In 1959, Edward Teller, a theoretical physicist known to many as the ‘father of the hydrogen bomb’, warned the American Petroleum Institute (API) that a 10% increase in CO2 would be enough to melt the icecap and “submerge New York” (9). In 1965, President Lynden Johnson’s science committee and the API warned the fossil fuel industry of future “deleterious” effects on human beings as a result of gas emissions (9). The head of the API concluded his findings by stating that “Time is running out.” (9). And it has been, for a while. Despite the many warnings that followed these preliminaries over the years, the world, and especially the United States, has been slow to act.
For any movement to truly catch on, it relies heavily on its sphere of influence with the masses: namely enough to convince them that they’re more right than their alternative. As the number of climate supporters began to grow, so did their opposition’s intensity. In a world arguably still dominated by coal and petroleum, this industry held power and influence that could not be bested. Two months before the signing of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which was the first to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other synthetic molecules, Mobil took out an large ad in the New York Times and urged people to “reset the clock” on the basis that scientists were uncertain about the truth of global warming (9). A year later, the US refused to ratify that very protocol after vicious opposition from oil companies (5). Even in 2019, the secretary general of OPEC, the organization that unifies policy for countries that produce the most petroleum, stated that the biggest threat to their industry was “climate campaigners” (9).
How do these “climate campaigners” respond? Well, a number of ways. In 1970, a Wisconsin senator planned the first Earth Day, which began as a day to hold discussions about environmentalism. Since then, it has become a holiday celebrated on April 22nd in just over 190 countries. This exemplifies the route taken by green supporters to show off the beauty of our planet. In a bid to convince the population to think about the Earth, this methodology even continues today with ads across all social media platforms showing pictures of unique places or creatures in various parts of the world, or with the rollout of countless nature documentaries in the last few years. In October of 2019, BBC America switched its prime Saturday timeslot from their usual crime dramas to wildlife documentaries. Instantly, they saw a 35% higher viewership in those slots (7). Though it is possible environmentalism was not their primary intention, it demonstrates that people are increasingly more fascinated by the Earth, and that this form of influence proves to be quite valuable.
Taking a more serious route, many climatologists have tried to get the public’s attention through highlighting the barbaric consequences of global temperature increase. Much of this rhetoric has come from the scientific community, who often find themselves discovering harrowing statistics about the planet’s future. What is agreed upon is that since the industrial revolution, the Earth’s temperature has risen about 0.8°C or 1.4°F (4). This trend has only grown exponentially. As a result, the focus of many theoretical scientists has shifted to exactly how warm the Earth will get. To put the figures into perspective, if the planet were to heat another 2-3°C, some of the hottest areas on the planet become uninhabitable, while temperate regions experience droughts, extreme weather conditions, and daily temperature fluctuations uncharacteristic of the seasons (2). Around +4°C, the probability of heatwaves over a large percentage of the planet soars to 92%, and agricultural drought to 61%, while regions closer to bodies of water flood uncontrollably (2). This scenario is practically unsurvivable for the majority of Earth’s population. Anything greater than 6°C is rendered apocalyptic (2).
In 2009 scientists in Denmark released the “Copenhagen Diagnosis”, which aimed to provide a status update on climate scenarios and supplement the reports being churned out by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1). In reality, it aimed to publish some terrifying statistics. Alarmingly, the “business as usual” scenario resulted in a global temperature increase of between 4.0-7.0°C by 2100 (1). Similar findings from American scientists exhibited a 3.7°C increase by the same year (5). In other words, bad news.
How have these estimates held up? Well, they haven’t exactly. According to the Climate Action Tracker Thermometer (CAT), an independent research project, if current policies are continued globally with no improvement, we will see a maximum increase of 3.7°C by 2100 (3). If all 2030 net-zero carbon goals are met globally, we can expect an increase of only 2.4°C (3). In the “optimistic scenario”, where full implementation of net zero targets is achieved and the best case scenario is achieved, we can expect warming in the range of 1.8-2.4°C (3).
Luckily, it seems that the future is in a better position than had been previously thought, however this tracker is only one of countless studies and programs currently released that discuss various temperature estimates. The rhetoric is predominantly negative, and can be scary to most. This has led to a difficult impasse for climate movements. Sections of the public have gradually shifted from climate denialism, and faced with harrowing facts, have adopted climate nihilism. This phenomenon occurs as people hear statistics and stories that seem so dark and out of their control, that a mindset develops that there is nothing to possibly do. How could one human change the course of an entire planet developing droughts and heatwaves? How do we avoid the shift from denialism to nihilism?
Some of the solutions don’t always boil down to the individual. The greatest contributors to global warming still continue to be the burning of fossil fuels, agriculture, and deforestation (8). Each factor plays its own role in the trapping of greenhouse gasses, and later an increase in global temperature. But where does the average citizen come in?
It starts with simple changes. Turning the light off when it isn’t needed, taking shorter showers, electing to use a reusable water bottle are all changes that could be made right after finishing this article. In the longer term, the switch to electric vehicles, lower consumption of meat, and choosing sustainably focused contractors for construction and insulation projects are among other methods to help reduce one’s personal carbon footprint.
We’re in a better place than we once were. Despite numerous actions to invalidate scientific claims, most people do believe in the effects of climate change. Despite the alarming nature of many recent statistics, many people do strive to lessen their impact in any way possible. As the world enters an age in which investing in green will quickly have to become a priority, it’s imperative to not lose sight of the importance of an individual’s impact. We’re in for some hot weather folks, let’s keep it to a minimum.
References
Allison, Ian & Bindoff, et. al. (2009). The Copenhagen Diagnosis.
Arnell, N.W., Lowe, J.A., Challinor, A.J. et al. Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase. Climatic Change 155, 377–391 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02464-z
The CAT Thermometer. (2021, November 9). Climate Action Tracker. https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/
Change in total greenhouse gas emissions. (n.d.). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?stackMode=relative&time=2000..2010&facet=n one&country=~OWID_WRL&Gas=All+GHGs+%28CO%E2%82%82eq%29&Accounti ng=Production-based&Fuel=Total&Count=Per+country&Relative+to+world+total=false
Herring, D. (2012, March 6). Climate Change: Global Temperature Projections. Climate.gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-tem perature-projections#:~:text=Results%20from%20a%20wide%20range,gases%20that%2 0human%20activities%20produce
Klein, C. (2021, August 9). ALARMING NEW UN CLIMATE REPORT SAYS HUMANITY HAS REALLY SCREWED ITSELF. Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/08/alarming-new-un-climate-report-says-humanit y-has-really-screwed-itself
Koblin, J. (2020, January 15). Nature Shows Are Hot Again. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/media/hot-nature-shows.html
Lindsey, R., & Dahlman, L. (2021, March 15). Climate Change: Global Temperature. Climate.gov. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Watts, J., Blight, G., McMullan, L., & Gutiérrez, P. (n.d.). Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/09/half-century-dither -denial-climate-crisis-timeline