Ever wondered how the political battles within the White House in 1989 shaped the US's stance on global warming? How did key players like Dick Darman, Sununu, and Reilly navigate this impending crisis? How did the response to the ozone layer crisis influence the approach to tackling global warming? Discover the answers to these questions and more in this gripping narrative of political struggle, environmental advocacy, and the relentless quest for a sustainable future.

Losing Earth

In 1979, Rafe Pomerance, a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth, stumbled upon a government report that suggested humankind was destroying the conditions necessary for its survival. 

The document warned that the continued use of fossil fuels could cause “significant and damaging” changes to the global atmosphere within two or three decades. Pomerance, shocked by the implications, sought to understand more. 

He teamed up with Gordon MacDonald, a geophysicist and member of the elite Jasons scientific consulting group. Together, they embarked on a mission to raise awareness of this looming crisis among those in power. They met with high-level officials, including the president’s top scientist, Frank Press. As a result, an assessment of the carbon dioxide problem was requested from the National Academy of Sciences. 

Meanwhile, Jim Hansen, a NASA scientist, was studying the atmospheric conditions of Venus, realizing the lessons learned could be applied to Earth. His research suggested a temperature increase of 4 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled. 

In Woods Hole, a group of scientists led by Jule Charney, were tasked to review the science and decide if MacDonald’s prediction of a climate apocalypse was justified. They concluded that when carbon dioxide levels doubled, global temperatures would increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, most likely landing at a 3-degree increase. This would result in a similar climate to the Pliocene period three million years ago when seas were eighty feet higher.

The Charney report was accepted as a reliable prediction of the future climate, but it left Hansen with more questions. He wondered if it was possible to reverse the warming trend and who had the power to stop burning fossil fuels. He didn't know anything about politics, but he knew he had to learn.

Can we reverse the devastating effects of climate change? Is it too late, or do we still have a chance? These questions remain relevant today, as we face the reality of our warming world.

Can We Reverse the Climate Apocalypse Predicted by Elite Scientists in 1979?

In the late 1970s, a group of philosophers, economists, and social scientists, known as the Fatalists, were engaged in a heated debate about the feasibility of a human solution to the human-induced problem of global warming. They took the worst-case scenario as a given and questioned whether humans, when faced with this existential crisis, were willing to prevent it. 

The advent of the industrial age, they argued, led to a loss of control over technology, with inventions like the spinning jenny, coke-fueled furnace, and coal-fed steam engine inviting dangers that were unforeseen and increasingly unavoidable. The dire consequences of technological advancement were evident - from the black smoke blotting out daylight in London and Yorkshire, the Dust Bowl revealing the short-sightedness of mechanization, to the widespread adoption of gasoline-powered automobiles leading to mass delusion. 

A 1977 report by the National Research Council argued that carbon emissions posed an equal threat to humanity. It claimed that human capacity to inadvertently disrupt the global environment had surpassed our ability to predict the extent of the impact. The report warned that humanity's fossil fuel dependency would lead to "intolerable" and "irreversible" disasters. 

Anthropologist Margaret Mead echoed these sentiments in 1975, stating that unless people began to understand the immense and long-term consequences of seemingly small immediate choices, the entire planet may become endangered. Yet, the question remained - would the mere awareness of the problem spur a sensible response? Could the threat of a distant catastrophe motivate change? 

Economists argued that by nature, humans placed little value on the future. The benefit of short-term gain often dwarfed the cost of long-term risk. This made climate change the perfect economic disaster. 

Yale economist William Nordhaus suggested a remedy - to make nations pay the true cost of carbon by levying a tax on emissions. However, this required an international treaty, the feasibility of which was widely questioned. 

Meanwhile, Exxon decided to create its own carbon dioxide research program, aiming to determine how much of the warming could be attributed to Exxon. However, this sparked debates about the politicization of the issue and the practicality of ending oil production. 

In 1979, a group of experts gathered at the Pink Palace in Florida to discuss how to prevent global warming. While they agreed that an international treaty would be needed to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide at a safe level, they could not agree on what that level was. The group struggled to draft a single paragraph of policy proposal, revealing the challenges of reaching a consensus on the issue.

The Fatalists' Warning: The Struggle for Global Consensus on Climate Change in the 70s

In November 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president, a fact that concerned environmentalist Rafe Pomerance. 

Reagan's plans to close the Energy Department, increase coal production on federal land, and deregulate surface coal mining raised alarms. He also appointed James Watt, a pro-mining and drilling advocate, to head the Interior Department. The National Coal Association was thrilled, but environmentalists were horrified.

Reagan also wanted to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but instead appointed anti-regulation advocate Anne Gorsuch as its administrator, leading to a 25% cut in the agency's staff and budget. Meanwhile, a report warning of the disastrous effects of fossil fuels on Earth's atmosphere was ignored.

Anthony Scoville, at a meeting at the Pink Palace, suggested the climate crisis was more political than atmospheric. Pomerance agreed but added that it was also a publicity problem. The issue was failing to gain traction in the public sphere and the Reagan administration seemed hell-bent on reversing previous environmental achievements.

Some Republicans, however, were alarmed by Reagan's environmental policies. Senator Robert Stafford lectured Anne Gorsuch on her moral obligation to protect the nation’s air and water. Reagan’s proposal to eliminate the position of science adviser was also criticized, as was his threat to terminate his Council on Environmental Quality.

Despite this, the Charney report on global warming continued to vibrate at the periphery of public consciousness. Major studies confirmed its conclusions and headlines warned of an impending climate apocalypse. However, to sustain major attention, major events were needed. Congressional hearings were the best way to achieve this, but a scandal or scientific breakthrough was required.

In August 1981, a study by seven NASA scientists revealed that the world had already begun to warm. Dr. James Hansen, the lead author, was called by Pomerance to discuss the paper. Hansen revealed that his funding for climate research had been cut by the newly appointed director of the Energy Department’s carbon dioxide program, Fred Koomanoff.

In March 1982, Hansen testified before Congress, asserting that Earth had been warming since 1880, and the warming would reach an “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century. Melvin Calvin, a Nobel laureate, agreed with Hansen's findings, stating it was already later than they thought.

Despite the successful hearing, Hansen’s funding wasn't restored. However, Exxon offered to fund Hansen’s symposium at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty campus. Edward David, Jr., Exxon's representative, pledged that Exxon would revise its corporate strategy to account for climate change and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Despite the setbacks, Hansen felt a sense of optimism. The Reagan administration's aggressive environmental policies had begun to cause internal strife and public concern was growing. The issue of carbon dioxide was slowly moving from being a scientific concern to a political one. The political realm, Hansen realized, offered freedoms that science did not. With enough pressure, he believed the political world could be shifted to reveal a new, more environmentally friendly future.

Did Ronald Reagan's Presidency Ignite the Climate Crisis?

By the end of 1984, political activist Rafe Pomerance had seen years of effort in raising awareness about climate change seemingly go to waste. 

The Charney report, a comprehensive analysis of the carbon dioxide problem, had seemingly failed to ignite the necessary political action. Despite the involvement of distinguished scientists in the report, the Reagan administration delayed any policy decisions until the National Academy made its recommendations.

When the Academy finally released its findings, it argued against urgent action despite the dire projections in the report. Pomerance was flabbergasted. He believed the evidence was clear and the need for action was immediate. Yet, the report received wide coverage and effectively halted any immediate action on climate change, including research programs at Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute.

Pomerance’s frustration peaked in a 1984 hearing before Al Gore’s subcommittee, where he argued passionately for immediate action. He suggested that the burden of proof should be shifted to energy industries to prove that burning fossil fuels was benign. Despite his pleas, little action was taken.

Pomerance subsequently resigned from Friends of the Earth and spent a year in contemplation. He struggled to see what could be done to reignite action on climate change. In the meantime, a new environmental crisis was emerging. A team of British scientists had discovered a hole in the ozone layer. This sparked a global outcry and led to the establishment of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

This swift international response to the ozone crisis prompted some to wonder if similar action could be taken for the carbon dioxide problem. At a meeting in Villach, Austria, a group of scientists, including Pomerance, began to discuss politics and the need for scientists to demand political action in times of existential crisis. This marked a significant shift in the scientific community's approach to climate change. While Pomerance and others had been advocating for action for years, the urgent response to the ozone hole suggested a new possibility for addressing the climate crisis.

Rafe Pomerance: The Unsung Warrior in the Battle Against Climate Change

In the fall of 1985, Republican Curtis Moore dismissed the greenhouse effect as a non-issue, arguing that it had no clear solutions and was therefore not a political problem. 

Rafe Pomerance, a dedicated environmentalist, was left frustrated and worried. He had been following the issue of the ozone layer's rapid deterioration and recognized that most politicians were turning a blind eye to the looming disaster. 

Pomerance, the first full-time lobbyist for global warming, joined the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit organization focusing on politics, international diplomacy, and energy policy. However, he found himself battling for attention as the conversation on Capitol Hill was dominated by the ozone issue. Curtis Moore suggested that Pomerance use the ozone issue to revive interest in carbon dioxide, given the international treaty already in negotiation for the former. 

Despite his skepticism, Pomerance agreed and the Senate held a double-barreled hearing on the twin problems of ozone and carbon dioxide. The hearing was a success, garnering significant press coverage and causing a surge of interest in global warming. This prompted Senator John Chafee to demand that the State Department begin negotiations on a global climate accord with the Soviet Union.

However, Pomerance realized that the public was more alarmed by the ozone layer issue because it was presented in a way that was visible and relatable, unlike the more abstract concept of global warming. This realization led to a shift in the narrative, helping to bring the issue of global warming to the forefront of public attention.

In the following years, the climate change issue gained momentum. By 1987, several climate hearings were held and legislation to establish a national climate change strategy was introduced. The mood was optimistic, with scientists, politicians, and even oil and gas executives coming together to discuss potential solutions. However, Jim Hansen, a leading figure in climate research, experienced an unsettling encounter with state censorship that cast a shadow over the progress made.

Despite the political triumph of the Montreal Protocol and bipartisan support for climate policy, Hansen discovered that there were forces within the White House actively trying to prevent an honest reckoning with the nature of the problem. This realization unsettled him, marking the emergence of a new, nihilistic force in the fight against climate change. 

As spring turned to summer in 1988, Hansen grew tense and withdrawn, consumed with the thought that time was running out to address global warming. And then came the summer of 1988, when it became clear to everyone that time indeed was running out. 

Did Political Roadblocks and State Censorship Hinder the Fight Against Global Warming in the 1980s?

In the summer of 1988, the world was aflame. Alaska lost 2 million acres in wildfires. Yellowstone National Park lost nearly a million acres. Nebraska experienced its worst drought since the Dust Bowl, with temperatures consistently above 100 degrees. The director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment warned that the drought might signal a climate change that could turn the state into a desert within a half-century. 

Amid these dire conditions, Rafe Pomerance and Daniel Becker attended a meeting in Noordwijk in 1989, aiming to address the growing climate crisis. Jim Hansen, a leading climate scientist, made headlines with his bold statement: "1988 so far is so much warmer than 1987, that barring a remarkable and improbable cooling, 1988 will be the warmest year on record. The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."

This statement ignited a firestorm of media coverage and public attention. Hansen's testimony led the national news, and public awareness of the greenhouse effect reached an all-time high of 68 percent. Suddenly, climate change was a major issue in the presidential campaign. Even George H. W. Bush, the eventual winner, pledged to combat the greenhouse effect with the "White House effect."

Pomerance and his allies knew the urgency of the situation. They proposed a specific target: a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2000. This ambitious goal quickly became global diplomatic policy. The momentum was building, and by the end of the year, thirty-two climate bills had been introduced in Congress. 

But would these promises and policies be enough to turn the tide? Could the world come together to combat this existential threat? The stage was set for a global battle against climate change, one that would test the resolve of nations and the resilience of our planet.


1988: The Year Climate Change Ignited Global Action

In the late 1980s, the oil industry was grappling with the reality of global warming. 

Terry Yosie, a recent hire at the American Petroleum Institute (API) was tasked with demystifying this complex issue for the industry's top executives. He discovered that some API members like British Petroleum and Mobil were already conducting their own investigations into climate change. 

However, many within the industry were still largely ignorant about its implications or potential economic impacts. To address this, Yosie organized a workshop with guest speakers who could credibly discuss the science and policy ramifications of climate change. The speakers emphasized the necessity of immediate action to mitigate the economic risks of inaction. 

Yosie then proceeded to brief API's executive committee, highlighting the certainty of global warming due to oil and gas combustion. He presented three strategic options: a binding global treaty, ignoring the problem, or proceeding cautiously. Yosie advocated for the latter, arguing that the industry should become an active participant in the debate, emphasizing uncertainties in the science, and only accepting measures that wouldn't hurt profits. The oilmen agreed and set aside funds for a policy analysis.

Despite these steps, the industry's response was plagued by internal disputes and public scrutiny. The White House interfered with testimonies from scientists about global warming, leading to a public outcry. The administration's behavior demonstrated their reluctance to face the reality of climate change, further complicating the industry's response. 

Will the Oil Industry Step Up or Step Back in the Face of Climate Change?

In the spring and fall of 1989, a political battle regarding global warming was brewing within the White House. Key players were Dick Darman, Sununu, and Reilly, who were grappling with the U.S.'s stance on a global climate treaty. 

Despite the U.S. being the only Western nation opposing negotiations, Sununu made a surprising move. He sent a telegram to U.S. negotiators at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting, encouraging them to work towards developing an international consensus on preparing for a treaty-negotiating process. Despite this, figures like Al Gore and Rafe Pomerance were not satisfied, claiming this move fell short of real action.

Sununu was a contentious figure, often clashing with Reilly and others due to his skeptical view of climate change. His aggressive stance on the subject was seen when he lashed out at a junior staffer for mentioning an initiative to reduce fossil fuel use. This hostility extended to his interactions with Reilly, who he considered an ally of the environmental lobby.

Despite the internal conflicts, there was hope for a global treaty. A major conference was held in the Netherlands where the world’s environmental ministers were expected to endorse the IPCC process. However, the conference ended in disappointment, with Bromley, influenced by Sununu, forcing the conference to abandon the commitment to freeze emissions.

Despite the setback, the environmentalists remained hopeful, comparing the situation to the initial loopholes and weak restrictions of the Montreal Protocol that were later tightened.

Battle in the White House: The Untold Story of Climate Politics in 1989

The late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed the emergence of scientific consensus around the potentially catastrophic implications of global warming. 

Rafe Pomerance, an environmental lobbyist, and Gordon MacDonald, a geophysicist, were among the early advocates trying to raise awareness about the looming environmental crisis. Their efforts led to the National Academy of Sciences conducting an assessment of the carbon dioxide problem. 

In parallel, NASA scientist Jim Hansen was studying the atmospheric conditions of Venus and applying the lessons learned to Earth. His research suggested that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels could lead to a global temperature increase of 4 degrees Celsius. 

A group of scientists led by Jule Charney confirmed this outlook, predicting a 1.5 to 4.5 degree increase in global temperatures when carbon dioxide levels doubled. Despite the scientific consensus, the issue struggled to gain public attention. The Reagan administration's aggressive environmental policies did little to help, contributing to the climate crisis' slow emergence as a political concern.

The late 1980s saw an increased awareness and understanding of global warming, largely due to the efforts of environmental activists like Pomerance. However, the political will to tackle the problem remained elusive. Economists suggested levying a tax on carbon emissions as a possible solution, but the feasibility of an international treaty to enforce such measures was widely questioned. 

The Reagan administration's focus on deregulation and increased fossil fuel production further complicated matters. The Charney report's dire predictions did little to inspire immediate action. Despite numerous climate hearings and the introduction of legislation to establish a national climate change strategy, the forces within the White House seemed to be actively preventing an honest reckoning with the problem. 

Home

Trending

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History