There’s a plethora of stories coming out that are framing climate change as something no one was talking about until recently. Pardon my language, but that’s some fucked up revisionism.
Maybe folks in power want to absolve themselves from their inaction, or media outlets feel guilty for not giving climate change the coverage it deserved for decades, but somehow we blew right past “this is what we’ve been warning about” to “if only we’d been warned!?”
Setting aside the fact that we’ve known about the physics of CO2 warming the planet since > Eunice Foote (1865), Arrhenius (1896) et al, a US presidents’ advisory council raised concerns about the greenhouse effect in 1965. Wally Broecker used the term “global warming” in 1975.
The IPCC formed in 1988; its first Report was released in 1990. In the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, developed countries pledged to hold emissions to 1990 levels. In 1997, nations signed the Kyoto Protocol, pledging a 5% reduction in emissions by 2012. The US Senate refused to ratify.
James Hansen’s famous testimony to Congress was in 1988. Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance came out in 1992. @MichaelEMann’s famous “hockey stick” graph was published in 1998.
This was all before I finished high school. And those are just some of the highlights.
There have been popular books and articles on climate change published regularly since the early 2000’s, at least. The Day After Tomorrow (which significantly raised public awareness about climate change) came out in 2004. An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006.
(Correction: Foote’s paper was delivered in 1856, not 1865.)
Decades of scientific reports warned of fires, sea level rise, drought, floods, heat waves, new diseases and pests, extinction, crop losses.
I don’t blame average folks for not knowing about climate change.
But the people who were supposed to do something about it knew. They thought they’d be fine, or they chose short-term power and profit. Or they believed fossil fuel industry lies, while taking fossil fuel money.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Apparently I'm an "overpopulation denier" for pointing out the fact that consumption is the real problem, and that population anxiety is deeply rooted in racism and can lead to ecofascism. It's amazing how much people will cling to harmful ideas even when the data say otherwise.
For folk who would like to learn more, some links to help:
I really liked @EricHolthaus newsletter today, which connected me with this important essay I missed: "How can we make sure that climate anxiety is harnessed for climate justice?" scientificamerican.com/article/the-un…
I'm excited to share our new paper, led by @erleellis. By combining global maps of human populations and land use, we found that ~75% of terrestrial nature has been shaped by people for at least 12,000.
Our main take-home points: 1) "With rare exceptions, current biodiversity losses are caused not by human conversion or degradation of untouched ecosystems, but rather by the appropriation, colonization, and intensification of use in lands inhabited and used by prior societies."
2) "Global land use history confirms that empowering the environmental stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities will be critical to conserving biodiversity across the planet."
@ClimateBen This is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. Tacking “BREAKING” onto an unattributed statement is bad enough, but you’re also misrepresenting Gavin—he never said that. You need to delete this. What you’re doing is wrong, Ben, and I think you know better.
@ClimateBen To support your first tweet, you link to two papers about impacts to support your statement, and you misrepresent and exaggerate the findings of both (neither of which Gavin was involved in). Most people won’t actually read the articles, let alone the papers you posted.
@ClimateBen The climate crisis needs no exaggeration to drive action. But threads like this make it harder and harder for scientists to debunk doomist narratives, and as a result, we’re getting attacked by people citing our own work on climate change, who accuse us of downplaying the crisis.
This was such a fun conversation, not only because we got to have Eric back on the show (as the founder of Warm Regards). Eric took a break from the podcast to work on The Future Earth, and it was really nice to be able to close the loop with a conversation about his book.
I also got to talk with one of my favorite authors about one of my favorite moments in one of my favorite books, and that's just not something one gets to do very often, if ever.
We hope you enjoy this first episode in our two-part finale, and we'd love to hear what you think.