As we grapple with the devastating and escalating impacts of climate change, it is reasonable to ask why past governments did not take steps to mitigate the crisis before it escalated. However, one of the most striking warning voices came from Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, who died on December 29.
“Jimmy Carter’s recognition of climate threats in the 1970s was somewhat prescient and in recognition of the solid scientific evidence that existed at the time,” said Jason Smerdon, professor of climatology at Columbia Climatology Institute. Jason Smerdon said. “Carter’s renewable energy transition plan is a path not taken and would have put us in a better position than we are now.”
When Carter entered the White House in 1977, the United States was reeling from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. Six years later, oil strikes and inflation during the Iranian Revolution exacerbated the situation. Still, environmental issues remain the least of most politicians’ concerns, with their primary concern being the fiscal and political impact of oil shortages.
A few months after taking office, Carter received a scathing memo from geophysicist and presidential science adviser Frank Press detailing the links between fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions and climate catastrophe. With this in mind, the President has set a goal: by the year 2000, 20 percent of America’s energy use should come from renewable sources. (Of course, this won’t happen.)
Two years after President Carter took office, as a symbolic gesture, he installed 32 solar panels on the roof of the White House (they were removed seven years later). He also held a fireside chat asking Americans to lower their thermostats to reduce the country’s overreliance on fossil fuels. To be clear, Richard Nixon had previously made similar demands to reduce U.S. demand for fossil fuels, and Gerald Ford followed him up with similar demands. Regardless, Carter’s proactive intentions were disparaged by many in the establishment.
Undeterred, President Carter initiated a series of measures aimed at protecting the environment during his term in office. “Carter also supports direct federal investment in research and development when it comes to alternative and renewable energy,” said Leah Aronowsky, assistant professor of climate at the Climate Institute. “This approach to energy policy does not seem politically feasible today.”
“Carter’s legacy reminds us how responsible leadership, acting on solid scientific evidence, can and should inform long-term climate action that will make a real difference over a lifetime.”
Carter created the Department of Energy in 1977 to consolidate many energy-related government programs and research and develop regulations. That same year he established the Solar Energy Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory). A year later, he proposed the National Energy Act, which would tax gas-guzzling cars while providing financial incentives for investment in wind and solar energy. Subsequent governments would reverse much of this.
“The Inflation Reduction Act can be read as containing vestiges of Carter’s legacy,” Aronofsky said. “It offers a number of ‘carrots’ in the form of tax credits to encourage individual consumers to purchase electric vehicles and heat pumps, and tax subsidies to stimulate private investment in the electric vehicle industry, similar to some of Carter’s energy efficiency plans. Support .
Carter also turned his attention to deforestation. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 protects national parks and prohibits mining there. His Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 protected more than 100 million acres of wilderness from being destroyed by the oil and timber industries. At the time, the act doubled the size of the national park and wildlife refuge system.
Perhaps most famously, Carter signed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (commonly known as the “Superfund”). tried to weaken the bill), but Superfund was a step forward by giving the Environmental Protection Agency, which Nickerson created, the power to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous waste, often from industrial facilities, mines and landfills.
At the same time, Carter turned to coal in an attempt to alleviate political pressure to find a direct source of fuel amid the country’s oil crisis and economic turmoil. “Carter’s environmental legacy is ultimately a mixed bag,” Aronofsky explained. “On the one hand, his legacy includes landmark legislation in environmental protection and restoration. On the other, as high inflation and unemployment continued to plague the country, Carter began to prioritize economic concerns over environmental ones toward the end of his term. above.
“For example, in late 1979,” she said, “Carter supported an $88 billion plan to fund the synthetic fuel industry, which would convert coal and oil shale into liquid fuels. The plan was designed to help the U.S. survive the 1979 oil crisis. It later reduced reliance on foreign oil imports, but it also pledged to significantly expand the U.S. coal industry. Environmentalists viewed his support for the plan as a betrayal.
President Carter was well aware of this paradox. “Eventually, we will learn to use fusion power to harness the energy of the sun and oceans to meet our energy needs,” he said in a 1978 speech. “Fossil fuels, and coal is our most abundant fossil fuel.”
By the time he left office in 1981, the administration had a solid foundation for mitigating what Press’s 1977 memo noted was “the inability to move quickly to non-fossil fuel sources once climate impacts become apparent shortly after the year 2000.” However, many of these efforts would be softened or dismantled by Carter’s successor.
Still, nearly four decades after leaving the White House, Carter has allocated 10 acres of his land to a solar power project that will eventually power half of his hometown of Plains, Georgia. It was the ultimate proof of concept that he was unable to implement while in the White House. “Carter’s legacy reminds us how responsible leadership, acting on solid scientific evidence, can and should inform long-term climate action that will truly have a lifetime impact,” Smerdon said.
