1장
The Climate Warning We Ignored: A Decade That Changed Everything
In 1979, a small group of scientists and environmentalists understood nearly everything we know today about climate change. The basic science was clear, the dangers were mapped, and solutions seemed within reach. What followed was a decade of missed opportunities that shaped our climate destiny. This book isn't just about rising temperatures-it's about human nature, institutional failure, and how we collectively turned away from one of history's most consequential warnings.
*Losing Earth* has been called "the most important work of climate journalism ever produced" by The Guardian and was expanded from Nathaniel Rich's groundbreaking 2018 New York Times Magazine article that became the most-read piece in the publication's history. The book reveals how close we came to solving climate change before powerful interests and human psychology derailed progress-a cautionary tale that resonates even more urgently today as we face increasingly severe climate impacts worldwide.
2장
The Awakening: How Climate Change Became a Political Issue
Nearly everything we understand about global warming was already known by 1979. Scientists had been collecting data since the 1950s confirming what had been theorized since the late 19th century: human beings were altering Earth's atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide question wasn't new-it had been studied for decades-but by the late 1970s, the evidence had become impossible to ignore.
Enter Rafe Pomerance, an environmental lobbyist at Friends of the Earth, who stumbled across a government report in 1979 mentioning potential climate catastrophe from coal burning. Confused and alarmed, Pomerance began a personal investigation that would transform his life and ultimately bring climate change to national attention.
After reading about the Jasons-an elite scientific advisory group-Pomerance arranged a meeting with geophysicist Gordon MacDonald, who explained the dire predictions: doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures 2-3 degrees Celsius, potentially creating Dust Bowl conditions across continents and melting Antarctic ice sheets. Together, they embarked on a "carbon dioxide roadshow," briefing officials across Washington who were largely unaware of these findings.
Their efforts culminated in a high-level meeting with Frank Press, President Carter's top science advisor, who requested a comprehensive assessment from the National Academy of Sciences. As Pomerance awaited his wife's pregnancy, he found himself haunted by an unsettling question: was it ethical to bring a child into a world potentially facing climate catastrophe?
Meanwhile, across the country, NASA scientist James Hansen was developing sophisticated computer models to predict Earth's climate future. Hansen had improbably journeyed from rural Iowa, where he'd been a baseball-obsessed child who found comfort in numbers, to becoming a leading climate scientist. After studying Venus's extreme greenhouse effect-where surface temperatures reached 800 degrees after its oceans boiled away-Hansen turned his attention to Earth, creating what he called "Mirror Worlds" that could mathematically project our planet's climate trajectory.
By July 1979, these parallel tracks converged when elite scientists gathered at Woods Hole to assess climate change predictions for the White House. After rigorous analysis, the resulting Charney report concluded Earth would warm 3C when carbon dioxide doubled-comparable to conditions three million years ago when Antarctica had beech trees and seas were 80 feet higher. The report explicitly warned against a "wait-and-see policy," setting the stage for what should have been immediate action.
3장
The Scientific Consensus and Industry Response
The Charney report's publication in 1979 marked a turning point in climate science. It established a clear scientific consensus that human-caused climate change was real and potentially catastrophic. The report's findings were so compelling that even Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, took notice.
Rather than denying the science, Exxon launched a $600,000 annual carbon dioxide research program. However, their motivation wasn't environmental stewardship but rather what research manager Henry Shaw called "a very aggressive defensive program" anticipating restrictive legislation. The company wanted to determine how much blame they might bear and position themselves to help shape whatever solution might emerge.
This wasn't the first time the fossil fuel industry had encountered warnings about climate change. Exxon's predecessor Humble Oil had published research in 1957 acknowledging fossil fuels' contribution to atmospheric carbon. In that same year, physicist Edward Teller had cautioned oil executives about climate change and melting icecaps. A 1968 American Petroleum Institute study predicted "significant temperature changes" by 2000.
Yet industry scientists repeatedly found what one observer called "good reasons for alarm and better excuses to do nothing." The Charney report changed this calculus by establishing scientific consensus that could no longer be easily dismissed. When Congress began holding hearings on carbon dioxide in 1980 and President Carter signed legislation mandating climate studies, Exxon strategically positioned itself to help shape the solution to a problem it had helped create.
While scientists worked to refine their understanding, a group of scholars dubbed "the Fatalists" debated whether humanity could actually solve the climate crisis even if technically possible. They questioned whether modern civilization, having lost control of its technology since the Industrial Revolution, could collectively act to prevent a slow-moving disaster. Economist William Nordhaus proposed a global carbon tax of ten dollars per ton, but implementation required an international treaty. Political scientist Michael Glantz noted politicians typically only act during immediate crises, not for gradual threats.
These philosophical questions would soon be tested in the real world of politics. In October 1980, Pomerance attended a crucial meeting at the "Pink Palace" hotel on Florida's Gulf Coast, where the National Commission on Air Quality had convened experts to develop climate legislation. Despite intense discussions, the meeting collapsed without producing policy recommendations. Pomerance left early, realizing that only strong leadership could overcome political inertia-and that leadership was nowhere to be found.
4장
Reagan's Environmental Rollback and the Birth of Climate Politics
Just days after the failed Pink Palace meeting, Ronald Reagan was elected president, dramatically shifting the political landscape. Reagan's administration quickly moved to dismantle environmental protections-appointing anti-regulation zealots like James Watt to the Interior Department and Anne Gorsuch to the EPA, who promptly cut the agency's budget by a quarter. The National Coal Association's president declared himself "deliriously happy."
Even when the Council on Environmental Quality submitted a report warning that fossil fuels could "permanently and disastrously" alter Earth's atmosphere, Reagan ignored the advice. The attacks on environmental regulation alarmed even Republicans like Senator Robert Stafford, who lectured Gorsuch about her moral obligation to protect the nation's air and water.
Meanwhile, the Charney report continued generating alarming headlines about the "greenhouse effect." When Pomerance read about a forthcoming Science paper by NASA scientists showing the world had already begun warming, he arranged to meet the lead author, James Hansen-a quiet, composed man with the manner of a small-town accountant. Hansen had political problems of his own: Reagan had cut NASA's budget, threatening his climate research funding. Pomerance immediately recognized Hansen's potential as a witness-he spoke with blunt midwestern sincerity that would play well on Capitol Hill.
While Reagan's environmental blitzkrieg dominated headlines, another climate champion emerged: a young Tennessee congressman named Albert Gore Jr. Gore's climate awakening had come at Harvard, studying under Roger Revelle, who had shown him Keeling's rising carbon dioxide curve. Now chairing an oversight subcommittee, Gore saw environmental issues as perfect dramatic narratives with villains, victims, and heroes.
When Gore proposed a hearing on the greenhouse effect, his staff director objected: "There are no villains." Gore replied, "If we don't do something, we're all going to be the victims." His first hearing featuring Revelle failed to make news, but when Gore heard the White House planned to eliminate the Energy Department's carbon dioxide program, he organized another hearing in March 1982.
At this hearing, James Hansen delivered testimony that should have changed everything: the planet had already warmed four-tenths of a degree Celsius, oceans had risen four inches, and Antarctica had lost a significant band of ice. Most alarming, Hansen warned they would see climate changes "clearly larger than the natural variability" within ten to twenty years. When asked if humanity was pushing beyond the range of adaptability, Hansen answered simply, "Yes." Asked when America needed to change its energy production model, Hansen stated: "That time is very soon."
5장
The Ozone Template and Missed Opportunities
By 1985, a sudden environmental crisis captured global attention: scientists discovered a "hole" in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Though not literally a hole but rather a severe seasonal depletion of ozone, the vivid metaphor created immediate public alarm about increased skin cancer, crop failures, and mass death of marine life.
The crisis was linked to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigerators and aerosols. Though CFCs were also potent greenhouse gases responsible for nearly half of Earth's warming during the 1970s according to Hansen's calculations, the public fear centered on more immediate threats like blindness and skin cancer.
The United Nations had established the World Plan of Action on the Ozone Layer in 1977, and in 1985 created the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Despite previously parroting industry talking points about scientific uncertainty, the Reagan administration made a stunning reversal, proposing a 95% reduction in CFC emissions after the Antarctic findings were published.
The ozone crisis demonstrated how quickly environmental policy could change when the public perceived an immediate, tangible threat. It also provided a template for addressing global warming. While carbon dioxide was harder to explain to politicians and journalists, the ozone hole offered a visceral metaphor-a "violent rending of the firmament" rather than a benign greenhouse. Pomerance realized that successful environmental policy required not just scientific evidence but emotional resonance.
The ozone hole's visual representation-especially NASA scientist Robert Watson's animation showing a purple wound spreading across Antarctica-made the invisible visible in ways that carbon dioxide data couldn't match. When Watson showed this dramatic time-lapse animation at a 1986 Senate hearing, it transformed an abstract atmospheric problem into something visceral that ordinary people could see and fear. The video aired on ABC's World News Tonight, though Peter Jennings mistakenly connected ozone depletion to global flooding.
This confusion actually helped the climate cause, generating dozens of headlines about global warming. Senator John Chafee went beyond merely calling for research, demanding that the State Department begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on a global climate accord. The old argument that more research was needed before action could be taken was roundly rejected by scientists, historians, and politicians alike. James Hansen stated that "evidence confirming the essence of the greenhouse theory is already overwhelming from a scientific point of view."
By October 1987, four years after the Changing Climate report and a month after nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting CFCs, climate scientists gathered at a conference that felt more like a celebration. The political momentum had shifted dramatically, with EPA head Lee Thomas suggesting global warming would likely follow ozone's path to an international agreement.
6장
The Summer That Changed Everything
The summer of 1988 brought the hottest, driest weather in American history, with apocalyptic conditions nationwide. Alaska lost two million acres to fire, while Yellowstone burned nearly a million acres. Nebraska suffered its worst drought since the Dust Bowl, with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees statewide. In Kansas, officials warned the state might become a desert within half a century.
Wisconsin's rivers evaporated until they couldn't dilute sewage. Harvard closed due to heat for the first time ever. New York's streets melted as its murder rate peaked. The Mississippi River ran at one-fifth capacity, and desperate measures abounded-Jesse Jackson prayed for rain in cornfields while a Sioux medicine man performed rain dances in Ohio.
On June 22, as Washington hit 100 degrees, Hansen called Pomerance about his upcoming Senate testimony. Uncharacteristically concerned about media coverage, Hansen revealed he had just received the latest global temperature data showing 1988 was already setting heat records. "I'm going to make a pretty strong statement," he told Pomerance, recognizing that ahead of schedule, the climate signal was finally emerging from the noise.
The next day, Hansen's testimony was direct and powerful: "The global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect" and "The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now."
By 2:10 p.m., the hearing room was sweltering at 98 degrees, packed with reporters and senators drawn by the promised "major statement." After various senators made dramatic statements about planetary survival, Hansen delivered his verdict with scientific detachment. Afterward, he told reporters: "It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here."
The press coverage was explosive, with Hansen's testimony leading national news and appearing on The New York Times' front page. Public awareness of the greenhouse effect reached 68 percent. The issue penetrated presidential politics, with George H.W. Bush declaring himself an environmentalist and promising action on climate change.
7장
The Moment of Opportunity and Its Collapse
After Hansen's testimony, Rafe Pomerance seized the momentum, gathering allies to establish a concrete emissions target. They needed something ambitious yet achievable-not just lofty rhetoric. Pomerance proposed "20 by 2000"-a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2000.
When Senator Timothy Wirth delivered this target at the Toronto climate conference, it quickly gained traction. The conference's final statement, signed by 400 scientists and politicians, adopted a slight variation: 20 percent reduction by 2005.
The issue penetrated presidential politics, with George H.W. Bush declaring himself an environmentalist and promising action on climate change. After winning, Bush received bipartisan recommendations to make climate change a national priority. By year's end, 32 climate bills had been introduced in Congress, including major legislation calling for an "International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere" by 1992.
Other nations moved even faster-Germany recommended a 30 percent emissions reduction, Sweden implemented a carbon tax, and Margaret Thatcher warned about environmental threats. The United Nations unanimously established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Bush's incoming administration invited them to the State Department. The moment for action had arrived.
However, behind the scenes, a powerful counterforce was emerging. After Hansen's testimony, oil executives bombarded Terry Yosie at the American Petroleum Institute with questions about global warming. Yosie discovered his industry peers were largely ignorant about climate change, so he organized a workshop at API headquarters attended by nearly 100 industry representatives.
The presentations made clear that fossil fuel combustion was causing warming, though uncertainties remained about timing. Yosie presented three options to API's executive committee: pursue a binding global treaty, ignore the problem entirely, or take a cautious approach that emphasized scientific uncertainty while avoiding economic disruption. The executives chose the third path, allocating a modest $100,000 for policy analysis-enough to launch a press campaign showing industry concern while undermining meaningful action.
8장
The White House Effect: How Politics Derailed Progress
Ten days after Bush's inauguration, the IPCC's Response Strategies Working Group met at the State Department to begin negotiating a global climate treaty. Secretary of State James Baker gave a speech acknowledging "we can probably not afford to wait until all of the uncertainties about global climate change have been resolved before we act."
This provoked an immediate rebuke from White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, who told Baker to "leave the science to the scientists" and "stay clear of this greenhouse effect nonsense." Baker, a former Houston oil lawyer, never spoke publicly about climate change again.
Sununu, despite his reputation as a political operative, considered himself an "old engineer" with a PhD from MIT. He harbored deep skepticism toward scientists who mixed policy with research, believing they were part of a conspiratorial "anti-growth" movement. He viewed climate warnings as similar to previously debunked environmental alarms like population bombs and resource depletion.
When EPA Administrator William Reilly proposed that Bush demand a global treaty to reduce carbon emissions before an upcoming IPCC meeting in Geneva, Sununu flatly refused. He ordered U.S. delegates not to make any commitments, leading to a public dispute when someone leaked their disagreement to the press.
In early May 1989, James Hansen received his congressional testimony back from the White House with substantial deletions and additions. After attempting to negotiate for days, Hansen gave up fighting the edits, deciding to let the White House have its way rather than testifying as "Atmospheric Scientist, New York, N.Y." again.
Hansen wrote to Gore explaining how the Office of Management and Budget wanted him to demote his scientific findings to "estimates" from unreliable models, claim causes were "scientifically unknown," and bizarrely demand that Congress only consider climate legislation with immediate economic benefits. Gore called reporters, and the next morning the New York Times ran a front-page headline: "Scientist Says Budget Office Altered His Testimony."
At the hearing, Gore exposed the contradictions, with Hansen explaining he hadn't written those statements. The episode sparked outrage, with Gore comparing it to Soviet censorship of scientists. The next day, Richard Darman from OMB made an uncharacteristically humble personal apology to Gore, suggesting the censorship order had come from someone above him-likely Sununu himself.
9장
The Final Defeat and Legacy of a Decade
In November 1989, Rafe Pomerance and his environmental activists continued their pressure campaign at the Noordwijk climate conference in the Netherlands. They staged daily stunts to embarrass Allan Bromley, Bush's science adviser, including lowering American, Japanese and Soviet flags to half-staff and organizing a press conference with Kiribati's minister, who dramatically illustrated how sea level rise would submerge his island nation.
Despite a decade of Pomerance's climate advocacy work since first warning the White House about fossil fuel dangers, he found himself powerless outside the final negotiation room where environmental ministers debated through the night. The Swedish minister emerged briefly to report that the American government was "fucking this thing up."
Near dawn, they learned the devastating outcome: Bromley, acting on Sununu's orders and with support from Britain, Japan and the Soviet Union, had blocked the commitment to freeze emissions. The final statement merely noted that "many" nations supported stabilization without specifying which ones, when, or at what levels.
Environmental groups condemned the outcome as a "disaster" and "failure." Al Gore mocked Bush's "whitewash effect" while Senator Wirth called America "a delinquent partner." Pomerance tried to remain diplomatic, noting some "good building blocks" despite his disappointment.
The aftermath revealed how climate policy efforts were undermined worldwide. Sununu correctly noted that even nations advocating most aggressively for climate action-like the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, and Australia-failed to honor their commitments. Economist William Nordhaus diagnosed this pattern: countries proclaim ambitious goals but continue business as usual.
The fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaigns began in earnest after Jim Hansen's 1988 testimony. Exxon's Duane LeVine presented to their board in February 1989, emphasizing "uncertainty in scientific conclusions" while predicting a global treaty by 1992. He advocated avoiding "premature limitations on fossil fuels" while supporting energy conservation and renewables. The American Petroleum Institute drafted a similar position in July 1989, warning against "premature" policies while advocating for measures that "make sense in their own right."
By February 1990, this became the global petroleum industry's default position. However, a more combative approach emerged through the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), funded by API and joined by numerous industry associations. The GCC added a press campaign that recruited skeptical scientists, offering $2,000 for original op-eds that questioned climate science.
10장
The Warning We All Heard But Chose to Ignore
The responsibility for our climate predicament extends beyond oil companies. The automobile industry, electric utilities, the U.S. government, and even environmental groups all knew about climate change decades ago. As a 1953 New York Times article presciently noted: "Coal and oil are still plentiful and cheap in many parts of the world, and there is every reason to believe that both will be consumed by industry so long as it pays to do so."
Even popular media warned the public. In 1958, Frank Capra's prime-time educational film "The Unchained Goddess" depicted Dr. Research warning that carbon dioxide could melt polar ice caps, leaving "tourists in glass-bottomed boats viewing the drowned towers of Miami through one hundred and fifty feet of tropical water."
The truth is that we all know the stakes: climate transformations will reconfigure the political world order. Every temperature gradient matters-2.1 degrees is better than 2.2 degrees, which is dramatically better than 2.3 degrees. Yet our collective actions demonstrate a disturbing truth about human nature: we struggle to value the future over immediate comfort and convenience.
The decade from 1979 to 1989 represents our best missed opportunity to address climate change before it became a crisis. We had the science, we understood the risks, and we even had the political momentum-briefly-to take meaningful action. What we lacked was the collective will to overcome short-term thinking and powerful vested interests.
This story isn't just about the past; it's a warning about how we respond to long-term threats. The climate crisis continues to accelerate, with each passing year making solutions more difficult and impacts more severe. Understanding how we failed in the 1980s might help us avoid repeating the same mistakes as we face increasingly urgent climate decisions today. The question remains: will we finally heed the warnings that have been sounding for over forty years?
