Losing Earth Summary

Why, despite knowing about the dangers of climate change for decades, have we failed to act decisively to protect our planet?

1. Scientists Warned Us About Climate Change Back in 1979

In 1979, at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, scientists issued the first major warning about climate change. They highlighted the dangerous increase in carbon dioxide levels from industrial activity and urged immediate action. The Charney Report followed, predicting a rise in global temperatures of approximately three degrees Celsius if emissions were not curbed.

This wasn't a fringe theory. The reports were based on robust evidence, including computer models, that depicted the catastrophic effects of rising global temperatures. Alarmed by these findings, climate advocates like Rafe Pomerance and geophysicist Gordon MacDonald worked tirelessly to push the issue into the political arena, lobbying members of Congress and key government offices.

Despite these early efforts, political responses were lackluster. The warnings were acknowledged but failed to translate into transformative policies. Leaders seemed complacent, unable to grasp or act on the urgency of the science, leaving the planet on a collision course with disaster.

Examples

• The Charney Report predicted three degrees of warming with grave consequences.
• Rafe Pomerance and Gordon MacDonald lobbied Washington based on data from the Jasons, a scientific think tank.
• Meetings in Washington, including with NASA scientist Jim Hansen, did not lead to any impactful change.

2. Early Legislative Attempts Failed Due to Division and Indifference

The 1980 Pink Palace Conference convened a diverse group of politicians, scientists, and energy experts to draft policies addressing climate change. However, the delegates could not agree on the urgency of the threat or the specific actions they should recommend.

Proposals on the table included a small carbon tax and investments in renewable energy to transition toward a sustainable future. While some delegates supported these ideas, others resisted, either due to concerns about economic impacts or an unwillingness to challenge the fossil fuel industry.

Meanwhile, oil companies like Exxon were already taking defensive action. Internally, they acknowledged the threat of climate change but prioritized their profits by funding efforts to challenge emerging legislation. This gave the fossil fuel industry a head start in derailing early climate policy initiatives.

Examples

• Proposals like a carbon tax and renewable energy funding faced pushback at the Pink Palace Conference.
• Exxon initiated a $600,000 annual strategy to counteract potential climate legislation.
• Conference attendees were paralyzed over how to phrase recommendations.

3. Activists and Scientists Tried to Spotlight Climate Change in Congress

Following setbacks at the Pink Palace and Reagan's deregulation policies, activists like Rafe Pomerance sought to amplify the message about climate change. Al Gore, a young congressman, also joined the cause, organizing hearings to educate lawmakers on carbon's ecological damage.

NASA scientist Jim Hansen testified in 1982, emphasizing dire consequences and urging action. His clear, straightforward explanation helped bring climate change to public attention, with major media outlets covering the issue. However, despite the hearings, no substantial policies were passed.

Hansen's testimony came at a cost. The Reagan administration cut his research funding. Scientists like him continued to battle systemic roadblocks, struggling to gain sustained momentum for addressing what was becoming an increasingly visible problem.

Examples

• Al Gore facilitated hearings in Congress to raise awareness of the problem.
• NASA’s Jim Hansen brought computer-model evidence to the forefront of the hearings.
• Media coverage increased public recognition of climate change but didn’t lead to action.

4. The Ozone Crisis Offered a Ray of Hope

In the 1980s, the world faced another environmental emergency: the ozone layer was depleting due to harmful CFCs found in aerosols and refrigerators. This alarm led to swift global cooperation under the Montreal Protocol, cutting CFC emissions by 95%.

The success in tackling the ozone issue reinvigorated the fight against climate change. Advocates believed the model of international coordination could be replicated for carbon dioxide reduction. It spurred renewed lobbying efforts and offered a proof point that global collective action could work.

Yet, as optimism grew, so did resistance. Fossil fuel industries watched how rapidly governments handled the ozone problem and sought to ensure such momentum wouldn't affect their products. The battle to shift focus back to carbon was just beginning.

Examples

• The Montreal Protocol was signed to restrict CFC emissions globally.
• The protocol showed that international agreements could effectively address ecological problems.
• Environmentalists gained inspiration from the swift measures undertaken to save the ozone.

5. Bipartisanship on Climate Action Once Seemed Possible

By the mid-1980s, Republican leaders like Senator John Chafee showed support for environmental measures. This bipartisan interest, coupled with the international push for action, seemed to create a fertile ground for agreements on climate reduction.

Conversations intensified, and in 1988 the US and the USSR released a joint statement signaling their commitment to working together on climate issues. Diplomats believed progress was possible, even across Cold War divides—a hopeful moment in a global effort.

However, without concrete regulations to enforce emission reductions, these declarations ultimately rang hollow. Political unity on climate was fleeting, soon to crumble as industries lobbied harder to protect their interests.

Examples

• Senator John Chafee held hearings on climate change with bipartisan cooperation.
• A joint US-Soviet statement in 1988 included cooperation on carbon policies.
• Such international recognition solidified climate change as a universal concern.

6. Fossil Fuel Giants Fought Hard Against Even Mild Changes

As international climate summits like the Toronto Conference gained traction, fossil fuel companies launched concentrated efforts to obscure facts and disrupt progress. Public opinion polls showed growing concern, but industry-funded PR campaigns diluted trust in the science.

Although major oil corporations secretly accepted climate change as real, their leaders funneled resources into misinformation. They paid for ads and policy briefings designed to sow doubt about the consensus among scientists, delaying reform initiatives.

The message echoed everywhere: "more research is necessary." The industry's coordinated efforts effectively stalled legislative action, even as global temperatures continued to rise.

Examples

• Fossil fuel executives united on delaying reforms, actively influencing public perception.
• Memos from Exxon revealed internal acknowledgment of climate science while making public denials.
• Slogans like “more research is necessary” dominated fossil fuel PR strategies.

7. Bush Administration Turned Its Back on Climate Leadership

Despite running on promises of climate action, President George H. W. Bush largely ignored the issue upon taking office. His Chief of Staff, John Sununu, was openly critical of environmental laws, undermining every attempt to regulate climate harms.

When the UN convened the 1989 Noordwijk climate conference, it was the US delegation that sabotaged negotiations. Empowered by Sununu's partisan stance, American diplomats ensured no binding agreements emerged, effectively derailing global progress.

This retreat from leadership marked the beginning of entrenched climate change denial, with successive governments making minimal efforts to confront the warming planet. The impacts of this inaction would become increasingly evident over the decades that followed.

Examples

• Hansen’s 1989 testimony was censored by the Bush administration.
• John Sununu played a critical role in opposing binding agreements at Noordwijk.
• The US blocked international moves towards enforceable carbon limits.

8. Climate Denialism Became Partisan Orthodoxy

By the 1990s, climate change denial solidified as a Republican ideological stance. This shift was fueled by heavy lobbying from fossil fuel companies and a general distrust of science among party leaders.

Companies like Exxon poured millions into junk science, funding think tanks and media campaigns that blurred the truth about global warming. As public confusion spread, the political will to act on climate fell apart, leaving little resistance to growing emissions.

This era cemented a pattern: industry interference coupled with government inaction, which allowed decades of greenhouse gas production to accelerate unchecked.

Examples

• Fossil fuel lobbying efforts spiked in the 1990s to influence Congress.
• Denial literature grew, funded by wealthy energy companies.
• Political polarization on the issue widened, with climate considered a partisan topic.

9. Climate Damage Is Accelerating, But the Crisis Was Preventable

The science has been clear since at least the 1970s, and there were moments when the world could have acted decisively. Yet, short-sightedness among politicians and intense lobbying by industries delayed action for decades.

The planet is now warming at a rapid rate, bringing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and irreversible ecological damage. Scientists believe many of these effects could have been avoided had early climate advocates succeeded.

The road forward remains challenging. The question is no longer whether the world can prevent change but whether it can limit the damage already done.

Examples

• 1988 was the hottest year on record at that time, a harbinger of trends to come.
• Denied opportunities in 1989 Noordwijk left emissions unchecked.
• Today’s carbon levels dwarf those seen throughout human history.

Takeaways

1. Support accurate scientific education and reject misinformation campaigns about climate change science.
2. Push leaders for immediate, enforceable emissions reductions and renewable energy investments.
3. Use historical lessons to ensure accountability for industries profiting at the environment's expense.