Thursday 28th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the four horsemen of our self-made apocalypse…….

In 1990, scientists from around the world published a report that spelled out that the climate was changing and that we — human beings — were the cause.

If we continued polluting, with business as usual …

"Emissions of greenhouse gases … will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 degree Celsius above the present value by 2025, and 3C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady."


By environment reporter Nick Kilvert for WHO'S GONNA SAVE US?

 

We hit 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels in 2017, and 3C is still on the cards for this century, depending on our emissions pathways.

This was the first of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, with the sixth series of reports coming out this year.

But while the IPCC continues to provide the most comprehensive climate data and forecasts, some scientists are refusing to take part in future assessments.

And they're calling on their colleagues to do the same. Why?

Late last year, Australian and New Zealand-based scientists Tim Smith, Iain White, and Bruce Glavovic published a paper in the journal Climate and Development (after several other journals knocked them back), called "The Tragedy of Climate Change Science".

They argued that the IPCC had done the job it was set up to do 30 years ago, but that it was no longer fit for purpose.

Instead, they presented the case for scientists to adopt a more radical approach to counter the "lack of transformational government action":

"The tragedy of climate change science is that compelling evidence is gathered, fresh warnings issued, new institutions established and novel methodologies developed to redress the problems. Yet, greenhouse gas emissions and other indicators of adverse climate change, and global change more broadly, rise year upon year …."

The "science-society contract has been broken", they wrote, adding that continuing with science as usual was no longer tenable.

While the paper was successful in starting a dialogue, almost nine months on they say there is still a lot more change that needs to be made.

"We need to take a stand that really takes the breath away of political leaders and governments about what the climate change science community is saying and is willing to do," says Professor Glavovic, an economist, environmental scientist and environmental planner at New Zealand's Massey University.

Lessons from apartheid

Professor Glavovic grew up under apartheid South Africa — a brutal and racist regime that lasted, under the gaze of the world, into the 1990s.

The regime conscripted white men to defend against "communism and African nationalism" — a fight he didn't see as legitimate.

"[Was] I going to go and carry a rifle and potentially be given orders to go and shoot black South Africans because they were so-called terrorists, or they were involved in civil disobedience?

"For me, that was abhorrent."

As a conscientious objector, Professor Glavovic's experience in South Africa taught him important lessons about the architecture of power, and how systems can be skewed to protect the powerful.

"I could see the limits of law — you could have a situation in South Africa [where] we essentially had a rule of law, but it propped up an illegitimate regime."

In an ideal world, scientists would provide governments with their research, and governments would act. The ozone hole, CFCs and the Montreal Protocol are a pretty good example of where that has been more or less the case.

But today, again under the world's gaze, the rule of law is helping prop up the very industries that are causing climate change, Professor Glavovic says.

He argues carrying on with IPCC reporting in its present form helps to hold up a façade — creating the illusion things are being done, while polluting and extractive industries carry on, more or less with business as usual.

"Our institutional architecture is organised around short-term profit that privileges the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the Global South and the majority of the world's population," he says.

"So how do you change that?"

Shared frustrations and hostile responses

The researchers haven't called carte blanche for a strike against the IPCC — each author has their own perspectives on how science should proceed — but broadly, they're asking for the international science community to step back and reassess how best to do climate science in the context of that "broken contract".

Responses to their paper have been mixed.

Report co-author Tim Smith, a human geographer and professor of sustainability at the University of the Sunshine Coast, says they have been contacted privately by researchers who share their frustrations and are looking for a better way forward.

"We've had more people coming on board saying, 'I share this frustration and it is something we need to have a discussion about,'" Professor Smith says.

But they've also had their critics. When the paper was first published, it blew up on Twitter.

 

"But as I said, this [paper] wasn't an attack on the science community or the amazing work they've been doing. I think, unfortunately, people grab headlines."

Though praising their "courage to spark this very important discussion", other scientists countered in a follow-up paper in the same journal that more research, not less, was needed to "address these power structures".

They wrote:

"We disagree that the science-society contract is broken and that a moratorium on climate change research is a tenable or meaningful solution."

Stopping IPCC would be a 'significant loss'

Mark Howden, director of the Australian National University's Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, is another critic of the paper.

Professor Howden has been involved with the IPCC since 1991.

"I've been involved in the second, third, fourth, fifth and now sixth [IPCC] assessment reports," he says.

"I think I'm the only person alive, or the only person full stop, who has actually done all of that."

Professor Howden says there's still really critical science being done, especially around climate impacts and adaptation, emissions reduction, sustainable and equitable development, and creating robust energy systems.

If that research was to stop, it would be a "significant loss", he says.

"The prospect of scientists going on strike because we're not being listened to is just not a great idea.

 

But he's also not dismissing the scientists' frustrations out of hand.

Instead, he says the way forward is for scientists to engage more with policymakers, and for them to work out how to intervene in "constructive ways".

"Being a scientist and a communicator these days is a very complex role, and particularly if you engage with the policy as well," he says.

"Similarly, a high-level policy maker dealing with climate change … that's an extraordinarily complex role, particularly when you have a very interventionist political environment.

"So I think understanding and respect are crucial to having a more productive relationship."

'What options have we got left?'

But Professor Smith says that approach has been done.

"People have said, 'well, you need better partnerships between governments and society', but we've tried that as well. So what options have we got left?"

The IPCC reporting process moves in cycles. We're at the tail end of the sixth cycle, which will likely wrap up in early 2023.

Professor Smith says he understands the idea of a strike is unpalatable, and that he'd love for someone to come up with a better idea, but that there's no time to wait and see what happens.

"Do we need a seventh [assessment cycle]? Are we going to wait another seven years to again hear about how terrible things are?

"We just don't have time for that. We need radical, transformational action now.

"We need just to put a pause on what we're doing. We haven't tried it before. It might not work, but maybe it will."

Professor Howden says he's not against scientists being activists as long as they are clear that that's what they're doing.

But he thinks climate scientists and the IPCC have already achieved great things, and can achieve even more by continuing to provide data in a "non-policy-prescriptive" way.

"I think there's a huge role for some scientists to engage with the public and in the political process. But in a trusted adviser way.

 

But Professor Glavovic says the idea of science being a completely objective endeavour unsullied by values is a myth.

"Science is an endeavour where choices are made about the questions that we explore, the methodologies that we use," he says.

"You can have socially relevant and meaningful science driven with passion and commitment in a robust, replicable and meaningful manner … it doesn't reduce the merit and the value of science."

The authors are not about shutting down the IPCC altogether. Instead, they say their paper was meant as a "provocation" — to get the conversation going in order to reimagine how the IPCC might have the greatest impact.

In the sense of starting a conversation, almost a year on from publishing their paper it's fair to say they've succeeded, and that the conversation is ongoing.

But Professor Glavovic says it will take radical action from the science community to make the big changes needed to get through to policymakers.

"I have no illusions — it's not going to take three white males to make a difference in this — we are not as immodest and arrogant as to assume that we could be a voice for the global climate change science community.

"I would like to see women and men from the Global South and diverse settings to be leading a charge that really mobilises a critical mass of the climate change science community."

As for getting climate change under control, he says that will take radical action from everyone.

"It is going to take mobilisation and action on multiple fronts and there will be some stand-out pivotal moments, that you will only realise with the benefit of hindsight.

"It is the Rosa Parks — refusing to get off a seat on a bus."

 

 

READ MORE:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-04/climate-change-ipcc-reports-scientists-withdraw-support/101357920

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................

 

colonial oil…...

 

By John McEvoy
Declassified UK

 

“Handsome” sums were provided by BP and Shell to the Information Research Department (IRD), which was Britain’s Cold War propaganda arm between 1948 and 1977, declassified files show. 

The IRD used the secret subsidies to fund British covert propaganda operations during the 1950s and 1960s across the Middle East and Africa, where Britain’s oil interests were substantial. Today, the value of the payments would be in the millions of pounds.

Such operations involved setting up newspapers and magazines, funding radio and television broadcasts and organising trade union exchanges.

The objective was to promote “stability” in these regions by countering the threat of communism and resource nationalism, while improving the “public image” of Britain’s leading oil companies.

Ultimately, the goal was to secure British access to the supply of Middle Eastern and African oil.

 

Oil & Propaganda

During the 1950s and 1960s, the IRD met annually with Shell and BP representatives to discuss how secret oil subsidies were being used and whether the oil companies were getting value for money.

In December 1960, IRD chief Donald Hopson met Shell’s U.K. executive Brian Trench and senior BP executive Archie Chisholm, alongside a number of other Foreign Office officials. The name of one individual remains classified, suggesting Britain’s intelligence services were also in attendance.

At the meeting, it was noted the IRD had spent £75,500 in oil money — valued at over £1.2 million today — on covert propaganda operations between April 1959 and March 1960.

Over half of this money had been spent on the Arab News Agency (ANA), a long standing British propaganda front which had strong links with MI6 [the U.K.’s Secret Intelligence Service].

“ANA operated the most comprehensive service in English and Arabic available in the Middle East with branch offices in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Amman, and representatives in some 15 other cities, including Paris and New York”, wrote journalist Richard Fletcher.

Hopson informed the oil companies “that their contributions had made it possible to put the [Arab News] Agency in a very strong competitive position in regard to its communications.”

For instance, oil company subsidies allowed ANA to pay for British news agency Reuters’ wire service. During this period, Reuters was pliable to U.K. government influence and was seen as a useful propaganda instrument.  

With this, ANA could supply news organisations across the Middle East with Reuters’ content. The service was described as “very successful in Egypt” and it “secured the first place for Reuters in competition with the other world agencies.”  

It is unclear whether Reuters was aware that the U.K. government was secretly channeling oil money into its accounts. One U.K. file, dated 1960 and entitled “Information Research Department: renegotiation of contract between Reuters and the Arab News Agency,” remains classified by the Foreign Office. 

 

‘Valuable Propaganda Instrument’

On top of this, the IRD used £3,000 of oil money to fund Al Aalam (“The Globe”), an ostensibly independent magazine published in Iraq, which was seen by the Foreign Office as “a most valuable propaganda instrument”.

Al Aalam supported U.K. anti-communist efforts and sought to counter anti-British messaging coming from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. At this time, Nasserite Arab nationalism posed a significant threat to Britain’s regional interests, and was a central focus of British propaganda activities.

The oil companies’ contributions to Al Aalam, which had been ongoing since the early 1950s, “had in fact tipped the scale when the Treasury decision concerning the launching of the periodical was made,” it was noted. In 1960, the magazine achieved a monthly circulation of 85,000.

During this period, £15,000 in money from the oil companies was also “expended in Iran” on “emergency operations” which enabled “visits to be arranged, publication and translation work to be undertaken, and training schemes for Persian radio officials to be put in hand.”

 

‘Handsome Contributions’

The IRD thanked Shell and BP for their “handsome contributions” and requested an additional £138,750 in secret funding for the period April 1960 to December 1961. Indeed, these were “handsome contributions,”  amounting to roughly 8 percent of the IRD’s annual official budget, and valued at £2.25m today.

“The general pattern of ANA’s activities would continue to be the same though the Agency would concentrate in the forthcoming year on strengthening its news collecting,” an IRD memo noted. To this end, the IRD requested an additional £42,500 for ANA’s running costs and £26,250 for Reuters’ wire service.

On top of its pre-existing operations, the IRD proposed using oil subsidies to fund a number of new ventures.

One such project was geared towards building up “sufficient influence with certain selected Libyan Trade Unionists” in order to “encourage a spirit of moderation into industrial demands.” This issue was seen as “of direct interest to the oil companies” such that the IRD could “anticipate their support.”

 

‘Student News Service’

In Latin America, the IRD wished to “interest ourselves particularly in the student and trade union fields” by setting up a “student news service” with oil company contributions.

On top of this, the IRD requested £5,000 for a “trade union exchange visits scheme.” The scheme had already begun in Latin America, and the IRD was looking for oil money to expand the project into Africa.

It was also “hoped to start an examination of the possibilities of setting up a [television] programme agency for the Middle East shortly.”

Another project focused on news agency Gulf Times/Al Khalij, an IRD outfit based in Beirut, which was looking to expand and open a new office in Kuwait.

According to one IRD document, the agency’s core objective was “the preservation of [British] oil interests in the Gulf.” It was noted that the oil companies may thus “think it suitable to contribute [£30,000] towards the capital cost of the new venture,” which was valued at £110,000. This project, however, was ultimately abandoned by the IRD in April 1961.

 

‘Handmaid of BBC Arabic’

In 1963, the oil companies funded Huna London (“This is London”), a magazine which was described by one IRD official as “the handmaid of the BBC Arabic service” and “the best means we have of addressing the Arabs as a whole.”

Huna London had been the words used to announce the first BBC broadcast in Arabic in 1938, and the magazine would become the Arabic equivalent to the Radio Times, which listed British television and radio programmes alongside “contributions from leading writers and illustrators of the day”.

Oil money had “enabled 6,000 extra copies” of Huna London to be printed in 1963, “each requested by an individual Arab, to be sent out from Beirut.” The IRD envisaged that it might soon receive “requests for 100,000 or more copies,” which was described as a “highly desirable” outcome.

One proposed project remains redacted in entirety.

 

‘Contingency Money’

Beyond this, the oil companies provided the IRD with tens of thousands of pounds in “contingency money,” which was to be used as “a stimulator of desirable projects.”

Norman Reddaway, a seasoned British propagandist based in the British embassy in Beirut, described the contingency fund as “particularly useful for pump-priming and for persuading people that desirable things could be done in advance of agreement by London.”

The oil companies felt the IRD was making good use of their money and, by 1960, they wanted to help British propaganda operations expand.

For instance, Shell was “widening their field of interest and… thinking in terms of propaganda in distribution areas as well as in producing territories. They are thus concerned with the public image of the oil companies in places like West Africa as well as in the Middle East.”

As a result, the IRD “could take it that” the oil companies “had an interest in all production and refining areas and territories adjacent thereto. Thus, for example, Somalia was an area of interest because of its proximity to Aden.”

 

Pump-Priming

By late 1963, Shell and BP were beginning to express irritation at the IRD’s continued reliance on oil funds for ongoing projects.

Shell and BP had intended to pump-prime British covert propaganda projects so that these ventures could become self-sustaining. The oil companies, it was noted, were happy to help propaganda projects get off the ground but “did not like involving themselves in continuing commitments.”

In private correspondence dated Dec. 16, 1963, Chisholm told Foreign Office official Leslie Glass that:

“the object originally of the exercise on which we are engaged was to assist you to overcome certain financial restrictions in getting things moving at a critical and difficult time. We have been glad to continue our assistance with certain of these projects to our mutual advantage.”

Chisholm continued:

“It was always our intention, however, that as projects reached full development and they justified financing from other sources, our contributions to them should tail off.”

Trench agreed, expressing hope that ANA, the Reuters service and the Ariel Foundation — a British front organisation which facilitated exchanges of trade unionists and academics — “could be entirely financed from other sources by about 1966.”

The oil companies also found covert payments an awkward affair. Chisholm, for instance, “asked whether a less complicated method of making subventions was desirable.”

The IRD was not satisfied. In a draft response to Trench, one IRD official noted that “we are… faced always with the preliminary difficulty of being able to only approach you regarding projects which have a territorial interest common to you and your friends.”

Moreover, the IRD emphasised that “the result of a cessation of your [oil company] support would be that … undertakings would have to be cut down and be less freely available in the areas of common interest.” 

Secret oil subsidies, in other words, were seen as central to the success of Britain’s propaganda operations in the region.

 

‘Very Grateful’

Meanwhile, the IRD would have to discuss Latin America “bilaterally” with Shell, given the company’s interests in Venezuela outweighed BP’s interests in the region.

Despite the oil companies’ reservations, another £60,000 was provided to the IRD in 1964, for which British officials were “very grateful.” At this stage, future oil-funded projects in Algeria and the United Arab Republic were under consideration.

Secret oil subsidies to the IRD continued beyond 1964. As historian Athol Yates found, BP agreed in 1968 to fund broadcaster Sawt Al Saahil, a British covert radio station based in Sharjah (an emirate in the Gulf), to the tune of £3,000 for three years.

However, the extent to which Shell and BP funded British covert propaganda operations in the late and post-Cold War period remains unclear.

Shell and BP did not respond to requests for comment. 

 

 

John McEvoy is an independent journalist who has written for International History Review, The Canary, Tribune Magazine, Jacobin and Brasil Wire.

This article is from Declassified UK

 

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/09/01/shell-bp-cold-war-propaganda/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW........................