How did humans get to the brink of crashing climate?

In the face of record-high temperatures, floods, droughts, and wildfires, global leaders are set to gather for another round of United Nations climate talks later this month. The aim is to address the longstanding trend of escalating greenhouse gas emissions by humans, contributing to the current climate crisis.

Throughout centuries, humans have actively shaped the world to serve their needs. They drained lakes to safeguard infrastructure, wealth, and populations. Billions of tons of coal were mined, followed by the extraction of oil and gas, to fuel empires and drive economies. The temptation to exploit nature and rely on fossil fuels as a means of achieving prosperity has transcended borders, with each nation seeking to secure its own energy sources.

Historians observe that those wielding power and claiming control over nature and energy resources viewed the environment as a tool for progress. This mindset has persisted for centuries, reshaping the planet's climate and, over time, pushing its inhabitants to the brink of catastrophe.

CONTROLLING THE ENVIRONMENT

Mexico City can trace its origins to a settlement established centuries ago on islands in the middle of LakeTexcoco. However, a significant portion of the lake has disappeared over time, drained to accommodate urban development and expansion. Today, with a population of over 22 million people sprawling toward the edges of the Valley of Mexico, the city faces challenges in securing water in the arid valley, particularly as droughts become more severe.

To meet water demands, the city relies on pumping from deep underground. The consequences of centuries of such pumping are evident in deteriorating curbs and leaning structures caused by subsidence. Some areas experience a sinking rate of around 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) per year. Simultaneously, neighborhoods face an elevated risk of severe flooding due to extreme rainfall events driven by climate change. The effectiveness of drainage systems is compromised by the subsidence, further exacerbating the vulnerability of these areas.

Luis Zambrano, a professor of ecology at the National AutonomousUniversity of Mexico, emphasizes that "Nature doesn’t create these huge problems." He notes that nature follows its own course, and the increasing vulnerability seen in places like Mexico City, where excessive pumping is causing subsidence, is a result of human activities.

The situation in Mexico City is emblematic of a broader pattern where people and civilizations transform their natural surroundings, often with the intention of reaping benefits for themselves and the land. However, such alterations can have significant consequences. In various regions, vast areas of land have been deforested for agriculture or livestock grazing, while others have suffered degradation and contamination due to quarrying and mining for metals and minerals. The exploitation of nature for resources has propelled progress and productivity for some, but it has also been a major contributor to emissions and environmental degradation on a global scale.

Anya Zilberstein, a historian of climate science at ConcordiaUniversity in Montreal, points to the European colonization of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries as an early driver of present-day climate and environmental challenges. Europeans brought with them the notion that conquering and transforming landscapes, such as clearing forests, implementing European-style agriculture, and draining swamps, would result in favorable climate changes.

“They bring with them this idea that conquest and then the development of the cultivation of landscapes, like taking down trees, opening up lands to European style agriculture, that the draining of swamps ... will also change the climate, usually for the better,” Zilberstein said.

For example, the Aztecs established Tenochtitlán, later known as Mexico City, on the islands and chinampas (small artificial fields) of Lake Texcoco. Under Spanish rule, the city was regarded as the "most gorgeous jewel in the Spanish empire," adorned with lavish palaces and bustling commercial centers, according to Vera S. Candiani, a historian of Latin America at Princeton.

In response to catastrophic flooding in the mid-16th century, the Spanish initiated drainage projects spanning three centuries to safeguard the city's prosperity and keep it dry. The historical interventions aimed at controlling water flow and reshaping the landscape have had enduring impacts on Mexico City's vulnerability to sinking and flooding today.

The transformations brought about by European colonization didn't yield equal benefits for all. Vera S. Candiani highlights that capital-owning elites in colonial Mexico enlisted technicians, engineers, and other professionals to establish a system that extracted resources and labor from the countryside, ultimately benefiting the city and the home country. The rural populations, who contributed significantly to these projects through coerced labor, did not reap the benefits.

Jan Golinski, a history professor at the University of NewHampshire, notes that Europeans of that era believed that their alterations—such as deforestation, swamp drainage, and land cultivation—would also alter the climate, making it more akin to their homelands.

This engineering was perceived as a positive step, with the belief that society was progressing, gaining greater control over nature, and becoming more civilized while civilizing the environment around them. However, these perceptions were rooted in a Eurocentric viewpoint, and the impact on local populations and ecosystems was often detrimental.

“They believed that their society was making progress, that it was gaining greater control over nature, that they were becoming more civilized and were civilizing the environment around them,” Golinski said.

Historical beliefs rooted in feelings of racial and cultural superiority have enduring effects on contemporary perspectives on climate change and environmental adaptation. According to Deborah Coen, a historian of science at Yale, these beliefs persist, with vulnerable populations, often consisting of people of color, bearing the brunt of climate extremes.

Simultaneously, white elites pursue climate adaptation projects that safeguard themselves, sometimes at the expense of communities of color. An example is the aftermath of wildfires in Maui, where residents in areas deemed safer from extreme weather are now facing displacement due to rising property costs.

The ideas on race from the early modern period continue to influence present-day attitudes. Anya Zilberstein notes that these historical concepts have "long tentacles into the present," solidifying notions of environmental control, productivity, and growth as positive. This legacy makes it challenging to address the current climate crisis, as ideologies of progress and resistance to concepts like de-growth persist.

Zilberstein suggests that while many people acknowledge climate change and may participate in marches, embracing the idea of de-growth is challenging because it contradicts deeply ingrained beliefs in the ideology of progress. Businesses and nations also find it difficult to commit to de-growth, as it goes against this prevailing worldview.

THE FOSSIL FUEL ECONOMY

While Mexico City was established over water, Britain found itself atop vast coal reserves, a resource that would play a pivotal role in generating the carbon dioxide emissions currently contributing to atmospheric pollution.

Coal had been utilized for heating and cooking in British homes for an extended period. Although other energy sources, such as timber, water, and peat, were in use, the dominance of coal increased significantly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This shift was propelled by technological innovations like steam power, the development of new transportation routes including canals and later railroads, and a growing inclination to regulate the usage of energy more effectively.

The introduction of the steam economy, characterized by engines powered by coal to produce steam power, marked a transformative period. According to Andreas Malm, an associate professor of human ecology at LundUniversity in Sweden, this shift made it easier for factory owners to exert control over both labor and nature compared to an economy reliant on water power, for instance.

Andreas Malm explains that the mobility of steam engines in space allowed them to be erected anywhere, providing a significant advantage. This mobility facilitated the concentration of steam factories in towns with access to cheap and disciplined labor, a feature that distinguished steam power from water power. Unlike water power, steam power was less vulnerable to external factors such as droughts, floods, and storms, making it operational at any time of the day regardless of weather conditions.

This characteristic established coal as the primary energy source for British manufacturing and transportation.

“Britain forcibly exported this model and integrated other countries such as India or Egypt or what became Nigeria into a kind of an economy that was dependent on fossil fuel,” said Malm.

By the mid-19th century, steam power had been adopted globally, influencing manufacturing, cotton mills, steamships, and locomotives worldwide. This widespread adoption turned coal into a global commodity and marked a significant phase in the global trade of fossil fuels.

On Barak, a historian at Tel AvivUniversity and co-founder of the Laboratory for the History of Climate Change, draws a parallel between steam engines, coal, and the British empire providing coffee machines and capsules to other states. The ongoing need to acquire new capsules (coal) for their coffee machines (steam engines) perpetuated a dependency on fossil fuels. “This kickstarts ... searching for fossil fuels in various places in the Ottoman Empire, in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere.”

In the modern era, the United Kingdom has made substantial progress in reducing its reliance on coal, with weeks or even months passing without coal-generated power on the national grid. The UK aims to cease coal-based electricity production by the end of the upcoming year, although coal continues to be used in heavy industries like steel-making. Notably, a new coal mine in Cumbria was approved as recently as 2022.

However, the historical legacy of the British Empire's coal dependence is visible globally and domestically. Many mining and port towns in the north of England, as well as parts of Wales and Scotland, once prospered due to coal but now face economic challenges. Abandoned mines and heaps of waste and debris serve as visible reminders of the environmental and social impact of the coal industry.

A GLOBAL PROBLEM

Previous centuries set the stage for human-induced climate change, but it became a stark reality in recent generations. In 1960, approximately 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere by human activities. Fast forward to 2021, and this number had surged to over four times that amount, according to the Global Carbon Project.

The surge in energy consumption was fueled by the increasing affordability of cars, air travel, and technology in North American and European countries. Simultaneously, nations like China, Japan, and India developed their own energy systems heavily reliant on fossil fuels. This period coincided with a growing awareness and concern about the impact of heat-trapping gases on the climate.

The late 19th century witnessed a rise in oil use, driven partly by its lower labor intensity compared to coal. The coal industry, with a unionized workforce in some Western nations, faced labor challenges. Furthermore, oil was more convenient to store, possessed higher energy density than coal, and was easier to transport as a liquid through pipelines, trucks, tankers, and railcars, as noted by J.R. McNeill, a historian at GeorgetownUniversity.

The 1920s marked the rise of automobiles, leading the United States to shape its energy system and much of its technology around internal combustion engines. This choice, which still dominates cars, ships, and planes, contributed to the establishment of a global investment in an oil-dominated fossil fuel regime.

As Europe and Japan adopted similar practices, this investment became significant and, according to J.R. McNeill, a historian at Georgetown University, "gigantic and harder, but not impossible, to reverse or replace." The entrenched nature of these technologies and infrastructures poses challenges to transitioning away from fossil fuels in the present day.

Coal continued to play a significant role in the global economy, especially in countries like China and Japan, where its growing consumption was considered a gauge of economic development by the early 20th century, according to Victor Seow, a Harvard historian of science. In China, after the Communist Revolution in 1949, the government measured growth using various indicators, including coal production, which was a key measure of economic development.

Japan, influenced by Western mining practices, developed its own coal fields both within its home islands and its empire.

Currently, China is the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, although historically, the United States has emitted more greenhouse gases.

In India, which was part of the British Empire until gaining independence in 1947, coal played a crucial role in advancing the country's development and gaining support from the public, according to Elizabeth Chatterjee, a historian at the University of Chicago.

In India, state-owned coal-fired plants were established to electrify cities and larger farms, although many rural areas did not come online until the early 21st century. Despite recognizing the environmental risks of coal, India proceeded with electrification efforts. As early as 1981, IndiraGandhi spoke publicly about climate change as a threat, yet the country continued to rely on coal.

According to Elizabeth Chatterjee, a historian at the University of Chicago, the choice to use coal in a country with limited resources was pragmatic. In the absence of viable alternatives, coal was seen as a necessary means of advancing development.

In the United States, environmental concerns gained traction in the 1960s and '70s, with the first Earth Day in 1970 serving as a pivotal moment. Major legislation, including the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act, reflected responses to the growing environmental movement. However, addressing fossil fuels, described by Joshua Howe, an environmental historian at Reed College, as "the center of the global economy," proved to be a more challenging task.

Dealing with the consequences of climate change and adapting to weather extremes became a contentious issue in the U.S. Yale's Deborah Coen highlighted a fear of discussing adaptation measures, as it was seen as a potential distraction from efforts to reduce emissions.

Joshua Howe highlighted the reluctance of the United States to join international climate agreements, pointing to a unanimous U.S. Senate vote in 1997 against signing any climate treaty mandating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. According to Howe, this vote marked the point when optimism for a national-level commitment to climate mitigation, especially through international agreements, waned.

Despite these challenges, many historians believe that radical shifts away from centuries-old ideas of progress can pave the way for a better future. Fredrik Albritton Jonsson, a historian at the University ofChicago, emphasized the importance of rethinking the need for persistent growth. By doing so, societies can operate within the constraints of finite resources and atmospheric limits.

Jonsson identified two kinds of boundaries for the economy: an upper boundary defined by planetary limits, considering what the natural world can withstand, and a lower boundary ensuring minimum social needs, entitlements, and rights such as education, clean water, and a steady income. Rethinking and recalibrating societal values and priorities can contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future.

“There are two kinds of boundaries to this economy, One is a sort of upper boundary of planetary limits and then there’s a lower boundary, that would guarantee minimum social needs, entitlements, the right to education, the right to clean water, the right to a steady income,” said Jonsson.