According to an official website “The May 1990 Bergen Conference on Sustainable Development was attended by the Environment Ministers of 34 countries plus the EC Commissioner for the Environment. Hosted by Norway and co-sponsored by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), the Conference was one of a series of regional meetings1 held in advance of the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).”
Here’s what the FT had to say, on 11th May…
“As with many of these green conferences, almost anything – or nothing – could emerge from Bergen. The Norwegian Government is pressing participating countries to agree an ambitious communique which would, for example, commit them to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide (CO), the main greenhouse gas, by the end of the century.
This would entail short-term cuts in CO emissions particularly from coal-burning power stations. But several of the larger industrialised countries, including the US and UK, have let it be known that they have no intention of agreeing global warming commitments at Bergen.”
Thomas, D and Hunt, J. (1990) Wave on wave of good intentions: The issues facing the world’s environmental diplomats Financial Times 11th May
Remember the Soviet Union (you need to be 35 plus to do so… Well, on May 11th 1988 there was a “teleconference” about climate change – (source)
May 11, 2001: Bush Signs Oil Lobbying Organization’s Executive Order
President Bush signs Executive Order 13211. It is a verbatim copy of a “suggested” order sent in March by American Petroleum Institute official James Ford (see March 20, 2001). The executive order, enigmatically titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” exempts certain industry actions from federal review. [White House, 5/22/2001; Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 17]
and on the very same day –
In a letter of 11 May 2001 The White House asked the US NAS for assistance in identifying the areas in the science on climate change where there are greatest certainties and uncertainties. The NAS was also asked for its views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC reports and the IPCC summaries. An answer to the request was expected in early June, i.e., within less than a month. The NAS quickly appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of Dr Ralph Cicerone, chancellor of the University of California, Irving, CA, and a well-known researcher in atmospheric chemistry (and president of the NAS since 2005). Its report was ready in June…
(Bolin, 2007) Page 179
As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.