Losing Earth
A Recent History
Book Edition Details
Summary
In the late 20th century, the world stood on the brink of a revelation. "Losing Earth" is a gripping narrative that captures a decade of pivotal moments when scientists and visionaries clashed with the burgeoning forces of climate denial. Nathaniel Rich weaves an intimate tapestry of ambition, resistance, and the human spirit, spotlighting unsung heroes who dared to challenge the tide of misinformation championed by the fossil fuel juggernaut. This expanded chronicle delves deep into the origins of a global crisis, asking profound questions about our past missteps and future pathways. Comparable to the seismic impact of works like "Hiroshima," this book not only recounts history but implores us to confront the moral complexities of our time, resonating with urgency and hope for a more conscientious tomorrow.
Introduction
In the summer of 1979, a young environmental lobbyist named Rafe Pomerance stumbled upon a government report that would forever change his understanding of humanity's future. Buried within its technical pages was a startling revelation: the continued burning of fossil fuels could bring about "significant and damaging" changes to Earth's atmosphere within just two or three decades. This wasn't some distant theoretical concern—it was an immediate threat that demanded urgent action. What followed was a remarkable decade of scientific discovery, political awakening, and missed opportunities that would shape our climate crisis for generations to come. Between 1979 and 1989, the world's leading scientists achieved unprecedented consensus about global warming, politicians from both parties recognized the urgency of the threat, and even oil companies acknowledged the reality of climate change. The stage was set for meaningful action that could have prevented the worst consequences we face today. Yet despite this convergence of scientific knowledge and political will, the critical moment slipped away. This extraordinary period reveals not only how close we came to addressing climate change before it became catastrophic, but also the human frailties and institutional failures that allowed our greatest challenge to spiral beyond control. For anyone seeking to understand why we find ourselves in our current predicament, these ten pivotal years offer both sobering lessons and essential insights into the nature of collective action in the face of existential threats.
Early Warnings: Scientific Discovery and Political Awakening (1979-1982)
The late 1970s marked a turning point in humanity's understanding of its impact on the global climate. When Rafe Pomerance first encountered that ominous paragraph in the coal report, the scientific community was rapidly coalescing around alarming conclusions. The fundamental physics had been understood for decades—carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere—but now researchers were quantifying exactly what this meant for human civilization. At the heart of this awakening was James Hansen, a soft-spoken NASA scientist who had spent years studying the atmospheres of Venus and Mars before turning his attention to Earth. Using sophisticated computer models, Hansen discovered that our planet was already warming and that the effects would become unmistakable within decades, not centuries. His meticulous research, combined with data from the Mauna Loa observatory showing steadily rising carbon dioxide levels, painted an undeniable picture of human influence on the global climate system. The response from the scientific establishment was swift and decisive. In 1979, a prestigious panel led by Jule Charney, the father of modern meteorology, convened at Woods Hole to assess the evidence. Their conclusion was stark: when atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled from pre-industrial levels—an inevitable outcome if current trends continued—global temperatures would rise by approximately 3 degrees Celsius, triggering catastrophic changes including melting ice caps, rising seas, and widespread disruption of agriculture and weather patterns. What made this period remarkable was not just the scientific consensus that emerged, but the absence of the political polarization that would later paralyze climate action. Republican and Democratic politicians alike recognized the gravity of the threat, viewing environmental protection as a fundamentally conservative principle—the ultimate expression of responsible stewardship. The stage was set for unprecedented cooperation between scientists, policymakers, and even industry leaders who understood that their long-term interests aligned with planetary stability.
False Dawn: The Promise and Betrayal of Climate Action (1983-1988)
The early 1980s brought both hope and heartbreak for those pushing for climate action. The scientific community had achieved remarkable consensus, yet this very achievement would soon be weaponized against meaningful policy. The National Academy of Sciences, tasked with producing a comprehensive assessment of the climate threat, delivered a devastating blow to the emerging movement with its 1983 report "Changing Climate." While the report's 496 pages contained the same dire warnings found in every other major scientific assessment, its public presentation told a different story entirely. William Nierenberg, the report's chairman, emphasized uncertainty and counseled patience rather than action. "We're flashing a yellow light but not a red light," declared Roger Revelle, one of the founding fathers of climate science. This messaging provided perfect cover for the Reagan administration and fossil fuel industry to maintain the status quo while appearing scientifically responsible. The betrayal was particularly painful because it came from within the scientific community itself. Many of the same researchers who had spent years documenting the climate threat now publicly downplayed its urgency, arguing that future generations would be better equipped to handle the problem than immediate action would be to prevent it. This wasn't denial of the science—it was something more insidious: an acknowledgment of the problem coupled with a recommendation to ignore it. The impact was immediate and devastating. The American Petroleum Institute disbanded its climate task force, Exxon ended its carbon dioxide research program, and media coverage withered. Environmental activists like Pomerance found themselves fighting not just industry opposition but scientific equivocation from the very experts they had hoped would lead the charge. The momentum that had been building throughout the early 1980s simply evaporated, leaving climate advocates isolated and struggling to maintain public attention on an issue that the scientific establishment itself seemed to be abandoning.
The Moment of Truth: Hansen's Testimony and Rising Stakes (1988)
The summer of 1988 transformed climate change from an abstract scientific concern into a visceral public reality. As record-breaking heat waves scorched the United States and devastating droughts parched the Midwest, James Hansen made a decision that would define his career and galvanize a movement. On June 23, in a sweltering Senate hearing room, he delivered testimony that would reverberate around the world: "The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now." Hansen's words carried unprecedented authority because they came at the perfect moment—both scientifically and politically. His analysis of global temperature data showed that 1988 was almost certainly going to be the hottest year on record, providing clear evidence that the theoretical warming predicted by climate models was already underway. More importantly, Hansen spoke with the moral conviction of a scientist who understood that remaining silent was no longer an option. "It is time to stop waffling," he declared to reporters after his testimony. The response was electric. Hansen's testimony made front-page headlines across the globe, and for the first time, climate change became a major issue in American politics. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush promised to combat global warming with "the White House effect," while senators from both parties called for immediate action to address what was clearly an urgent national security threat. The scientific equivocation of the mid-1980s gave way to a new consensus: the time for action had arrived. Yet even as Hansen's testimony created unprecedented momentum for climate policy, it also triggered the first serious efforts to silence scientific voices. The White House attempted to censor Hansen's subsequent testimony, forcing him to appear before Congress as a private citizen rather than as a NASA scientist. This heavy-handed interference revealed that powerful forces were beginning to recognize the threat that honest climate science posed to their interests, foreshadowing the more sophisticated disinformation campaigns that would follow.
Squandered Opportunity: International Failure at Noordwijk (1989)
By November 1989, the stage was set for humanity's first serious attempt to address the climate crisis through international cooperation. Representatives from more than sixty nations gathered in the Dutch seaside town of Noordwijk for what many believed would be a historic breakthrough—the endorsement of binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The momentum seemed unstoppable: public awareness was at an all-time high, the scientific consensus was unshakable, and even traditionally conservative politicians were demanding action. The proposed agreement was modest by today's standards—merely freezing emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000—but it represented something far more important: a recognition that climate change required coordinated global action and binding commitments rather than voluntary measures. Environmental activists like Rafe Pomerance, who had spent a decade building toward this moment, finally saw a pathway to the comprehensive policy response the crisis demanded. The Dutch hosts were particularly motivated, as their low-lying nation faced existential threats from even modest sea-level rise. But the conference revealed a fatal flaw in the international approach to climate change: the power of a single determined opponent to derail collective action. John Sununu, President Bush's chief of staff, had instructed the U.S. delegation to prevent any binding agreements, arguing that the scientific uncertainties were too great to justify economic disruption. Despite the entreaties of environmental ministers from around the world—and even from within the Bush administration—American opposition proved insurmountable. The failure at Noordwijk marked more than just a missed opportunity; it revealed the fundamental challenge that would plague climate diplomacy for decades to come. As one Swedish minister angrily told activists in the hallway, "Your government is fucking this thing up!" The collapse of the negotiations demonstrated that international cooperation, no matter how scientifically justified or morally urgent, remained hostage to the domestic political calculations of the world's most powerful nations. The decade of promise ended in bitter disappointment, setting the stage for thirty years of inadequate half-measures and mounting consequences.
Summary
The lost decade of 1979-1989 reveals a sobering truth about human nature and collective action: knowing what needs to be done is not the same as doing it. During these critical years, virtually everything necessary for addressing climate change was present—scientific consensus, public awareness, political will, and even industry acknowledgment of the problem. Yet the very factors that should have guaranteed success ultimately enabled failure, as scientific caution was manipulated to justify inaction and international cooperation fell victim to narrow political interests. The central tragedy lies not in ignorance or technological limitations, but in the triumph of short-term thinking over long-term survival. The same political and economic systems that had delivered prosperity and progress proved incapable of responding to a threat that operated on timescales beyond electoral cycles and quarterly reports. Each delay made the problem more expensive to solve, each compromise made the necessary solutions more radical, and each failure of leadership deepened public cynicism about the possibility of meaningful action. Today's climate activists and policymakers can draw crucial lessons from this pivotal decade. First, scientific consensus alone is insufficient without sustained political pressure and moral leadership. Second, industry opposition will always emerge once the economic stakes become clear, making early action essential before entrenched interests can organize resistance. Finally, international cooperation requires domestic political commitment from major powers—no global agreement can succeed if key nations prioritize narrow self-interest over collective survival. Understanding how we lost the first and best chance to address climate change remains essential for grasping why the challenge has become so much more daunting and why the stakes have never been higher.
Related Books
Download PDF & EPUB
To save this Black List summary for later, download the free PDF and EPUB. You can print it out, or read offline at your convenience.
By Nathaniel Rich
