{"id":116014,"date":"2018-08-06T12:01:07","date_gmt":"2018-08-06T11:01:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=116014"},"modified":"2018-08-03T16:04:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-03T15:04:51","slug":"losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/08\/losing-earth-the-decade-we-almost-stopped-climate-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editor\u2019s Note <\/strong><\/p>\n

1 Aug 2018 – <\/em>This narrative by Nathaniel Rich is a work of history, addressing the 10-year period from 1979 to 1989: the decisive decade when humankind first came to a broad understanding of the causes and dangers of climate change. Complementing the text is a series of aerial photographs and videos, all shot over the past year by George Steinmetz. With support from the Pulitzer Center<\/a>, this two-part article is based on 18 months of reporting and well over a hundred interviews. It tracks the efforts of a small group of American scientists, activists and politicians to raise the alarm and stave off catastrophe. It will come as a revelation to many readers \u2014 an agonizing revelation \u2014 to understand how thoroughly they grasped the problem and how close they came to solving it. — Jake Silverstein<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

https:\/\/int.nyt.com\/data\/videotape\/finished\/2018\/08\/magazine\/texas-1280w.webm<\/a><\/video><\/div>\n

When Hurricane Harvey struck Texas last summer, record rainfall caused catastrophic flooding. In six days, as much as 60 inches of rain fell, leaving at least 68 people dead and $125 billion in damage. One study found that climate change has made cataclysmic rain events like Harvey three times as common as they were. Harvey was a particularly slow-moving hurricane, making it significantly more destructive: The storm stood still and drenched already flood-prone areas. \u201cThere\u2019s a good chance another event like Harvey will happen again,\u201d said Adam Sobel, the director of Columbia University\u2019s Initiative on Extreme Weather and Climate. \u201cThis is the kind of thing we expect to see more and more, even if we stop emitting carbon today.\u201d \u2014 Text by Jaime Lowe. Photographs by George Steinmetz for The New York Times.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Prologue <\/strong><\/p>\n

The world has warmed more than one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. The Paris climate agreement \u2014 the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 \u2014 hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by some miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world\u2019s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming \u201ca prescription for long-term disaster.\u201d Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world\u2019s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.<\/p>\n

Is it a comfort or a curse, the knowledge that we could have avoided all this?<\/p>\n

Because in the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis. The world\u2019s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions \u2014 far closer than we\u2019ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favorable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way \u2014 nothing except ourselves.<\/p>\n

Nearly everything we understand about global warming was understood in 1979. By that year, data collected since 1957 confirmed what had been known since before the turn of the 20th century: Human beings have altered Earth\u2019s atmosphere through the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. The main scientific questions were settled beyond debate, and as the 1980s began, attention turned from diagnosis of the problem to refinement of the predicted consequences. Compared with string theory and genetic engineering, the \u201cgreenhouse effect\u201d \u2014 a metaphor dating to the early 1900s \u2014 was ancient history, described in any Introduction to Biology textbook. Nor was the basic science especially complicated. It could be reduced to a simple axiom: The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet. And every year, by burning coal, oil and gas, humankind belched increasingly obscene quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

Why didn\u2019t we act? A common boogeyman today is the fossil-fuel industry, which in recent decades has committed to playing the role of villain with comic-book bravado. An entire subfield of climate literature has chronicled the machinations of industry lobbyists, the corruption of scientists and the propaganda campaigns that even now continue to debase the political debate, long after the largest oil-and-gas companies have abandoned the dumb show of denialism. But the coordinated efforts to bewilder the public did not begin in earnest until the end of 1989. During the preceding decade, some of the largest oil companies, including Exxon and Shell, made good-faith efforts to understand the scope of the crisis and grapple with possible solutions.<\/p>\n

Nor can the Republican Party be blamed. Today, only 42 percent of Republicans know that \u201cmost scientists believe global warming is occurring,\u201d and that percentage is falling. But during the 1980s, many prominent Republicans joined Democrats in judging the climate problem to be a rare political winner: nonpartisan and of the highest possible stakes. Among those who called for urgent, immediate and far-reaching climate policy were Senators John Chafee, Robert Stafford and David Durenberger; the E.P.A. administrator, William K. Reilly; and, during his campaign for president, George H.W. Bush. As Malcolm Forbes Baldwin, the acting chairman of the president\u2019s Council for Environmental Quality, told industry executives in 1981, \u201cThere can be no more important or conservative concern than the protection of the globe itself.\u201d The issue was unimpeachable, like support for veterans or small business. Except the climate had an even broader constituency, composed of every human being on Earth.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/int.nyt.com\/data\/videotape\/finished\/2018\/08\/magazine\/mauritania-1920w.webm<\/a><\/video><\/div>\n

Mauritania is one of the regions in Africa most vulnerable to recurrent drought. Winds sweep desert sands and dust over formerly arable land, creating dunes that blanket roads and demolish homes. Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania, was designed to accommodate 15,000 people. Today, more than one million people live there, because decades of severe drought and extreme weather have driven farmers to the area. \u201cThe capital city is on the seaside, and the sand covered the city in a very short period of time,\u201d said Cheikh Kane, a climate-resilience policy adviser at the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center. The country, he said, is suffering \u201cchronic food insecurity and environmental degradation.\u201d Video by George Steinmetz for The New York Times.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

It was understood that action would have to come immediately. At the start of the 1980s, scientists within the federal government predicted that conclusive evidence of warming would appear on the global temperature record by the end of the decade, at which point it would be too late to avoid disaster. More than 30 percent of the human population lacked access to electricity. Billions of people would not need to attain the \u201cAmerican way of life\u201d in order to drastically increase global carbon emissions; a light bulb in every village would do it. A report prepared at the request of the White House by the National Academy of Sciences advised that \u201cthe carbon-dioxide issue should appear on the international agenda in a context that will maximize cooperation and consensus-building and minimize political manipulation, controversy and division.\u201d If the world had adopted the proposal widely endorsed at the end of the \u201980s \u2014 a freezing of carbon emissions, with a reduction of 20 percent by 2005 \u2014 warming could have been held to less than 1.5 degrees.<\/p>\n

A broad international consensus had settled on a solution: a global treaty to curb carbon emissions. The idea began to coalesce as early as February 1979, at the first World Climate Conference in Geneva, when scientists from 50 nations agreed unanimously that it was \u201curgently necessary\u201d to act. Four months later, at the Group of 7 meeting in Tokyo, the leaders of the world\u2019s seven wealthiest nations signed a statement resolving to reduce carbon emissions. Ten years later, the first major diplomatic meeting to approve the framework for a binding treaty was called in the Netherlands. Delegates from more than 60 nations attended, with the goal of establishing a global summit meeting to be held about a year later. Among scientists and world leaders, the sentiment was unanimous: Action had to be taken, and the United States would need to lead. It didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The inaugural chapter of the climate-change saga is over. In that chapter \u2014 call it Apprehension \u2014 we identified the threat and its consequences. We spoke, with increasing urgency and self-delusion, of the prospect of triumphing against long odds. But we did not seriously consider the prospect of failure. We understood what failure would mean for global temperatures, coastlines, agricultural yield, immigration patterns, the world economy. But we have not allowed ourselves to comprehend what failure might mean for us. How will it change the way we see ourselves, how we remember the past, how we imagine the future? Why did we do this to ourselves? These questions will be the subject of climate change\u2019s second chapter \u2014 call it The Reckoning. There can be no understanding of our current and future predicament without understanding why we failed to solve this problem when we had the chance.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/int.nyt.com\/data\/videotape\/finished\/2018\/08\/magazine\/california-1920w.webm<\/a><\/video><\/div>\n

Last year, the California fire season was the most destructive in the state\u2019s history, culminating in a series of wine-country blazes that killed 40 people and leveled more than 8,000 homes and other buildings. That winter had been one of California\u2019s rainiest, which caused grass to grow in areas it normally doesn\u2019t; in the summer those grasses dried out, adding kindling to an already fire-prone state. \u201cThe day before the Santa Rosa fires,\u201d said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, \u201cthe vegetation was at record-high values for dryness, and just weeks before, the vegetation was at a record high for the century. This was following the hottest summer on record.\u201d He added: \u201cThere\u2019s this component of vegetation dryness that matters. It affects how intense the burn is and how receptive the fuels are to embers.\u201d Video by George Steinmetz for The New York Times.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

That we came so close, as a civilization, to breaking our suicide pact with fossil fuels can be credited to the efforts of a handful of people, among them a hyperkinetic lobbyist and a guileless atmospheric physicist who, at great personal cost, tried to warn humanity of what was coming. They risked their careers in a painful, escalating campaign to solve the problem, first in scientific reports, later through conventional avenues of political persuasion and finally with a strategy of public shaming. Their efforts were shrewd, passionate, robust. And they failed. What follows is their story, and ours.<\/p>\n

To read the full article Go to Original \u2013 nytimes.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1 Aug 2018 – This narrative by Nathaniel Rich is a work of history, addressing the period from 1979 to 1989: the decisive decade when humankind first came to a broad understanding of the causes and dangers of climate change. Complementing the text is a series of aerial photographs and videos, all shot over the past year; with support from the Pulitzer Center.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":102468,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116014\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}