{"id":"5ee3666c6cee070006837783","slug":"losing-earth-en","title":"Losing Earth","audio_url":"https://hls.blinkist.io/bibs/5ee3666c6cee070006837783/5ee3669c6cee070006dd5208-T1591966531.m4a?Expires=1653259514&Signature=ap7gTXrqeS~Uxc8GvDIzjsLmTZBsemNMmBpsNnYwo1Cm9tdqc~iL3evtfR~uwDI2mCErJuJNHCaspJLGt7MDs0jfxfOTzvY5L8cIF0Ua-sovSyYD-1z4plIHCHudlgsVw-PELa3Q2163OTaatjsOjh-EHtWTPQiFjIaA1v~Vx4qYpuS9NVRN1Ol2rhm0t4vh1DVyopTFQGg~uVHhDwBstPkHjFHoPwsJ9VjEmkNJfbClivvuLmxOwbVNJ5QC5l2vyzlQ3UXZXLn-3pHD2cT1LAS2G48t4zUFQvwE~v-wUpE~-qL2AiBv~qOsGZAVpsuoSe9~WYAx-76ncKWU6cFdzg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJXJM6BB7FFZXUB4A","chapters":[{"id":"5ee3669c6cee070006dd5208","title":"Scientists have demanded action on climate change for longer than you think.","text":"

The site: Geneva, Switzerland. Dozens of prominent scientists from all the world’s major powers have gathered for the first World Climate Conference. Their message is clear: industrial activity is drastically elevating the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If humanity wants to avoid disaster, we need to act now.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It could almost be a headline from this morning’s news. But this event didn’t happen yesterday or even last year. It happened in 1979.

The truth is, we’ve long understood the threat of man-made climate change. For decades, scientists have known of the causes, the disastrous effects, and how to avoid them. But, despite their efforts, we have failed to make the necessary changes.

The key message here is: Scientists have demanded action on climate change for longer than you think.

We can trace the modern push to stop climate change back to 1979. This was the year that Rafe Pomerance, an environmentalist working for Friends of the Earth, stumbled upon a startling report. It was put out by the Jasons, a scientific think tank led by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald.

The report claimed that human activity was on track to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It predicted that this change would set off a greenhouse effect, raising global temperatures and causing widespread ecological disruption. It was a nightmare scenario but based on solid arguments.

Alarmed, Pomerance contacted MacDonald. The two decided to use their connections in government to push for drastic change to avoid this fate. Over the next few months, they met with everyone they could in Washington. They talked with congressmen, the National Security Council, even senior staff of the president’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The response was reassuring. The officials seemed to take the threat seriously. By July, Jule Charney, a leading meteorologist, organized a conference of top scientific minds to address the issue. And at the conference, NASA scientist Jim Hansen presented detailed computer models confirming the predictions made by Pomerance and MacDonald.

The result of this collaboration was a final report, sometimes called The Charney Report, titled Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. It synthesized all the known variables into a clear narrative: If nothing changed, the world’s average temperature would go up three degrees. The results would be disastrous.

"},{"id":"5ee366b56cee070006837785","title":"Early climate change legislation was stymied by indifference and indecision.","text":"

October 1980. A diverse team of politicians, energy experts, and environmentalists meet at the Pink Palace, a gaudy resort in southern Florida. They’ve been assembled by Congress as part of the National Commission on Air Quality. Their task is to deliver concrete policy proposals for dealing with climate change.

It’s not an easy job. For three days, they debate the urgency, scope, and merit of various approaches to climate change. Some argue for forceful, decisive emergency action. Others call for a measured, mild response.

In the end, they can’t reach a consensus. No policy is drafted.

The key message here is: Early climate change legislation was stymied by indifference and indecision.

The conference held at the Pink Palace was a frustrating event for Pomerance. While he and MacDonald had succeeded in making climate change a known topic in Congress, forcing the legislative body to act was a harder challenge. It was particularly difficult to translate the careful, cautious language of scientific projection into concrete, definitive action for the present.

Pomerance and his allies argued that publicizing the science of climate change wasn’t enough. People wouldn't make the necessary changes to prevent a disaster that wouldn’t materialize for decades. Instead, the United States needed to show leadership and present a bold agenda.

To do this, Pomerance proposed two specific policies to reduce the production of fossil fuels drastically. The first was a modest tax on carbon. If implemented quickly, it could be as low as ten dollars per ton of emissions. The second policy was to make heavy investments in renewable energy. With lots of funding for new technology, the transition to a carbon-free future would be smoother.

Despite Pomerance’s pleas for action, the group could not agree on how to word their recommendations. Some of the conference-goers were uncomfortable with forceful language, and others were concerned about how these policies would affect the fossil fuel industry.

Of course, while the committee debated, the fossil fuel industry was already acting. Companies like Exxon were well aware that their product was capable of changing the climate. In fact, they had private studies projecting this fact as early as 1957.

So, in 1979, when Exxon executives noticed Congress was thinking of passing carbon legislation, they were ready. The company planned what internal memos called a “very aggressive defensive program,” complete with an annual budget of $600,000. The battle lines were already being drawn.

"},{"id":"5ee366c96cee070006dd5209","title":"Activists used congressional hearings to make climate change a popular political issue.","text":"

The Pink Palace conference was dispiriting, but what happened next was even worse. Four days after the inconclusive meeting, Ronald Reagan was elected president. The new Commander-in-Chief was aggressively right wing, and his administration’s priority was shrinking the federal government, not the world’s climate footprint.

Once in office, Reagan deregulated the mining industry, increased coal production, and opened up more public lands for oil drilling. On top of this, he gutted the Department of Energy and appointed Anne Gorsuch, an extreme anti-environmentalist, to oversee the Department of the Interior.

Pomerance watched in horror. He knew if anything was going to slow climate change, it would have to happen soon, and it would need broad public support.

The key message here is: Activists used congressional hearings to make climate change a popular political issue.

Luckily, even as Reagan dialed back environmental protections, the reality of climate change was seeping into mainstream discourse. On August 22, 1981, the New York Times ran a front-page piece on the topic. The article cited the work of NASA scientist Hansen and his colleagues, who had recently found proof that the Earth was indeed warming.

Pomerance saw an opportunity to make climate change a popular political issue. If he could get Hansen to testify on his work before Congress, it was possible to gain the media’s attention and start building public support for legislation. Luckily, a young congressman from Tennessee was on board with the plan. His name was Al Gore.

On March 25, 1982, Gore oversaw a series of hearings on Reagan’s plan to eliminate the Department of Energy's studies on carbon dioxide. Hansen testified at the hearings, along with a number of other esteemed scientists like Nobel Prize-winner Melvin Calvin. They laid out the problem in simple, direct terms. The Earth was warming, human carbon production was to blame, and, if we didn’t reduce our use of fossil fuels, we’d soon reach a “tipping point,” where ecological disaster was unavoidable.

The hearings yielded mixed results. Hansen’s warnings were covered by Dan Rather on the nightly news. Some lawmakers, even Republicans such as Representative Robert Walker, spoke as if they were determined to act. However, in the end, no policies or regulations were passed.

The outcome was even less positive for Hansen. His funding at NASA was cut, and his climate research was curtailed. By the end of 1982, his path forward, and the future of the Earth’s climate, was still agonizingly unclear.

"},{"id":"5ee366e56cee070006837786","title":"The ozone crisis reinvigorated a waning climate change movement.","text":"

Back in 1979, when Pomerance and MacDonald first raised the alarm about the greenhouse effect, they had one major success. They convinced the Carter Administration to fund a comprehensive study on climate change. Now, in October 1983, the National Academy of Sciences was prepared to deliver their findings.

Unsurprisingly, the projections were grim. The Academy’s 500-page dissertation contained the same basic facts and dire warnings as the earlier Charney Report. Yet, when presenting the findings to the press, the Academy followed the Reagan Administration’s line: climate change was no real threat, and if it was, we could easily adapt.

Once again, there would be no action. It seemed like the fight was over before it had even started. But then, something curious happened: scientists found a hole in the ozone layer.

The key message here is: The ozone crisis reinvigorated a waning climate change movement.

The nation’s top scientists had missed the opportunity to make a compelling case for radical reforms. Instead, the government was advocating a restrained “wait-and-see” approach, arguing that inevitable market innovations would solve any future climate problems.

The fossil fuel industry received the message loud and clear. While the American Petroleum Institute and Exxon had been preparing to make big changes to accommodate drastic new regulations, they now relaxed. With no legislation on the horizon, they could return to business as usual – drilling, mining, and refining carbon-heavy fuels.

Then, in May 1985, British scientists informed the world that the ozone layer was in danger. Their report stated that chemicals used in refrigerators, aerosol hairsprays, and plastic foams called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were depleting atmospheric ozone. Without this molecule, the Earth would absorb more solar radiation, meaning more skin cancers, lower agricultural yields, and collapsing marine ecosystems.

And, for once, governments listened. Within months, the UN had passed the Montreal Protocol, which established a framework for drastically cutting CFC emissions. Even the Reagan White House signed on, passing regulations to cut CFC production by 95 percent. It was truly a global-scale action to solve a global-scale problem.

Environmentalists took note. The quick and coordinated actions that nations took to limit CFC production provided a positive model. Maybe the same approach could be used to slow carbon emissions. Maybe there was still time.

"},{"id":"5ee366fb6cee070006dd520a","title":"In the mid-1980s, bipartisan, international climate action was a real possibility.","text":"

It’s 1985, and Pomerance is talking to Republican congressional staffer Curtis Moore about the need for urgent action on climate change. Moore listens and gives his honest advice. Carbon emissions may be a big problem, but without an attainable solution, no politician will take it on. Politicians don’t like failing.

A year earlier, this assessment would have been discouraging. However, with the successful fight against CFCs still fresh in the cultural zeitgeist, tackling carbon output doesn’t seem like such a losing proposition.

Pomerance has a plan. He tells Moore that there is an attainable solution: a smart politician should push for an international treaty.

The key message here is: In the mid-1980s, bipartisan, international climate action was a real possibility.

Pomerance, reinvigorated by the recent victory over CFCs, renewed his commitment to forcing political change. He took a job at the World Resources Institute and became the country’s first full-time climate action lobbyist. Within a few months, he had persuaded John Chafee, a Republican Senator from Rhode Island, to take up his cause and hold more climate-change hearings.

By June 1986, things were humming along. At Senator Chafee’s hearings, Pomerance, Hansen, and other scientists and activists were successfully tying the greenhouse effect to the recent CFC issue. Finally, they were getting across the message that climate change was both a huge threat and a solvable problem.

And the message was having an effect. More and more politicians were taking up the issue of climate change. In 1987, three different committees were held on the topic. Eventually, in March 1988, a bipartisan group of 41 senators called upon Reagan to negotiate a climate change accord with the world’s second-largest carbon producer, the Soviet Union.

These negotiations were a huge step and resulted in a bilateral agreement. In May, the United States and the USSR released a joint statement that both powers would work to cooperate on the climate change issue. The event was received with much fanfare, but it left Pomerance, Hansen, and other scientists uneasy.

A statement wasn’t action. There weren’t concrete regulations of limits put in place, and neither country presented a serious plan to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. Still, it was a start and made climate change seem like a popular issue that everyone, even international rivals, could get behind.

Yet, time was running out. After all, 1988 was already the hottest year on record.

"},{"id":"5ee367106cee070006837787","title":"Mild climate-change action received strong pushback from the fossil fuel industry.","text":"

The 1980s ended with a flurry of activity. In June 1988, the hottest June in history, Hansen once again testified before Congress, forcefully stating that climate change was a real, present danger. The world needed to act immediately.

Four days later, his call was answered. Representatives from 46 countries gathered in Toronto for the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere. After lengthy talks, the representatives adopted the first-ever international benchmarks for climate reduction. Taking a target suggested by Pomerance, the world’s industrialized powers tentatively agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by the year 2005.

While this decree was nonbinding, real progress was still on the horizon. However, while environmentalists rejoiced, representatives from the oil and gas industry were planning a counter offensive.

The key message here is: Mild climate-change action received strong pushback from the fossil fuel industry.

The Toronto conference made climate change an action item on the global stage. In the United States, it was also taking center stage. According to public polling at the time, nearly 70 percent of Americans saw the greenhouse effect as a looming threat. In the 1988 presidential election, George H. W. Bush even ran on a climate action platform, promising to reel back carbon emissions.

The fossil fuel industry was not happy. If Bush passed strict regulations, gave more funding for renewable energy, or instituted a hefty carbon tax, it could seriously curtail their operations. As the specter of reform grew, oil and gas executives became more concerned about their profits.

Throughout 1988, Terry Yosie of the American Petroleum Institute organized a series of meetings with high-level delegates from Exxon, Mobil, and other major energy producers. Facing the threat of a disruptive transition to a carbon-free future, the business insiders decided that the best response was to actively intervene in climate change policy. The plan: delay change by creating controversy.

All major fossil fuel companies knew that climate change was real. In fact, companies like Exxon and BP had internal memos documenting this reality. Yet, beginning in the late 1980s, they would put money into PR campaigns questioning the science.

In public statements and policy briefs, fossil fuel lobbyists began raising questions. They challenged climate data, worked to discredit experts, and tried to give the impression that there was no scientific consensus.

By the end of the year, the entire industry had seemingly settled on one coordinated talking point, “more research is necessary.”

"},{"id":"5ee367286cee070006dd520b","title":"The United States government abandoned its duty to lead on climate action.","text":"

May 1989. Hansen is preparing to testify before Congress. Like so many times before, he sends his statements to the White House for approval. It’s usually a routine procedure, a formality that he must conduct as a representative of NASA. However, this time, it’s different.

His notes come back full of edits and mark-ups. The Office of Management and Budget wants major changes. They want him to call his findings mere “estimates,” to refer to his solid models as “unreliable,” and to suggest that the cause of climate change is “scientifically unknown.”

The demands were galling, but not unsurprising. While Bush had paid lip service to climate change during the election, his administration had been apathetic and adverse to any real action.

The key message here is: The United States government abandoned its duty to lead on climate action.

Hansen’s scuttled congressional testimony was just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the entire Bush administration seemed dead set on siding with the oil and gas industry. Since coming to power, the Republican president had discouraged congressional movement on carbon policy and actively avoided any briefings on environmental issues in general.

This disregard for climate science could be traced back to John Sununu, Bush’s stubborn Chief of Staff. Sununu, formerly a congressman from New Hampshire, was an idiosyncratic figure. Despite being a mechanical engineer by training, he disdained other scientists and favored business-friendly government. Specifically, he thought that any type of environmental legislation was an authoritarian power grab – more about controlling people than saving the Earth.

In November of 1989, the UN convened the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Noordwijk, a small city in the Netherlands. Delegates from more than 60 countries met with the goal of ratifying a binding treaty to regulate industrial emissions. It was a historic opportunity to establish enforceable limits on carbon production.

Of course, Sununu ensured this attempt would fail. He instructed the US delegation to disrupt the talks. Negotiations went on long into the night. When they finally ended, the American diplomats had completed their task. No binding regulations were adopted, no countries, or industries, would be held accountable for climate change. The conference was a failure.

Within the next decade, climate change denial became Republican orthodoxy. Since that day in 1989, the world has produced more carbon than in all the millenia that came before. Global warming is in full swing, and drastic action is even more necessary.

"},{"id":"5ee3673a6cee070006837788","title":"Final summary","text":"

The key message in these blinks:

The current climate change crisis was not inevitable. Dedicated scientists and activists have been working to enact drastic carbon emission regulations and other reforms since the late 1970s. However, a coordinated push by the fossil fuel industry combined with myopic and underwhelming political leadership stunted these early attempts to save the planet.

Got feedback?

We’d sure love to hear what you think about our content! Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.com with the title of this book as the subject line and share your thoughts!

What to read next: Falter by Bill McKibben.

You just learned all about our first failed forays into enacting meaningful legislation on climate change. Next, get an update on the current climate situation with our blinks on Falter by Bill McKibben.

This book-in-blinks gives a concise and clear-eyed view of the contemporary environmental crisis as well as some serious, sobering speculation about where humanity is headed in the future. Informed by McKibben’s lifetime of work at the forefront of the conservation movement, this title lucidly illustrates the challenges we must collectively overcome to survive.

"}]}

Log in to Blinkist

Sign up for Blinkist

Learn more, live more