Losing Earth

Losing Earth Plot Summary

Introduction

In the spring of 1979, a lobbyist named Rafe Pomerance stumbled upon a government report containing a startling paragraph about how the continued use of fossil fuels might bring about "significant and damaging" changes to the global atmosphere. This chance discovery launched him into what would become a lifelong mission to alert the world to an existential threat that few were talking about. Around the same time, NASA scientist James Hansen was developing sophisticated computer models that predicted Earth's warming future with remarkable accuracy. Together, these men and others formed the vanguard of climate awareness at a pivotal moment when action could have made all the difference. The story that unfolds across four decades reveals how close humanity came to addressing climate change before it became a crisis. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect, bipartisan political support for action, and even openness from energy companies to transition away from fossil fuels. This book chronicles how this promising start dissolved into decades of inaction, revealing the interplay of scientific discovery, political calculation, industry manipulation, and human psychology that has led us to our current predicament. Through the experiences of scientists, politicians, activists, and industry representatives, we witness a tragedy of missed opportunities that continues to shape our world today.

Chapter 1: Early Scientific Discoveries (1950s-1970s)

The scientific understanding of climate change began long before it entered public consciousness. As early as 1859, Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide molecules absorbed heat, suggesting that variations in atmospheric concentration could create changes in climate. By 1896, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated that the combustion of coal and petroleum could raise global temperatures, though he estimated this would take centuries to become noticeable. By the 1950s, scientists were beginning to sound alarms. In 1957, Roger Revelle and Hans Seuss published a landmark paper describing how humanity was conducting "a large-scale geophysical experiment" by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That same year, Charles David Keeling began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, creating what would become known as the Keeling curve – a jagged upward line showing steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels that continues to climb today. The scientific community's understanding deepened throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Scientists like Gordon MacDonald, who served as an adviser to presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, began warning about the potential consequences of global warming. In 1965, President Johnson's Science Advisory Committee, led by Revelle, warned of the rapid melting of Antarctica, rising seas, and increased acidity of fresh waters – changes that would not be "controllable through local or even national efforts." By 1979, the scientific consensus had solidified. The Charney report, a comprehensive assessment by leading scientists commissioned by the Carter administration, concluded that when carbon dioxide doubled in the atmosphere (which they projected would happen around 2035), global temperatures would increase between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with the most likely outcome being 3 degrees. The last time Earth was 3 degrees warmer was during the Pliocene, three million years ago, when beech trees grew in Antarctica and seas were eighty feet higher. The scientific foundation was clear, but the question remained: would humanity act on this knowledge?

Chapter 2: The Awakening: First Political Recognition (1979-1982)

Between 1979 and 1982, climate change transitioned from an obscure scientific concern to a recognized political issue. After discovering the coal report, Rafe Pomerance, then deputy legislative director at Friends of the Earth, partnered with Gordon MacDonald to educate Washington's power brokers. They conducted a series of briefings for officials at the EPA, The New York Times, the Energy Department, the National Security Council, and eventually reached the president's top scientist, Frank Press. The Carter administration took the threat seriously enough to commission the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the carbon dioxide problem. Meanwhile, James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute was developing sophisticated climate models that would later prove remarkably accurate. In 1981, Hansen published a paper in Science predicting that the world had already begun to warm and that the warming signal would emerge from normal weather fluctuations sooner than previously thought. Government agencies were beginning to take notice. In October 1980, Senator Paul Tsongas held the first congressional hearing specifically on carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. The Energy Security Act of 1980 directed the National Academy of Sciences to start a multiyear study on the consequences of climate change. Even some oil companies were investigating the issue – Exxon established its own carbon dioxide research program with an annual budget of $600,000, though their motivation was largely to understand how future regulations might affect their business. Despite this growing awareness, the first attempts to develop policy solutions revealed the challenges ahead. At a workshop in Florida organized by the National Commission on Air Quality, experts struggled to reach consensus on what actions to take. Pomerance grew frustrated as the meeting ended without concrete proposals. "The issue is so big," he said, "yet the attitude that is being taken is so relaxed. It strikes one as a bit incredible." He was beginning to realize that scientific knowledge alone wouldn't be enough – political leadership would be essential to address a problem of this magnitude.

Chapter 3: Industry Response and Scientific Consensus (1983-1988)

The early 1980s marked a critical turning point in the climate change narrative. In 1983, the National Academy of Sciences released "Changing Climate," a comprehensive report that confirmed the Charney report's findings but paradoxically recommended caution rather than immediate action. William Nierenberg, the committee's chairman, argued that it was better to wait and see, betting on American ingenuity to save the day decades in the future. This position, though contradicted by the report's own findings, provided cover for inaction. The fossil fuel industry's approach evolved during this period. Initially, companies like Exxon funded legitimate research and acknowledged the reality of climate change. Exxon's president Edward David Jr. even gave a keynote address at a climate symposium in 1982, pledging that the company would revise its corporate strategy to account for climate change. Shell produced an internal briefing report acknowledging the science and discussing potential responses. However, as the prospect of regulation grew more real, industry attitudes hardened. After the Charney report, Exxon asked a strategist rather than a scientist to develop its position on global warming. The American Petroleum Institute began developing talking points emphasizing uncertainty in the science. By 1988, the industry was transitioning from cautious engagement to active resistance. Meanwhile, the scientific evidence continued to mount. In 1985, British scientists discovered the ozone hole over Antarctica, demonstrating how human activities could dramatically alter the atmosphere. This discovery catalyzed international action on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), resulting in the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Climate scientists hoped this successful international treaty might serve as a model for addressing carbon emissions. The period ended with a dramatic public awakening. On June 23, 1988, during an exceptionally hot summer marked by drought and wildfires across North America, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress that "the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." His testimony made front-page headlines nationwide and elevated climate change to unprecedented public attention. For the first time, the crisis had a face and an emotion – "a fever of pent-up frustration, outrage, and moral conviction."

Chapter 4: Political Opportunities Lost (1988-1989)

The summer of 1988 represented a high-water mark for climate awareness and political momentum. Following Hansen's testimony, public concern about global warming reached an all-time high, with polls showing 68 percent of Americans were aware of the greenhouse effect. The issue even entered the presidential campaign, with George H.W. Bush declaring, "Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect are forgetting about the White House effect." After Bush's election, the political landscape seemed promising. Thirty-two climate bills were introduced in Congress, including comprehensive legislation sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans. The German parliament created a special commission on climate change, Sweden announced a national strategy to stabilize emissions, and Margaret Thatcher warned that global warming could "greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope." In 1988, the United Nations unanimously endorsed the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), composed of scientists and policymakers who would develop a global climate policy. During the transition period, Bush's administration invited the IPCC to hold one of its first sessions at the U.S. State Department, signaling American leadership. However, this momentum soon encountered resistance from within the Bush administration, particularly from Chief of Staff John Sununu. As a mechanical engineer with a PhD from MIT, Sununu considered himself qualified to challenge climate science. He believed that climate concerns were being exploited to advance "anti-growth" policies. When EPA Administrator William Reilly proposed that Bush demand a global treaty to reduce carbon emissions, Sununu blocked the effort. The turning point came at the Noordwijk conference in the Netherlands in November 1989, where environmental ministers from more than sixty nations gathered to endorse a framework for a global treaty. The Dutch hosts proposed freezing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. However, at Sununu's direction, the U.S. delegation forced the conference to abandon this commitment. The final statement noted only that "many" nations supported stabilizing emissions – but without specifying which nations, at what level, or by what deadline. This failure at Noordwijk marked the end of a decade of progress. As Rafe Pomerance observed, "The president made a commitment to the American people to deal with global warming, and he hasn't followed it up." A historic opportunity had been squandered.

Chapter 5: The Rise of Climate Denial (1989-2000s)

Following the Noordwijk setback, the fossil fuel industry dramatically shifted its approach from cautious engagement to active opposition. The American Petroleum Institute had established the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) in 1989, initially as a reactive body to monitor proposed regulations. However, it quickly evolved into a sophisticated disinformation campaign that would spend millions to undermine climate science and policy. The GCC recruited scientists who expressed doubts about global warming, including Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, and Richard Lindzen, offering them platforms and compensation for opinion pieces. Though these skeptics represented a tiny minority of scientific opinion – Science magazine in 1991 placed the total number of "outspoken greenhouse dissidents" in the United States at "a half-dozen or so" – media coverage amplified their views due to journalistic norms of "balanced" reporting. Industry-funded front groups proliferated with names designed to sound authoritative and benign: Citizens for the Environment, the Information Council on the Environment, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and the Cooler Heads Coalition. Their cynicism was laid bare by internal documents revealing their strategy to emphasize uncertainty and frame climate action as economically harmful. This campaign reached its peak during negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The GCC spent $13 million on a single ad campaign opposing the treaty. Though the Clinton administration endorsed the protocol, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying any agreement that might harm the U.S. economy. This unanimous rejection effectively ended serious U.S. participation in international climate efforts for years. By the early 2000s, the denial campaign had succeeded in polarizing what had once been a bipartisan issue. Though the GCC disbanded in 2002 after several major companies withdrew (a Shell employee noted they didn't want to "fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have become trapped in all their lies"), its legacy persisted. The election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, ensured that climate policy would remain dormant. The denial campaign represented a profound moral failure. As Pope Francis would later write in his encyclical Laudato si', the rejection of climate science opened the door to a rejection of morality itself, since "morality relies on a shared faith in reason." By severing the connection between scientific truth and policy response, the campaign made it possible to disregard the welfare of future generations and those most vulnerable to climate impacts.

Chapter 6: Global Consequences and Moral Dimensions

The consequences of four decades of inaction are now becoming painfully apparent. Since the Noordwijk conference in 1989, more carbon has been released into the atmosphere than in the entire history of civilization preceding it. Earth is now as warm as it was before the last ice age, 115,000 years ago, when seas were more than twenty feet higher. Despite every action taken since the Charney report – research, renewable energy investments, nonbinding treaties and pledges – global carbon emissions have continued their inexorable rise. The impacts of warming are distributed unequally, creating profound moral questions. Those who have contributed least to the problem often suffer the most severe consequences. Island nations like Kiribati, the Seychelles, and the Marshall Islands face existential threats from rising seas despite their minimal carbon footprints. As James Michel, president of the Seychelles, stated at a 2014 meeting: "We do not have the economic means to build sophisticated defenses... But we have something that is invaluable, something that is powerful: we are the conscience of these negotiations." Climate change amplifies existing inequalities. It disadvantages the disadvantaged, oppresses the oppressed, and discriminates against the discriminated against. The relationship between those who have burned the most fossil fuels and those who will suffer the most consequences is perversely inverted – both chronologically (younger generations pay for their elders' emissions) and socioeconomically (the poor suffer what the rich deserve). The moral dimension extends beyond questions of justice to our fundamental values as a society. Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew have framed environmental degradation as a sin against creation. Bartholomew has called on every living person to repent for ecological damage, arguing that "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God." As climate impacts intensify, younger generations are increasingly framing the issue in moral terms. College students demanding climate action speak of cowardice, betrayal, and existential threat. Their language echoes that of the island nations: "We are angry at the cowardice of our leaders," "We are standing for our future," "Our lives are at stake." The climate crisis has become a test of our capacity for moral reasoning and collective action across generations, nations, and species.

Summary

The history of climate change awareness and inaction reveals a tragic pattern: moments of clarity and opportunity repeatedly undermined by short-term thinking, industry manipulation, and political calculation. From the scientific discoveries of the 1950s through the political awakening of the late 1970s and the lost opportunities of the 1980s, we see how close humanity came to addressing the problem before it became a crisis. The scientific understanding was clear by 1979, public support existed, and even industry initially engaged constructively. Yet at critical junctures, powerful interests chose delay and denial over decisive action. This history offers crucial lessons for our present moment. First, the climate crisis is fundamentally a moral challenge that requires us to value future generations as much as our own. Second, technical solutions have always existed – what we lack is not the capacity but the political will to implement them. Third, overcoming denial requires framing climate action not merely as a technical or economic issue but as a human imperative tied to our deepest values. As we face increasingly severe climate impacts, the question is whether we can learn from past failures and summon the moral courage to act with the urgency the situation demands. The window for limiting the worst impacts is narrowing, but as Jim Hansen noted, "From a technology and economics standpoint, it is still readily possible" to address the crisis. What remains to be seen is whether we can overcome the political and moral obstacles that have thwarted action for four decades.

About Author

Loading...

Nathaniel Rich

Nathaniel Rich is an American novelist and essayist. He is the author of Losing Earth: A Recent History, which received awards from the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Institute of Physicists and was a finalist for the PEN/E.O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Award; and the novels King Zeno, Odds Against Tomorrow, and The Mayor's Tongue. He is a writer-at-large at the New York Times Magazine and a regular contributor to Harper's and the New York Review of Books. His next book, Second Nature: Scenes from a World Remade, will be published in late March. Rich lives in New Orleans.

Read more