1/1/15, "Cabinet papers 1988-89: ‘We cannot afford to wait’ on climate change," Graham Lloyd, The Australian (cookies req.)
"Little has really changed in the quarter-century since the Australian government first considered the emerging issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
A cabinet minute dated December 5, 1989, notes the government should adopt a “phased approach”.
The first phase should encourage actions that could be implemented “at little or no additional cost, cause minimal disruption to industry or the community and offer other environmental and economic benefits in addition to those associated with the greenhouse effect”.
Cabinet agreed that early action should include phasing out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons by 2000.
It would also encourage increased energy efficiency, support reforestation, minimise deforestation and support efforts to increase natural gas and renewable energy use in the residential sector.
Despite this cautious tone, the CSIRO and the Commission for the Future were at the forefront of international research and public awareness campaigns on reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent to 2005, as decided at the Toronto conference in 1988.
Following his landmark Our Country, Our Future statement on July 20, 1989, prime minister Bob Hawke wrote to ministers requesting a working group be set up to evaluate options to reduce emissions.
He said it was clear “we cannot afford to wait until we are certain of all aspects of global climate change before action is taken ...”
He said the critical issue for Australia was to balance the costs and benefits of responding to greenhouse gas emissions in the short-to-medium term with current understanding of the issue." via Joanne Nova
1/6/15, "25 years of unscientific “action” against carbon. Don’t wait for the science…," Joanne Nova
"In 1988, way back before the data was in, the CSIRO was already push-pumping the public awareness campaign against carbon dioxide. There was never a debate about the science. Nobody checked the things that matter first, they just stepped straight into pointless action. (Why?) Twenty five years later, nothing has changed. There is still no one paid to make sure the science is right, too make sure Australians are being taken advantage of. When will conservative governments recognise that they can’t leave this vital area to unpaid volunteers without staff, funding, access to scientific libraries and full government data?
BOM and CSIRO [Australia Gov. Science and Industrial Research] research that suggests billion-dollar policies must be checked and replicated independently by a group with no interest but finding holes in it. In a law court, there is a defense whose job is to poke holes in the prosecutor’s case, but in science and public policy it’s like being back in the Middle Ages with only the prosecution’s accusations getting a hearing. Only with a proper science defense will the Australian taxpayers and the environment be served.
The Australian, Graham Lloyd
“…the CSIRO and the Commission for the Future were at the forefront of international research and public awareness campaigns on reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent to 2005, as decided at the Toronto conference in 1988.
And as early as 1989 the Australian government was already paying to set up vested interest groups to push for carbon reduction.
“Following his landmark Our Country, Our Future statement on July 20, 1989, prime minister Bob Hawke wrote to ministers requesting a working group be set up to evaluate options to reduce emissions.
He said it was clear “we cannot afford to wait until we are certain of all aspects of global climate change before action is taken …”
What working group would ever produce a report saying that reducing emissions was a waste of money? These would become the paid lobbyists to propagandize the issue."
The same was happening in the US with a 1990 mandate permanently obligating US taxpayers to matters relating to the global atmosphere including "reduction of greenhouse gases" (Sec. 204) without citing scientific evidence as a reason for doing so. Though it was so important that discussion should be "toward international protocols." Also listed in Sec. 204: "Promotion of conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." (Why was CO2 bad?)
11/16/1990: George Bush the 1st signed the "U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990:"
"To require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions toward international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes...
Section 102 tasks 14+ federal agencies with global change research.
"SEC. 204. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH INFORMATION OFFICE.Not more than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall, in consultation with the Committee and all relevant Federal agencies, establish an Office of Global Change Research Information. The purpose of the Office shall be to disseminate to foreign governments, businesses, and institutions, as well as the citizens of foreign countries, scientific research information available in the United States which would be useful in preventing, mitigating, or adapting to the effects of global change.
Such information shall include, but need not be limited to, results of scientific research and development on technologies useful for--
- reducing energy consumption through conservation and energy efficiency;
- promoting the use of solar and renewable energy sources which reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere;
- developing replacements for chlorofluorocarbons, halons, and other ozone-depleting substances which exhibit a significantly reduced potential for depleting stratospheric ozone;
- promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
- assisting developing countries in ecological pest management practices and in the proper use of agricultural, and industrial chemicals; and
- promoting recycling and source reduction of pollutants in order to reduce the volume of waste which must be disposed of, thus decreasing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
SEC. 301. STUDY AND DECISION AID.
- (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a study of the implications
and potential consequences of growth and development on urban, suburban,
and rural communities.
Based upon the findings of the study, the Secretary shall produce a decision aid to assist State and local authorities in planning and managing urban, suburban, and rural growth and development while preserving community character.
- (b) The Secretary of Commerce shall consult with other appropriate Federal departments and agencies as necessary in carrying out this section.
- (c) The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Congress a report containing the decision aid produced under subsection (a) no later than January 30, 1992. The Secretary shall notify appropriate State and local authorities that such decision aid is available on request.
- Approved November 16, 1990."
1992, UN environmental conference championed by Maurice Strong:
In 1992 Pres. George HW Bush flew to Rio with his EPA chief, hand picked (end of pg.) while serving as WWF president. Fellow WWF member Maurice Strong was chief promoter of the UN Rio agreement:
"Maurice Strong has played a unique and critical role is globalizing the environmental movement. Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Rio Environmental Summit, he was the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)."...
"Maurice Strong with US Secretary of State [under George H.W. Bush] Condoleezza Rice," mauricestrong.net
1992, Pres. Bush signs and US Senate unanimously approves UNFCCC agreement:
1992, "The George H.W. Bush administration signed the UNFCCC in Rio on June 12, 1992, and the U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously shortly thereafter, on October 15, 1992. ."...
Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)
George HW Bush EPA Chief Reilly writes about 1992 Rio climate agreement and Agenda 21:
Sept.-Oct. 1992, "The Road from Rio: The success of the Earth Summit depends on how well we follow through on its principles and programs," EPA Journal, by William K. Reilly, www2.epa.gov
"Agenda 21. This was perhaps the most remarkable achievement of the conference: an ambitious, 900-page action plan for protecting the atmosphere, oceans, and other global resources. Many of the ideas--community right-to-know, compiling information about toxic releases, environmental impact statements--originated in the United States. Agenda 21 represents an extraordinary new global consensus on standards against which to measure the environmental performance of governments. No doubt the press, non-governmental groups, and the business community will mine these documents for years to come. The human rights commitments of the 1970s and 1980s, the Helsinki Accords, and others, offer a model for how committed nongovernmental interests can confer authority on moral obligations and translate them into new policies."