The Daily - When We Almost Stopped Climate Change

Episode Date: August 31, 2018

Thirty years ago, the United States had a chance to stop global warming in its tracks. Almost nothing stood in the way — except human resistance. Guests: Rafe Pomerance, an environmentalist who became involved with the climate movement in its earliest days; Nathaniel Rich, who reported on the history of climate politics for The New York Times Magazine. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. 30 years ago, the United States had a chance to stop climate change. Almost nothing stood in the way, except human resistance. What went wrong? It's Friday, August 31st. So by the 1950s, scientists had known for more than half a century that the use of fossil fuels was warming the atmosphere.

But it was only in that decade that scientists started to worry about what that might mean for human society. Nathaniel Rich reported this story for The Times magazine. And there were a number of articles published during that time trying to alert the public about the dangers that we were facing. Even now, man may be unwittingly changing the world's climate through the waste products of his civilization. Due to our release through factories and automobiles every year of more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps air absorb heat from the sun,

our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer. And although these articles appeared in places like the Times or Time and Life magazine or on educational programs on primetime TV. A few degrees rise in the Earth's temperature would melt the polar ice caps. Not much attention was really paid to it outside of scientific circles for another couple of decades. This is Rafe Pomerantz. But then in 1979... I can actually remember the moment quite well. I came across a paragraph on the environmental impacts of coal use.

Rafe Pomerantz, this political lobbyist and activist for an environmental organization, is sitting in his office on Capitol Hill reading an obscure government report about coal and acid rain when he comes across this paragraph at the end of a chapter. And that section of the report was devoted to the possibility that coal and other fossil fuels would warm the planet through their emissions of carbon dioxide. Pomerantz reads all this and is astonished and terrified, but assumes that he must have misread something or that he doesn't understand it. And he kind of puts it out of his mind. I said to myself, this can't be. It just seemed like a transformation of the planet all in that one sentence. A couple of days later, however, he comes across an article that interviews Gordon McDonald,

who's this prominent government scientist who is warning about the exact same problem. And he immediately calls up Gordon McDonald and asks if they can meet. I said, I'm very curious about this. I need to know more. And I said, will you see me? And he said, yes. So I did.

So McDonald explains the whole issue to him. And Pomerantz says at the end of this long meeting, if I set up briefings for administration officials, people on Capitol Hill, will you do them? Will you tell them what you just told me? And he said yes. Pomerantz's basic idea was that surely if we communicate this problem to the people

who are in power in this country, they will understand the necessity of action and they will do the responsible thing. So they start having meetings on Capitol Hill. They meet with the PA. The National Security Council. The State Department. Council on Environmental Quality. They meet with the New, the National Security Council, the State Department, Council on Environmental Quality.

They meet with the New York Times. And Frank Press, who was the president's science advisor. And after meeting with people from the White House, the White House commissions a report to determine whether the dangers, as Gordon MacDonald saw them, were accurate and whether action should be taken.

And a very high-level group of scientists gathered in Woods Hole, Massachusetts in July of 79 and issued a report on the whole problem known as the Charney Report. And that, in a way, formulated the baseline science that, to this day, people look back at. Well, I think the Environmental Protection Agency, in many instances, has gone to an extreme. But Reagan wins the election and Pomerantz realizes that he has to start fighting other battles. Reagan appointed the worst possible people to the key agencies. Ann Gorsuch at EPA, Jim Watt at Interior. There's a very anti-environmental crowd,

about as anti-environmental as you could ask for. We've got environmentalists who wouldn't let you build a house unless it looked like a bird's nest, and they must be restrained. The climate issue basically goes off the map, and Pomerantz doesn't know what to do. Right now, the biggest help the federal government could be would be to get out with some of its regulations. As Reagan tries to roll everything back,

essentially, to Teddy Roosevelt's administration. Yeah, I remember at a meeting in 1980, shortly after the election, I was sitting in a meeting of my environmental colleagues. They said, we're finished. You know, this is disaster. You know, this is disaster. This is a site which is very familiar to all of us.

Shells full of aerosol cans containing a whole variety of products. Two chemists recognized that these very unreactive compounds accumulate in the atmosphere and could lead to a decrease in the amount of ozone in the stratosphere. But in 1985, there's a major study published by a bunch of British scientists who have observed that the level of ozone above the Antarctic has dramatically declined. Recently, scientists discovered a weak spot in the ozone layer over Antarctica, the icy continent at the South Pole. There it was, this huge hole the size of North America over Antarctica. They say increased ultraviolet radiation through a hole in the ozone could raise temperatures, damage farm crops, and cause a lot more sunburn. And almost overnight, there is an enormous amount

of public panic about what this might mean. Yeah, the ozone hole had a powerful effect on the public. Even though it was a different kind of event in the atmosphere, it made it believable that human beings could alter things on a global scale. The most popular theory is that man-made chemicals, on a global scale. The most popular theory is that man-made chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons, known as CFCs, are causing the problem. Now, with an eye on what's happening over Antarctica, some scientists want a worldwide ban on all uses of CFCs. And by 1987, you have the Montreal Protocol,

which is the first global atmospheric environmental treaty. The Montreal Protocol is a landmark document and achievement by any standard. And it becomes a template for a possible global warming solution. By asking whether together we could mobilize the political will required to agree on a strong ozone protocol. required to agree on a strong ozone protocol. Specifically, notice has been served to all concerned that products and technologies that threaten the Earth's sun shield

are no longer acceptable. So the ozone hole kind of opened the door to the credibility in a certain way of the climate problem. Well, Steve Newman is standing by now to fill us in on what went on weather-wise today. And I can tell you this one thing, we set a brand new record which may never be broken again. And then we get to the summer of 1988. June 1988. Global temperatures for the first five months of the year were the warmest ever recorded.

The hottest summer in recorded history. Good evening, it wasn't even noon today when the temperature at Sioux Falls in South Dakota was over 100. How many days has it been 100 this year? 53. In Georgia, a woman died from heat stroke while she was working in a tobacco field.

This was our 15th day since Memorial Day with temperatures of 90 degrees or better. If the air is so thick you can see it, it should be no surprise you can also feel it. And we could be heading for new records over the weekend. A third straight day of record high temperatures sent heat waves shimmering across the area. You have incredible drought across the U.S. Severe drought conditions caused half of the nation's agricultural counties to be declared disaster areas. Well, it's the worst I've seen it. It's the worst my father has seen it. He's 76 years old. You have headlines all summer long that are apocalyptic.

Where some people have become so distraught they have told their congressman, God is against us. Washington was having unusually hot weather, too. All of that tended to focus attention on a hearing here on Capitol Hill. So at the height of this summer, in June, there's set to be a hearing before the Senate about global warming. And the night before the hearing, Pomerantz gets a phone call from the lead witness, a NASA scientist named James Hansen. And Hansen tells him, tomorrow at this hearing, I'm going to make a major statement. I have a number of senators here, and we might move very rapidly into questions. Let me just, first of all, ask a short one of you, Dr. Hansen, and then ask others to comment if they would like.

I think the question that everybody's asking today with all of the heat and everything going on across the middle west and the southwest and so on is, is the current heat wave and drought related to the greenhouse effect? 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. The signal has emerged. The temperature of the planet is telling us that climate change, the greenhouse effect, is underway. We are now seeing the effect of what we predicted years ago.

It's no longer theory. It's happening now. And afterwards, in a press conference, he says it's time to stop waffling and it's time to take action. Afterwards, in a press conference, he says, it's time to stop waffling and it's time to take action. The scientist was Dr. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. He told a Senate committee the warming trend of the 1980s, which included the five hottest years on record, was not normal, not a natural climate variation. This seems like a dramatic moment along the lines of there's now a hole in the ozone. There is now evidence that global warming is happening now. Yes, it's a perfect corollary to there's a hole in the ozone layer. And it has a major effect.

There are dozens and dozens of headlines across the country the week of the hearing. The consensus in favor of taking action has been building, slowly and haltingly. Hansen becomes overnight a kind of celebrity, the face of the global warming problem. The Congress is considering legislation to coordinate and strengthen U.S. policy with regard to the problem. By the end of 1988, there are 32 climate bills. The environment minister agrees Canadians must get ready for a warmer globe, but he's also pushing for an international agreement that would control carbon dioxide emissions. And a process begins in earnest to formulate a global treaty to prevent catastrophic global warming.

The idea is to convince everyone that all of this isn't just scientific speculation. It's real, and it's cause for great concern. So at this point, Pomerantz is feeling pretty good. I think we were feeling like we were making progress. 1988 was also an election year. Today, I'd like to begin to outline what I do about the environment. My plan for how we as a nation and as a people can lead the world to a new recognition of the importance of the environment. And so George H.W. Bush campaigns on the issue. Some say these problems are too big,

that it's impossible for an individual or even a nation as great as ours to solve the problem of global warming. He says it can be done and we must do it. He means we're going to do something about the problem. The White House will do something about the problem. From NBC News Election Headquarters, this is Election Night 88. So George H.W. Bush gets elected and industry starts to brace for new regulatory policy or even climate legislation. But shortly after he enters office, there emerges a very strong divide between different factions within the White House. On one side, the EPA administrator and the secretary of state who are pushing strongly for a global treaty. And on the other side, John Sununu, chief of staff, who's deeply skeptical of the science and of any efforts to introduce regulatory policy related to climate. And Sununu became basically a difficult obstacle to moving forward.

So in response to this internal back and forth conflict within the White House, Al Gore decides to hold another hearing again with James Hansen to put pressure on the White House, Al Gore decides to hold another hearing again with James Hansen to put pressure on the White House to commit fully to the global negotiation process for a treaty. So as usual, James Hansen sends his prepared testimony to the White House for approval, but this time it comes back heavily censored with all kinds of deletions that distort his scientific findings, and also additions that make arguments about economic policy, essentially saying that there should be no regulations that at all compromise the economic goals of the country. Wow. So Hansen, rather than fighting with the White House censors, he accepts all of the changes, but then he makes a call to

Gore and tells him what's happened. Gore asks Hansen, can I tell this to the New York Times? And Hansen says, sure. And the Times publishes a bombshell story saying that the White House is trying to censor a NASA scientist. The administration censored testimony by Dr. Hansen to make his conclusion seem less serious and less certain. So it's a huge embarrassment to the White House, and they have to apologize. They claim that the censorship came from a functionary

five levels down from the top, and they, shortly thereafter, recommit to the international negotiation process for a climate treaty. And they say, furthermore, that the U.S. will lead the effort. And who was that anonymous censor, to Hansen anyway, behind the deletions and the additions? So nobody knew who the censor was at the time, but when I asked John Sununu about this during my reporting, he said that the directive had come from him. Hmm.

Nuno about this during my reporting, he said that the directive had come from him. Hmm. We need action and we need it now. Every American deserves to breathe clean air. So in November, there's a meeting in Noordwijk in the Netherlands, which will be the first high-level diplomatic meeting about the framework for a global treaty on climate change. Every country sends its environmental minister, so the U.S.'s equivalent is the head of the EPA, William Riley, who's the strongest proponent of a treaty in the White House. But Sununu doesn't trust him, so he sends an ally as a kind of minder to make sure that the U.S. doesn't accept

any kind of binding proposal. There were a group of us advocates who were there. On the last day, there's a major session that's closed to everyone except for the diplomats. And Pomerantz and his fellow activists camp out outside of the big conference room at a hotel where this is taking place. We were there to bring attention to the success or failure of the meeting. And they wait as the meeting goes longer than expected, deep into the night and finally into the next morning. And we try to find out what was going on,

trying to bring some attention to the meeting, to the media, that sort of thing. And finally, in the early hours, the Swedish minister emerges, and they ask him what's happening. And he says, your country is fucking this thing up. The U.S., led by Alan Bromley, Sununu's guy, has refused to endorse any global treaty that has any hard targets or demands any specific emissions reductions. And with that, the best opportunity that we've had for a binding global treaty to prevent climate change falls apart. We'll be right back. the Bush administration's opposition to participating in something that the entire scientific community, as well as the vast majority of the rest of the world, agree is an existential threat to all of us that has to be addressed by all of us?

Well, there's a simple political explanation, which is that the chief of staff, Johnson Nunu, won this political fight within the White House. But I think you can also ask, won this political fight within the White House. But I think you can also ask, well, why was the level of support, of the political and public support for solving the problem not strong enough to overcome the will of one man who wasn't even the president? And I think that leads you into some larger questions about our ability to grapple meaningfully with a problem of such enormous stakes. And the problem of those ramifications wouldn't be felt for decades or even generations. We talk about the effects of climate change.

We're talking about civilizational death. And I don't think we like looking at that in the face. And so we do whatever we can not to. Our responsibility is to maintain the quality of our approach, our commitment to sound science, and an open mind to policy options. By 1990, Bush's entire economic council comes out against climate policy.

At the same time... ExxonMobil has long been criticized for allegedly hiding what it knew about climate change. Just today, a pair of researchers say that ExxonMobil has long been criticized for allegedly hiding what it knew about climate change. Just today, a pair of researchers say that Exxon's own documents prove that is true. The oil and gas industry mobilizes on the issue and develops a strategy and a campaign of funding disinformation propaganda. To assess ExxonMobil's public statements, it cast doubt on whether climate change was real. It discounted human impacts. And they suggested there was nothing practical to do about it anyway. Paying off scientists and politicians and ultimately the entire Republican

party to embrace this notion of uncertainty in the science. Are you convinced that climate change is man-made? Well, look, I don't know that that is a resolved issue in science today. And ultimately to deny the existence of climate change altogether. We keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record. I asked the chair, you know what this is? It's a snowball. And that's just from outside here. So it's very, very cold out.

Very unseasonal. So here, Mr. President, catch this. I don't buy that, Joe. What do you mean you don't buy it? I just don't buy the fact that it's a crisis. So Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and that. A lot of it's a hoax.

It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? As a result of industry's efforts, the politics around the issue become sharply divided. For those who believe this, it would have to be dealt with on a worldwide basis. So let's take a look at that. Even if you believe that that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, one country doing it is going to have no impact. Why has it taken so long, Senator? Special interests.

It's a special interest. It's the utility companies and the petroleum companies and the other special interests. They're the ones that have blocked progress in the Congress of the United States and in the administration. At the same time, the seas continue to rise and natural disasters continue to occur at increasing frequency. There are reports from New Orleans of people trapped in buildings that have come down around them. What happened? The hair just split in half. Your house split in half? Hurricane Sandy threatening a massive stretch of the U.S. from Virginia to New England,

all the way to the Great Lakes. So this is the highest the water has ever gotten here in New York City. The monumental flooding and humanitarian disaster continues to unfold after Harvey. The island of Barbuda was once a Caribbean paradise. Hurricane Irma has reduced it to rubble. All 14 Caribbean community countries together produce less than 0.1% of global emissions. We are the least of the polluters, but the largest of the casualties. Now to Maria. This is the one I am most frightened about.

Dammit, this is not a good news story. This is a people are dying story. And temperatures keep getting warmer. More than 50 million Americans are under excessive heat warnings, and it's not going to end anytime soon. At least 22,000 people have been treated in hospital for heat stroke. At least 10 large fires are burning across the state. A ranch fire has devoured 351,000 acres, making it the largest wildfire in state history.

Excessive heat is also a threat thousands of miles away in Europe. In Lisbon, Portugal, mercury peaked at 111 degrees. The highest temperature ever measured in Britain was recorded at Heathrow Airport this afternoon. It reached 37.9 degrees Celsius, or more than 100 Fahrenheit. And in Frankfurt, Germany Germany the thermometer reached 97. Japan is fighting back against the heat wave that is striking many parts of the country. Famine threatened Somalia for the second time this decade. Karayat, Oman had a temperature over the last 24 hours it never dropped below a hundred and eight point seven degrees. If this verifies it

would set the record for the hottest minimum temperature across the entire world. So that happened this morning when they woke up. It feels like this decade that you examined, 1979 to 89, is this moment when everybody is willing to meet from all these industries and all these advocacy groups and the government and to talk about this without yet becoming so entrenched in their positions and in their self-interest, even though those things all begin to rear their heads,

when this was actually still about the science for a moment. And that after this decade, everything would become so much harder. Yeah, absolutely. I think you were still in the window at which a relatively gradual intervention would have had major positive benefits. And maybe it takes a couple decades to get right, but it would have been enough. And now that have been enough. Now that's not enough. That window is closed.

But it's not too late. There are plans out there that present a pretty clear path towards solving this and keeping global temperatures under two degrees Celsius rise. But what's lacking is the political will to achieve the kind of transformation of our energy system and really of the global economy that's required to do this. And I don't think we're going to muster up that level of political will until we understand the issue in moral terms and until everybody or most people feel some sense of moral obligation to demand action. Nathaniel, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thank you for having me.

The Daily is produced by Theo Balcom, Lindsay Garrison, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, Andy Mills, Ike Srees-Kanaracha, Claire Tennisketter, Paige Cowan, Michael Simon-Johnson, and Jessica Chung, with editing help from Larissa Anderson. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer. Samantha Hennig is our editorial director. Our technical manager is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly.

Special thanks to Sam Dolman, Michaela Bouchard, and Stella Tan. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you Tuesday, after the holiday.