Introduction
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, threatening the very future of human civilization and life on Earth as we know it. But how did we get to this point? Why, despite decades of scientific warnings, have we failed to take meaningful action to address this existential threat?
In "Losing Earth," author Nathaniel Rich provides a gripping and deeply researched account of the earliest efforts to combat climate change, spanning the pivotal decade from 1979 to 1989. This book offers a sobering look at missed opportunities and the forces that have consistently undermined attempts to address the climate crisis.
Rich's narrative is both enlightening and infuriating, revealing how close we came to taking decisive action on climate change in the 1980s, only to have those efforts thwarted by a combination of political inertia, industry pushback, and human shortsightedness. The story told in "Losing Earth" is so important that the New York Times Magazine devoted an entire issue to Rich's original reporting, which has now been expanded into this book.
As we delve into the key ideas presented in "Losing Earth," we'll explore the early scientific understanding of climate change, the initial push for political action, the obstacles faced by climate activists, and the ultimate failure to seize a critical moment in history. This summary will provide valuable insights into how we arrived at our current climate predicament and the lessons we can learn from our past failures.
The Early Understanding of Climate Change
Scientists Sound the Alarm
One of the most surprising revelations in "Losing Earth" is just how long scientists have understood the threat of man-made climate change. Rich takes us back to 1979, when the first World Climate Conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland. At this gathering, prominent scientists from around the world delivered a clear message: industrial activity was drastically increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and urgent action was needed to avoid disaster.
This wasn't a recent discovery. In fact, the fossil fuel industry had been aware of the potential for climate change since at least the 1950s. Exxon, for example, had conducted private studies on the subject as early as 1957. Despite this long-standing knowledge, little had been done to address the issue.
The Charney Report
A pivotal moment came in 1979 when Rafe Pomerance, an environmentalist working for Friends of the Earth, stumbled upon a report by the Jasons, a scientific think tank led by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald. The report predicted that human activity would double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to widespread ecological disruption.
Alarmed by these findings, Pomerance and MacDonald began a campaign to raise awareness among government officials. Their efforts culminated in a conference organized by meteorologist Jule Charney, where NASA scientist Jim Hansen presented detailed computer models confirming the predictions of climate change.
The result of this collaboration was the Charney Report, officially titled "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment." This landmark document synthesized the available scientific knowledge and made a stark prediction: if nothing changed, the world's average temperature would increase by three degrees Celsius, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Early Attempts at Climate Action
The Pink Palace Conference
In October 1980, a diverse group of politicians, energy experts, and environmentalists gathered at the Pink Palace, a resort in Florida, as part of the National Commission on Air Quality. Their task was to develop concrete policy proposals for addressing climate change. However, the conference ended without consensus, highlighting the challenges of translating scientific projections into decisive political action.
Pomerance and his allies argued for bold measures, including a modest carbon tax and significant investments in renewable energy. However, these proposals faced resistance from those concerned about potential impacts on the fossil fuel industry and the economy.
The Reagan Era Setback
The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 dealt a significant blow to early climate action efforts. Reagan's administration prioritized deregulation and expanding fossil fuel production, gutting environmental protections and agencies. This shift in political priorities made it even more challenging for climate activists to gain traction.
Congressional Hearings and Media Attention
Despite the setbacks, climate activists found new ways to raise awareness. In 1982, with the help of then-Congressman Al Gore, they organized congressional hearings featuring testimony from prominent scientists like Jim Hansen. These hearings helped bring climate change into the mainstream media, with coverage on national news programs.
However, the hearings failed to produce concrete policies or regulations. Moreover, scientists like Hansen faced funding cuts and restrictions on their climate research, illustrating the growing political resistance to addressing the issue.
The Ozone Crisis and Its Impact
A New Environmental Threat Emerges
Just as the climate change movement seemed to be losing momentum, a new environmental crisis emerged: the hole in the ozone layer. In May 1985, British scientists reported that chemicals used in refrigerators, aerosol sprays, and plastic foams (chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) were depleting the ozone layer, threatening to increase skin cancer rates, reduce agricultural yields, and disrupt marine ecosystems.
Swift Global Action
The response to the ozone crisis was remarkably swift and coordinated. Within months, the United Nations passed the Montreal Protocol, establishing a framework for drastically cutting CFC emissions. Even the Reagan administration, which had been resistant to environmental regulations, signed on to cut CFC production by 95 percent.
Renewed Hope for Climate Action
The successful global response to the ozone crisis provided a model and renewed hope for climate activists. It demonstrated that international cooperation was possible in the face of a global environmental threat. This success reinvigorated the climate change movement, with activists like Pomerance seeing a potential path forward for addressing carbon emissions.
The Window of Opportunity
Bipartisan Support and International Cooperation
The mid-1980s saw a surge in political interest in climate change. In 1986, Republican Senator John Chafee held hearings on the issue, allowing scientists and activists to draw parallels between the greenhouse effect and the ozone crisis. By 1987, multiple congressional committees were addressing climate change, and a bipartisan group of 41 senators called on President Reagan to negotiate a climate accord with the Soviet Union.
US-Soviet Joint Statement
In May 1988, the United States and the Soviet Union released a joint statement pledging to cooperate on climate change. While this agreement lacked concrete actions or emissions targets, it signaled that climate change was becoming a global priority that could transcend even Cold War rivalries.
The Toronto Conference
In June 1988, representatives from 46 countries gathered in Toronto for the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere. This meeting resulted in the first international benchmarks for climate reduction, with industrialized nations tentatively agreeing to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2005. Although non-binding, this agreement represented significant progress in international climate negotiations.
Public Awareness and Political Promises
By 1988, public awareness of climate change had grown significantly. Polling showed that nearly 70 percent of Americans viewed the greenhouse effect as a serious threat. The issue even featured in the 1988 presidential campaign, with George H.W. Bush promising to take action on climate change.
Industry Pushback and the Birth of Climate Denial
The Fossil Fuel Industry's Response
As the possibility of climate legislation grew more real, the fossil fuel industry began to mobilize. Throughout 1988, Terry Yosie of the American Petroleum Institute organized meetings with representatives from major energy companies like Exxon and Mobil. Faced with the threat of regulations that could impact their profits, these companies decided to actively intervene in climate policy discussions.
The Strategy of Doubt
Despite their internal knowledge of climate change's reality, fossil fuel companies embarked on a strategy to create doubt and controversy around the issue. They funded PR campaigns questioning the science, challenged climate data, worked to discredit experts, and sought to give the impression that there was no scientific consensus on climate change.
"More Research is Necessary"
By the end of 1988, the fossil fuel industry had coalesced around a single talking point: "more research is necessary." This strategy aimed to delay action by suggesting that the science was not yet settled, despite the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that already existed.
Government Inaction and Missed Opportunities
The Bush Administration's Resistance
Despite George H.W. Bush's campaign promises, his administration proved resistant to meaningful climate action. John Sununu, Bush's Chief of Staff, played a key role in obstructing climate initiatives. Sununu, an engineer by training, was skeptical of climate science and viewed environmental regulations as government overreach.
Undermining Scientific Testimony
In May 1989, when NASA scientist Jim Hansen prepared to testify before Congress, the White House Office of Management and Budget demanded significant changes to his statement. They wanted him to downplay the certainty of his findings and suggest that the cause of climate change was "scientifically unknown." This interference highlighted the administration's efforts to sow doubt about climate science.
The Noordwijk Conference Failure
In November 1989, the UN convened the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Noordwijk, Netherlands. This conference aimed to establish binding regulations on carbon emissions. However, at Sununu's direction, the US delegation worked to disrupt the talks. As a result, no binding regulations were adopted, marking a significant setback for international climate action.
The Legacy of a Lost Decade
The Rise of Climate Denial
In the years following the events described in "Losing Earth," climate change denial became increasingly entrenched in Republican politics. The doubt sowed by the fossil fuel industry and the resistance of the Bush administration laid the groundwork for a sustained campaign of climate skepticism.
Accelerated Emissions
The failure to act decisively in the 1980s had profound consequences. In the decades since, global carbon emissions have accelerated dramatically. Rich notes that more carbon has been emitted since that pivotal moment in 1989 than in all of human history before it.
A Crisis Deferred, Not Averted
The story told in "Losing Earth" is one of missed opportunities and deferred action. The climate crisis we face today is, in many ways, the result of decisions made and not made during this critical period. The failure to act when the dangers were first clearly understood has made the challenge we now face far more daunting.
Lessons from "Losing Earth"
The Power of Industry Influence
One of the key takeaways from Rich's account is the outsized influence of the fossil fuel industry in shaping climate policy. Despite early knowledge of the risks, these companies prioritized short-term profits over long-term planetary health, using their considerable resources to obstruct meaningful action.
The Importance of Political Will
The story of "Losing Earth" underscores the crucial role of political leadership in addressing global challenges. The contrast between the swift action on the ozone crisis and the failure to act on climate change highlights how political will can make or break efforts to address environmental threats.
The Danger of Delay
Perhaps the most important lesson from this history is the cost of delay. The failure to act decisively in the 1980s, when the science was already clear and the problem more manageable, has made our current situation far more precarious. This underscores the urgency of immediate and decisive action on climate change.
The Need for Public Engagement
While scientists and some politicians understood the threat of climate change, broader public engagement was lacking. This allowed doubt and denial to take root. The experience of the 1980s highlights the importance of clear, consistent public communication about climate science and the need for action.
The Challenge of Long-term Thinking
One of the persistent obstacles to climate action has been the difficulty of mobilizing resources and political will to address a long-term threat. The story in "Losing Earth" illustrates how short-term political and economic considerations often trumped the need for long-term planning and action.
Conclusion
"Losing Earth" provides a sobering look at a critical moment in climate history – a moment when we came tantalizingly close to taking meaningful action, only to fall short. Nathaniel Rich's detailed account of the period from 1979 to 1989 offers valuable insights into the complex interplay of science, politics, and industry that has shaped our response to climate change.
The book serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action. It reminds us that we have long possessed the knowledge and means to address climate change, but have lacked the collective will to do so. As we face the intensifying impacts of global warming, the lessons from this lost decade become ever more relevant.
Rich's narrative also highlights the human element in this global drama. The dedication of scientists like Jim Hansen, the advocacy of environmentalists like Rafe Pomerance, and the resistance of figures like John Sununu all played crucial roles in shaping our climate trajectory. Their stories remind us that individual actions and decisions can have profound global consequences.
As we grapple with the accelerating climate crisis today, "Losing Earth" provides valuable historical context and important lessons. It underscores the urgent need for decisive action, the importance of resisting industry influence on policy, and the critical role of informed public engagement in driving change.
Ultimately, "Losing Earth" is not just a history of failure, but a roadmap for understanding the challenges we face in addressing climate change. By understanding how we lost our first chance to address this crisis, we may be better equipped to seize the opportunities we have left. The book serves as a powerful reminder that the time for action is now – we cannot afford to lose the Earth again.