• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Defuse the Climate Time Bomb’ with Net-Zero by 2040, Guterres Urges G20 March 20, 2023
Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action March 20, 2023
Window for 1.5°C ‘Rapidly Closing’, IPCC Warns March 20, 2023
Swift Action, Inclusive Resilience Vital in Face of Overlapping Climate Hazards March 20, 2023
Shift from Fossils to Renewables is Quickest, Cheapest Path to Cut Emissions, IPCC Report Shows March 20, 2023
Next
Prev

The ‘Losing Earth’ Exposé: Fossils Invested Nearly $2 Billion to Kill Climate Action

August 14, 2018
Reading time: 6 minutes
Primary Author: Mitchell Beer @mitchellbeer

Elizabeth Stilwell/Flickr

Elizabeth Stilwell/Flickr

 

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly placed Nathaniel Rich’s exposé in the New York Review of Books. It was published in the New York Times Magazine.

Climate despair scored a big, temporary win in early August, with the near-simultaneous release of two major reports on humanity’s failure to date to get climate change under control. But while the initial stories traced the missed opportunities in the 1980s and the looming crisis today, the near-immediate response stressed that the early losses were neither accidental nor inevitable—and the latest science is a call to action, not a declaration of defeat.

  • Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
  • A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
  • The Weekender:The climate news you need.
Subscribe

The Mix has already written about last week’s Hothouse Earth report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and meteorologist Eric Holthaus’ critique of top-line reporting that emphasized the depth of the challenge, missing the authors’ central point that there’s still time to avert the worst of the climate impacts they foresee.

The earlier Losing Earth exposé in the New York Times Magazine was a deeper, more painful dive: The magazine devoted its entire August 1 edition to novelist and essayist Nathaniel Rich’s 18-month, 66-page investigation of the period in the 1970s and 80s when politicians and diplomats understood the science, recognized the crisis, came close to a solid start on climate action—but failed to get the job done.

It traces the early history of climate advocacy in the United States, casting then-Friends of the Earth staffer Rafe Pomerance and NASA scientist James Hansen as early instigators. “In the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis,” Rich writes. “The world’s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions—far closer than we’ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favourable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way—nothing except ourselves.”

One memorable vignette from the 1988 U.S. presidential election: Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis as the biggest fossil hawk, proposing tax breaks for domestic oil production and claiming coal can meet three centuries of future electricity demand, leaving Republican candidate George H.W. Bush to don the mantle of climate defender. “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect,” Bush said, “are forgetting about the White House effect.”

While the chronology points to Bush Chief of Staff John Sununu as perhaps the decisive barrier to early action, Rich places the blame on human nature and systems more than political maneuvering.

“Economics, the science of assigning value to human behaviour, prices the future at a discount; the farther out you project, the cheaper the consequences,” he writes. “This makes the climate problem the perfect economic disaster.”

On top of that, citing a 1979 paper for the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, he argues that “democratic societies are constitutionally incapable of dealing with the climate problem. The competition for resources means that no single crisis can ever command the public interest for long, yet climate change requires sustained, disciplined efforts over decades.” At the time, “German physicist-philosopher Klaus Meyer-Abich argued that any global agreement would inevitably favour the most minimal action.”

When Rich asked Sununu whether he “considered himself personally responsible for killing the best chance at an effective global-warming treaty”, Sununu responded that it couldn’t have happened. “Frankly, the leaders in the world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking how to seem like they were supporting the policy without having to make hard commitments that would cost their nations serious resources,” the former chief of staff said. “Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”

Rich concludes that “if human beings really were able to take the long view—to consider seriously the fate of civilization decades or centuries after our deaths—we would be forced to grapple with the transience of all we know and love in the great sweep of time. So we have trained ourselves, whether culturally or evolutionarily, to obsess over the present, worry about the medium term, and cast the long term out of our minds, as we might spit out a poison.”

But however meticulously and evocatively Rich documents a decades-old moment in time, events since have added fossil industry dollars and interference as a decisive piece of the puzzle. Over the last couple of weeks, his critics have been quick to point that out.

The pertinent coverage actually began nearly two weeks before the official publication date for Losing Earth, when Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm pointed to the nearly $2 billion U.S. fossils have spent on lobbying since 2000 to ensure that climate legislation reliably dies in Congress.

“The policy deaths were not from natural causes—they were caused by humans, just like climate change itself is,” he writes, citing a paper by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle in the journal Climatic Change. “Environmental organizations and the renewable energy sector lobbying expenditures were dwarfed by a ratio of 10:1 by the spending of the sectors engaged in the supply and use of fossil fuels,” Brulle concluded.

That finding was entirely consistent with the more direct critiques of Rich’s historical report.

“In order to turn a story about the U.S. politics of climate change into a story about the entirety of the human species, Rich has to make a strange argument,” contends The Atlantic staff writer Robinson Meyer. “He has to dispatch with the two most powerful and prominent enemies of a climate policy in the United States: the fossil-fuel industry and the Republican Party.”

The question, Meyer adds, is whether that’s even remotely true. “Rich’s own reporting suggests that it is not. Again and again, he describes the Reagan administration going out of its way to thwart climate science and policy.” And in office, Rich admits, Bush Sr. never took “a vigorous interest in global warming and was mainly briefed about it by non-scientists.” Meyer says it was that “negligence” that allowed Sununu “to control the administration’s climate policy.”

On openDemocracyUK, Climate Migration Coalition Coordinator Alex Randall cites neoliberalism, not human nature, as the underlying cause driving the climate crisis. “It was during the decade—1979 to 1989—that neoliberalism truly entered the political mainstream,” he writes. “We did not lose the Earth in the 1980s. Rather, the tools governments needed to act had been taken from them.”

“What at first seemed like our best shot at lifesaving climate action had in retrospect suffered from an epic case of historical bad timing,” concludes activist and author Naomi Klein for The Intercept, after tracing her own study of the same period of climate policy history.

“What becomes clear when you look back at this juncture is that just as governments were getting together to get serious about reining in the fossil fuel sector, the global neoliberal revolution went supernova, and that project of economic and social reengineering clashed with the imperatives of both climate science and corporate regulation at every turn.”

On Grist, environmental journalist Shannon Osaka echoes Rich’s central premise that, as she puts it, “humans suck at dealing with wicked problems,” and the time scale attached to the climate crisis makes it tougher to address. But she questions the underlying assumption embodied in Garrett Hardin’s 1968 classic, Tragedy of the Commons, that humanity will always tend toward overuse of resources and overpopulation.

“The thing is: Hardin was wrong,” she writes. “Forty years after his paper debuted in Science, economist Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize for showing that communities around the world do successfully manage and share resources—even over many generations. They do it through cooperation, communication, and small-scale local institutions. She was famous for showing that environmental problems can be solved from the bottom-up.”

And that, Osaka says, “is what Rich misses, in his otherwise fascinating and in-depth piece for the Times.”



in Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Kenuoene/pixabay
Ending Emissions

Shift from Fossils to Renewables is Quickest, Cheapest Path to Cut Emissions, IPCC Report Shows

March 20, 2023
231
U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr
Oil & Gas

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
177
/Pikist
Jobs & Training

Workers Move to Renewables as U.S. Fossil Sector Sheds Jobs

March 8, 2023
113

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement/flickr

Willow Oil Project in Alaska Faces Legal Challenges, Economic Doubts

March 19, 2023
613
IFRC Intl. Federation:Twitter

Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action

March 21, 2023
879
EUMETSAT/wikimedia commons

Cyclone Freddy Leaves Over 500 Dead on Africa’s Southeast Coast

March 23, 2023
36
3D Wave

Trailblazing Hydrogen Plant Could ‘Cannibalize’ Green Power from Nova Scotia Grid

March 1, 2023
1.6k
Kern River Valley Fire Info/Facebook

SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Defuse the Climate Time Bomb’ with Net-Zero by 2040, Guterres Urges G20

March 20, 2023
289
NTSB

Ohio Train Derailment, Toxic Chemical Spill Renews Fears Over Canada-U.S. Rail Safety

March 8, 2023
1.5k

Recent Posts

Prime Minister's Office/flickr

Biden’s Ottawa Visit Highlights EVs, Clean Grid, Critical Minerals

March 24, 2023
2
U.S. National Park Service/rawpixel

Window for 1.5°C ‘Rapidly Closing’, IPCC Warns

March 20, 2023
81
FMSC/Flickr

Swift Action, Inclusive Resilience Vital in Face of Overlapping Climate Hazards

March 20, 2023
74
Kenuoene/pixabay

Shift from Fossils to Renewables is Quickest, Cheapest Path to Cut Emissions, IPCC Report Shows

March 20, 2023
231
Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons

IPCC Report Charts a Course for Ottawa’s ‘Clean Technology’ Budget

March 23, 2023
172
Kiara Worth, UNClimateChange/flickr

Gap Between IPCC’s Science, National Actions Sets Challenge for COP 28

March 21, 2023
87
Next Post
Vmenkov/Wikimedia Commons

End-of-Century Heat Could Make Fertile North China Plain Uninhabitable

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}