Thirty four years ago, on this day, September 2nd, 1992,
State Department participant in the negotiations, Dan Reifsnyder, offered the view that the concept of targets and timetables “captured and riveted the public’s imagination. It provided a simple litmus test of a country’s environment commitment. It required no painstaking feasibility analysis or tedious review of specific mitigation measures. It was political genius.” Speech to 1992 Seoul Symposium on ‘UNCED and Prospects for the Environmental Regime in the 21st Century’, September 2, 1992, Seoul, Korea.
Hecht, A. and Tirpak, D. 1995. Framework Agreement on Climate Change: A Scientific and Policy History. Climatic Change, 29, 371-402.
Reifsnyder, D. 1992. “The Policy of the USA on the Climate Change Convention,” unpublished presentation at the 1992 Seoul Symposium on UNCED
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 the United States, under George H. W. Bush, had spent the period from 1989 to 1992 resolutely opposing a climate treaty that included targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. His spine was stiffened by the usual suspects of oil companies, automakers, etc. organised partly within something called, the Global Climate Coalition. And their intransigence and their plausible threats to boycott the Earth Summit were successful, The proposal for targets and timetables were withdrawn. The Americans agreed to sign.
There was a calculation – perhaps correct, we’ll never know – at the time that a climate treaty without the United States was worthless, and if the price of the US’s signature was no targets and no timetables, it was a price worth paying, because you could get targets and timetables in via negotiations later. Some people will agree, others will disagree. For what it’s worth, I think I disagree, because it has caused havoc and mayhem and delay, but it was always going to be like that, I guess.
What I think we can learn from this is that there were multiple efforts to get binding emissions reductions targets. See, for example, Kyoto. It’s clear that the Americans would never agree to that. The Senate under the thumb of vested interests would never agree to that.
What happened next emissions have climbed, atmospheric concentrations have climbed, and we are completely and utterly fucked.
On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays
Xx
References
xx
You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.
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.
If you want to get involved, let me know.
If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).
Also on this day:
September 2,1972 – BBC Radio speaks of “A Finite Earth” – All Our Yesterdays
September 2, 1972 – Adelaide FOE asks “is technology a blueprint for destruction?” (Spoiler – ‘yes’)
September 2, 1994 – International Negotiating Committee 10th meeting ends
September 2, 1999 – Bob Brown bill
September 2, 2002 – Blair in Maputo, wittering about Climate Technology
September 2, 2002- Peter Garrett argues “community action” vs #climate change