Congress confirmed the obvious on Tuesday: There will be wholesale revisions in his five-year budget plan, including major changes in a proposed energy tax.

Negotiations are continuing with dissident Democrats in the Senate over the details as the president fights to collect enough votes from his own party to pass his plan.

Despite the impending changes, which will include more spending cuts and fewer taxes, none of the Senate’s 43 Republicans is expected to vote for the plan, their leaders said.

On the chopping block is Mr. Clinton’s proposal to tax the heat content of fuels – the so-called Btu tax.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 359.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Clinton and Gore had underestimated the strength and guile of the opposition to the BTU. And key Democratic senators had been flipped.

What I think we can learn from this is that the bad guys are very good at what they do. Money buys the smartest people, or the ones with the best low cunning.

What happened next

Congresspeople who had voted for it lost in the 1994 elections “got BTU’d”. Did the Australian bad guys learn from this? Never saw it mentioned but I wasn’t looking.

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 United States of America

April 22, 1993 – Clinton’s announcement used by anti-carbon pricing Aussies

Thirty years ago, on this day, April 22, 1993, Clinton’s announcement was used in the low-intensity conflict over carbon pricing…

A PLEDGE by the US President, Mr Clinton, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will raise the pressure on Australia to take tougher action, according to a senior Australian bureaucrat and Australian business and environment groups.

A first assistant secretary of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Peter Core, told business lobbyists yesterday at a private seminar organised by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, that Mr Clinton’s announcement would put renewed pressure on Australia’s stance on the issue.

And an assistant director of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Chris Burnup, said yesterday the move would dramatically change the complexion of talks on global climate change.

Garran, R. 1993. Clinton pledge cuts new key to the greenhouse. The 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

The business lobby and its proxies (including plenty in the Labor Party) had defeated the first attempt at a carbon tax during 1990-1991.  They knew it would be back soon-ish though.  This briefing to an AFR hack may have been an effort to smoke out proponents, force them to show their colours so they could be crushed. Alternatively, it might have been from a proponent, hoping to slowly raise the pressure, build a new normal…see the post from a few days ago about Keating…

What I think we can learn from this

You have to read newspaper articles thinking “which lying liar fed this to the hack, and what is the hack trying to push?” It’s exhausting to do this, and most of us most of the time just pretend that if it is in the paper (of our choice) it is ‘true.’ That’s nonsense, but there are rarely any personal consequences, so as an energy-saving habit, it persists.

What happened next

There was indeed another push for a carbon tax. It was defeated.  Australia didn’t get carbon pricing until 2012, and then only for a couple of years. To be clear – carbon pricing is one very small part of what you would do if you were trying to respond to the threats of climate change.  But it’s a brown M&M when it comes to how serious your government is..

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
Environmental Racism, United States of America

 Feb 11, 1994 – President Clinton proclaims the end of environmental racism.  Yeah, right.

On this day, in 1994, Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, signed an Executive Order telling all government departments – not just the EPA – that they had to consider environmental racism. The clue is in the name – “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.”

Now the crucial thing here is that these moments in history get put down as “Oh, enlightened leader leading,” but if you actually peel back, he’s (and it is usually a he) putting his name on something that is the result of years of tireless, dedicated campaigning by people whose names don’t appear in the history books. And there is always this bias towards the personality of an individual. This does not mean that the personality of individuals does not matter in specific moments. But for this sort of bread and butter (attempted) institutional change probably it doesn’t. 

Why this matters

We all need to understand that institutional racism isn’t something that’s only there with the Metropolitan Police – it is baked into society. 

What happened next? 

Well, is the USA less institutionally environmentally racist? Is it? [This is not to criticise the heroic efforts of countless people fighting for justice!]

See also – Dr Robert Bullard – Father of Environmental Justice