What is
Losing Earth by Nathaniel Rich about?
Losing Earth chronicles the decade between 1979–1989 when scientists, activists, and policymakers first grasped the urgency of climate change but failed to act due to political inertia and fossil fuel industry opposition. Nathaniel Rich details how early warnings were suppressed, highlighting key figures like scientist James Hansen and activist Rafe Pomerance, and the 1989 Noordwijk summit’s collapse, which cemented global inaction.
Who should read
Losing Earth?
Environmentalists, policymakers, and readers interested in climate history will find this book essential. It’s also a critical read for those seeking to understand corporate influence on policy and the origins of climate denialism. Rich’s narrative style makes complex political and scientific dynamics accessible to general audiences concerned about Earth’s future.
Is
Losing Earth worth reading?
Yes. Rich’s meticulously researched account exposes how corporate interests and political short-sightedness derailed early climate action. While criticized for overlooking broader activism, the book remains a vital primer on the roots of the climate crisis and a cautionary tale about power dynamics in environmental policymaking.
How does
Losing Earth explain the failure to address climate change?
Rich argues that the fossil fuel industry funded misinformation campaigns to sow doubt about climate science, while politicians prioritized economic growth over long-term environmental risks. The Reagan administration’s deregulation agenda and the 1989 Noordwijk summit’s collapse—where the U.S. rejected binding emissions targets—sealed the decade’s missed opportunities.
Who are the key figures in
Losing Earth?
- James Hansen: NASA scientist who testified to Congress about global warming in 1988.
- Rafe Pomerance: Environmental lobbyist who pushed climate change into political discourse.
- Jule Gregory Charney: Meteorologist whose 1979 report solidified early climate models.
What role did the fossil fuel industry play according to
Losing Earth?
The industry funded think tanks and media campaigns to discredit climate science, framing it as “uncertain” to delay policy action. This strategy, pioneered in the 1980s, politicized climate change and entrenched public skepticism, ensuring regulatory stagnation.
Why does
Losing Earth focus on 1979–1989?
This decade marked the first consensus among scientists about climate change’s severity and the last window to avert disaster with modest emissions cuts. Rich contends that understanding this critical period reveals systemic failures that still hinder progress today.
What critiques have been made about
Losing Earth?
Environmentalists argue the book overemphasizes elite policymakers and neglects grassroots activism. Others note Rich underplays the fossil fuel industry’s direct culpability, instead framing the crisis as a broader human failure. Despite this, the book is praised for its gripping narrative and historical insights.
How does
Losing Earth relate to current climate debates?
The book underscores how 1980s-era misinformation tactics persist, influencing today’s political gridlock. Rich’s analysis of the Noordwijk summit’s failure parallels modern struggles to secure international agreements, emphasizing the enduring cost of delayed action.
What lessons does
Losing Earth offer for climate activism?
It stresses the need to counter corporate lobbying with unified scientific advocacy and public education. The book also highlights the importance of international cooperation and the dangers of prioritizing short-term economic gains over planetary survival.
How was
Losing Earth originally published?
The story first appeared as a 2018 New York Times Magazine special issue. Expanded into a book in 2019, it includes deeper analysis of the 1980s political landscape and the rise of climate denialism.
Why is
Losing Earth compared to a Greek tragedy?
Critics liken its narrative to tragedy due to its portrayal of well-intentioned actors thwarted by systemic forces. The decade’s missed opportunities, despite clear scientific consensus, reflect a fatalistic struggle against human inertia and corporate power.