What We Knew: a History of Pop-Environmentalism

It seems that a great deal of effort has been put into obscuring the more alarming data about global warming and human impact on nature, thanks to people and companies who value growth and capital more than lives and the future of the planet. All the information in this article has been out there for the past 70 years. Why then is it not more well known? What did we actually know and what did we ignore?

Author: Riccardo Cogollo (cogolloriccardo@libero.it)

(AI generated image)

I have recently taken interest in data analysis. After many years spent working mostly in the humanities department, it felt like getting a much-needed breath of fresh air. It was a beginner course, meant to give an introduction to a field that I would otherwise not have explored. I was taught many things about the art of cleaning, sorting, preparing and analysing data, but most of all I was shown this: data can really paint an interesting picture. The trick is, you have to learn how to present it, otherwise it will work against you. As the end of the course approached, the last step, a personal project, came into view: what dataset would I be analysing? What narrative would I try to present? This proved to be a rather difficult issue to solve: I have always been better at asking questions, rather than answering them. The most obvious choice, for my personal interest, education, and professional experience, was to work on a climate change-related topic. Why not analyse the most important and key aspects of global warming? Showing the impact of its effects on humanity, and conversely, describing how human actions have triggered the chain of events that brought this grave danger to our planet. Displaying multiple graphs, each accounting for a variable in biodiversity loss, temperature anomalies, etc… I would show my inclination toward the topic and display my newly acquired abilities: a great idea for a project, at least in theory.

As it turns out, I am a great storyteller, but on the other side of the coin, I am only an “ok” data analyst (I should rather say beginner DA, as I hope to develop my abilities in the future). Doing a great amount of analysis was, in fact, out of my reach, both in terms of the availability of datasets and my knowledge of DA tools. I accepted I would not be revolutionising the field with my newfound (basic) skills but was rather meant to find and tell a narrative describing my findings in a (somewhat) original and personal manner. For this reason, I chose some key dates in the history of scientific and public perception of climate change and its effect: I wanted to fully depict how much we knew, and how little we acted on it (and most of all, why).

But before we start this journey, let me give you a little insight into the graph I created for this project. In the image attached right below this section, you'll find a great amount of meaningful data. In orange, the total amount of CO2 emissions (expressed in Tons) produced globally each year. As you can see, it starts rising after 1850, and undergoes a steep incline right after the 1950s. The lines stop at 2020, as the datasets I was working with were not updated, and I did not have the necessary expertise yet to complete them myself. On this line, a series of events, describes the evolution of how much humanity knew about the consequences of climate change, and some of the actions that were taken as a response. Finally, a green and red line, which shows the yearly change in temperature (with its start in 1850, when the first reliable dataset measuring this variable was created). The colour of the line goes from green to red at the first crossing of 1 C° increase in temperature, a milestone considered by many to be a point of no return in climate change effects. This was reached back in 2016 and has kept rising well after. Now that the graph has been explained, let's get into our story (feel free to go back to it at any point in the article to check the timeline).

Everything started with the second industrial revolution (around the 1870s). At this point, CO2 emissions were still quite low, anomalies in temperature were explainable with natural factors, and ideas of climate change were not even on the horizon yet. Nevertheless, human power and impact on natural environments were recognized and described by an American scientist and politician, John Perkins Marsh, in his book "Man and Nature", published in 1864. In it, he stated "the operation of causes set in action by man has brought the face of the earth to a desolation almost as complete as that of the moon".

Jumping ahead now by a century or so to 1957 (my high school history teacher never liked me anyway), we arrive at the first real opening of the climate change debate. We meet with a man called Roger Revelle, an oceanographer who studied the interactions between the top layer of oceanic waters and CO2. Thanks to the newly discovered carbon-14 dating method, he and his colleagues created the first study connecting Carbon Dioxide emissions to global warming in 1957, although they did not predict that this link would bring dramatic effects at the time (not foreseeing the steep increase in emissions that would soon take place). Thinking little of this (the conclusions were convoluted and rather obscure at the time), he only wrote in his paper "Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future", which would become one of the most quoted sentences in the context of climate change. It would take two years before this study was taken up again by others, who would accurately predict the real, practical dangers brought by unchecked pollution.

Almost a decade later, in 1968, a new study appeared in the "Science" journal called "Antarctic Ice and Interglacial High Sea Levels", in which the author, a glaciologist named John Mercer, warned about the possible detachment and sea fall of the WAIS. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is a platform of ~ 3.1 million km3 of ice, separated by the main Antarctic continent by a mountainous range and separated by the underlying rock bed by so-called ice-shelves. These sections are in constant contact with ocean water, and as the temperature of the latter rises, the former are more prone to melting, leaving the main body of ice unsupported. The effects of this process could (in a timespan ranging between 13000 and 500 years) cause a complete meltdown and a rise in ocean levels by up to 4-5 meters. Note that this measure only takes into consideration the breakdown of the WAIS, not of the entirety of Earth's glacial features (the effects of which would obviously be an order of magnitude greater). Another event was taking place this same year, although in a much warmer location: Brazil's national team (led by football legend Pelè) was defeating Italy 4-1 in a one-sided match and winning its 3rd world cup. Many to this day consider it to be the best World Cup team ever to be fielded.

Onwards to 1975, when a NASA scientist, Veerabhadran Ramanathan (also known as "Ram"), took up on previous studies on the effects of CFC (chlorofluorocarbons) gases, and predicted that its presence in Earth's atmosphere would cause a rise in temperature of 1 C° by the year 2000. CFC is a chemical used in refrigeration and aerosol propellants; although its quantity is dwarfed by that of CO2, its ability to absorb infrared radiations is 10000 times greater than Carbon Dioxide, making it one of the greatest contributors to global warming through the greenhouse effect. This would compound the effects already ongoing in the process of icesheets melting, and consequently, of ocean level rising, an outcome which threatened the lives of the communities living close to the shores. Ironically, it was in 1975 that the first blockbuster movie was released. Its title? Jaws.

Let's skip 6 years, to 1981, when a 70-years old Ronald Reagan is elected to the presidency of the USA. This does not mark the beginning of climate change scepticism, but surely that of its links with political conservatism. The DOE (Department of Energy) saw its budget for CO2 monitoring almost entirely slashed, only being saved in-extremis by a rapid and effective intervention by Congressman Al Gore, who held public congressional hearings on the matter, embarrassing the administration and forcing it to back down. Notable figures of the scientific community also took part in these events, such as Carl Sagan.

Consequently, public opinion started to shift somehow in the 80s, with milestones such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) being formed in 1988 and James Hansen's congressional testimony on the reality and speed of climate change (he was a NASA climatologist, and his report brought a great deal of attention to the issue). The Montreal Protocol had been passed just a year prior, phasing out the use of CFC in order to re-establish the integrity of the ozone layer. In response to this, having been heavily constricted by the latest round of policies, the National Association of Manufacturers established the Global Climate Coalition, with the intent "to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming". Among the members of this association could be found British Petroleum, Chevron, DaimlerChrysler, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Ford Motor Company. They were, until their dissolution in 2001, one of the most powerful lobbyist groups against action to mitigate global warming. Their activities included governmental and grassroots lobbying, critiques of established climate models and personal attacks on scientists and activists. They went so far as registering as a non-profit organisation (which sounds extremely ironic to the point of verging on the offensive) to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change, as only government officials and NGOs could attend the event's meetings. Practically every major global gathering on the topic of climate change saw attendance by GCC representatives, which campaigned against establishing defined deadlines, taking drastic action (or any action at all) and tried to push a denialist agenda. In 1995 they produced a study called "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer", in which a team of GCC funded researchers and scientists presented contrarian theories on climate change. Nevertheless, some of their findings which ended up appearing in the paper, admitted that "The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied". The contrarian sections of the paper were dropped, before it was internally distributed.

This counteraction had a strong influence on the US policy making process, which was at the time the world's undiscussed premier political, economic and industrial power (and largest emitter of CO2 gases). When in 1991 the UNFCCC was held in Rio, the US (under President George W. Bush) refused to sign any concession that would establish practical deadlines and terms for reducing pollution. Once again, when more than 6 thousand governmental officials met in Kyoto in 1997 to discuss the urgent matter of global warming, the US proposed bland measures at first, and failed to ratify the agreement, thanks to Senatorial opposition (although the following government, led by Bill Clinton, had accepted to sign it). A response to the protocol, called the Oregon Petition, claimed to have gathered 31 thousand signatures from scholars and scientists rejecting the text written in Kyoto (the credentials and authenticity of these signatories have been questioned multiple times). As of today, the US is the only signatory not to have ratified the protocol. This was the last relevant action taken by the GCC: having convinced the US not to take steps toward reducing emissions, it started losing members because of concerns over the reality and dangers posed by global warming. It officially disbanded in 2001, with some organisations continuing their lobbying efforts under different banners. In this same year, two technological milestones: Apple launched the iPod and Microsoft released Microsoft XP, two of its respective companies most iconic products.

A few years later, in 2006, we see a return of four figures we have met previously in this article. Having lost in the presidential election of 2000 against George W. Bush, Al Gore decided to shift his focus toward raising public awareness on the topic of climate change. The Harvard graduate (who had been a student of Roger Revelle, a scientist I have mentioned preciously) and his team began working on a project, building on a slide show which he had previously produced and presented at least 1 thousand times: the final result was the movie "An inconvenient Truth". In the documentary (to this day the 11th highest grossing of all times), Gore showed the impact of human action on the environment, making use of papers, graphs and a rather effective rhetoric (come to think of it, me and him are not that dissimilar, except for the fact that I have never lost two presidential elections). This production would help him win the Nobel Prize in 2007 and bring the topic right back in the focus of the public. Who is the fourth figure I mentioned? The Italian football team, of course. On the night of the 6th June 2006 the team led by Fabio Cannavaro defeated Zidane's France in a heart-stopping match, which ended with a penalties show-down. That night the sky over Berlin was blue indeed, a rare occasion given the level of air pollution in Germany at the time.

The final stop in our journey through time is 2018: the year of the IPCC special report on Global Warming of 1.5 C° and that of the UK Royal Wedding between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.

The report, co-authored by more than 90 authors, was produced in occasion of the UN 48th IPCC session, and displayed the potential consequences of a rise in average global temperatures by 1.5 C° and 2 C°. It recommended a swift and drastic cut to emissions, to avoid a catastrophic scenario. Just as an example, here are some of the findings. Ocean levels were predicted to rise by 0.26 to 0.77 m by 2100 and 0.1 more meters in the case these limits were surpassed (a rise by 0.1m equals 10 million more or less people being exposed to the related consequences). Marine fisheries would lose 1.5 to 3 million tons of global annual catch. Coral Reefs would decline by 70% to an astounding 99%, becoming fundamentally extinct (or almost extinct). A little-known fact, the 1.5 C° limit was breached for the first time back in 2016, although briefly. Not only this: in the report it was stated that in order to avoid overshooting, emissions would have had to reach net zero before 2030. Just last year (2023) the IPCC stated that we are well on track to surpass 1.5 C° by 2029 (a third of the days of 2023 were already in overshoot territory). Teamwork makes the dream work! Just for the EU and UK, this will mean an average expense of more than 40 billion euros annually, just in adaptation costs.

Our story has now come to a close, although it's not over. We have witnessed the birth of the climate change activist movement, the reaction that various industries had to it, the political influence over the matter and how little has been practically done to stop this march toward the end. It seems that a great deal of effort has been put into obscuring the more alarming data about global warming and human impact on nature, thanks to people and companies who value growth and capital more than lives and the future of the planet. As was established at the beginning, I did not conduct the scientific research and experiments presented in this article. All of this information has been out there for the past 70 years (give or take a decade). Why then is it not more well known? What did we actually know and what did we ignore? Why do we remember the various Jaws, Ipod, World Cups and Royal Weddings, more than actual, fundamental data on the survival of our very species? I bet that even after reading the article, most of the readers will know more about any of the pop culture events I mentioned than about the studies I described. As said previously, I am better at asking questions than I am at giving answers. And my question today is: what will we remember 2024 for? There are no more excuses, everything is laid on the table clear for everyone to see. Will this be another year for movies, sport and glamour, or one when we take action and save the lives of our future generations? For once, I have the answer to the question.