Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Climate anger can lead to action – or curdle into despair. We found out why

News Feed
Thursday, December 19, 2024

Jacob Lund/ShutterstockStrong emotional responses to environmental problems are remarkably common. We know people are angry about climate change – but how many? Our new research surveyed 5,000 Australians and found almost half (49%) are angry about our warming world. So what do people do with their climate anger? Anger can be a galvanising emotion, spurring us to action. But when faced by a seemingly insurmountable cause, it can also turn into despair. Our research found responses to climate anger depend on what aspect of the problem people are angry about – and who they feel is responsible. Not all emotions are created equal Emotions differ in how energising they are – in other words, whether they motivate us to act. Anger has been shown to be a motivating emotion. In our previous research, we found participants who felt more intense anger about climate change were more likely to take part in climate protests and switch to climate-friendly behaviours. Participants with more anger also reported less stress, depression and anxiety. But not everyone gets angry at the same things. To study the different kinds of climate anger, we asked a nationally representative sample of more than 5,000 Australian adults how angry they feel about climate change. We also asked about the environmental behaviours they take part in and about their recent experiences with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Just under 50% said they were at least “somewhat” angry. Next, we asked them why. Their responses ranged from a few words to long explanations. The sheer variety in their responses indicated many kinds of climate anger exist. In fact, we identified 13 distinct kinds held by our participants. That’s because anger is usually directed externally, to various targets. Climate anger can be directed at many targets, from banks to ordinary people. Heidi Besen/Shutterstock 13 kinds of climate anger Far and away the most common type of anger was directed at the inaction and apathy of other people. About 60% of our angry participants were angry at what they saw as a lack of action and concern. Who was this directed at? Sometimes, it was aimed at leaders: “a lack of action by government”. Or it was directed at regular people who “don’t care and aren’t willing to help change it”. Businesses or entire nations were also targets. The next most common grievance (about 13%) was at those who deny climate change. For instance: There are a lot of people who still think that climate change is not happening. About 11% directed their anger at those they see as most to blame for causing climate change such as large corporations, while 10% were angry at humanity (“humans have done this”). Around 9% were mad about the damage climate change was doing and 8% about the slow pace of climate action. Another 8% felt angry because they felt powerless, believing their actions would be just a drop in the ocean. Less common forms included: the injustice that younger generations would be more affected than older generations environmentally harmful behaviours participants had observed in others a lack of cooperation between people and nations on climate change a sense of unfairness when individuals or certain countries are expected to make sacrifices when large corporations or other nations are not doing more. Which types of anger lead to action? We wanted to know what our participants were doing about climate change, and whether their actions differed depending on what they were angry about. We found clear trends. People who were angry about inaction and apathy reported more environmental behaviours such as reducing their meat consumption, or joining climate marches. This was especially true when they were angry about ordinary citizens not doing or caring enough, or governments not doing or caring enough. Interestingly, participants angry about other people’s inaction and apathy had more symptoms of depression and anxiety. But participants angry about government inaction and apathy had fewer of these symptoms. Being angry about a sense of powerlessness, or angry humanity broadly was to blame for climate change, was unrelated to taking action on climate change. But this group, who felt angry but powerless, were more likely to have increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. One possible explanation for these findings is that anger could motivate climate action, but if that action leads to nothing, the anger might curdle into despair or fade into resignation. Anger about a sense of powerlessness and humanity’s role in causing climate change were both higher in younger than older participants. Young Australians involved in climate action have told researchers taking action helps alleviate despair. But they also said having their anger ignored or dismissed has the opposite effect. Climate anger can turn into isolation and despair. WPixz/Shutterstock Climate anger could motivate action Anger is complex. When we’re angry, we usually respond by trying to right something we see as wrong, by discussing the issue or compensating people who were harmed by the situation. On climate change, our findings suggest feeling angry about broad inaction could motivate personal action. But if someone is directing their anger at fellow citizens they think aren’t doing or caring enough, it could affect their wellbeing. Many people were angry because they feel nobody cares. But our results suggest the opposite is true. If 49% of Australians are angry about climate change, this means many, many people care. Among young Australians, this figure is higher still – 57%, according to 2021 research. People tend to falsely assume most other people don’t support climate action. For example, in the United States, people assume support for climate policy is about 40%. But real support is 66-80%. For instance, Americans assume only 43% of people support generating renewable energy on public land, but in reality, the figure is 80%. In our body of research, we have found Australians are similar. Most policies aimed at tackling climate change we tested enjoyed healthy support, but people assumed support from other Australians was much lower. As children, we were often taught to see our anger as a “bad” emotion. Anger has long been seen this way. But as we struggle to rise to the growing challenge of climate change, we could see anger differently. If harnessed appropriately, it could be a useful ally to strengthen our collective resolve on climate. Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Iain Walker receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Teaghan Hogg and Zoe Leviston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Almost half of us are now angry about climate change. But who we’re angry can change whether we turn anger into action – or despair

Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

Strong emotional responses to environmental problems are remarkably common. We know people are angry about climate change – but how many?

Our new research surveyed 5,000 Australians and found almost half (49%) are angry about our warming world. So what do people do with their climate anger?

Anger can be a galvanising emotion, spurring us to action. But when faced by a seemingly insurmountable cause, it can also turn into despair.

Our research found responses to climate anger depend on what aspect of the problem people are angry about – and who they feel is responsible.

Not all emotions are created equal

Emotions differ in how energising they are – in other words, whether they motivate us to act. Anger has been shown to be a motivating emotion.

In our previous research, we found participants who felt more intense anger about climate change were more likely to take part in climate protests and switch to climate-friendly behaviours. Participants with more anger also reported less stress, depression and anxiety.

But not everyone gets angry at the same things.

To study the different kinds of climate anger, we asked a nationally representative sample of more than 5,000 Australian adults how angry they feel about climate change. We also asked about the environmental behaviours they take part in and about their recent experiences with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Just under 50% said they were at least “somewhat” angry.

Next, we asked them why.

Their responses ranged from a few words to long explanations. The sheer variety in their responses indicated many kinds of climate anger exist. In fact, we identified 13 distinct kinds held by our participants. That’s because anger is usually directed externally, to various targets.

climate protestors with signs
Climate anger can be directed at many targets, from banks to ordinary people. Heidi Besen/Shutterstock

13 kinds of climate anger

Far and away the most common type of anger was directed at the inaction and apathy of other people. About 60% of our angry participants were angry at what they saw as a lack of action and concern.

Who was this directed at? Sometimes, it was aimed at leaders: “a lack of action by government”. Or it was directed at regular people who “don’t care and aren’t willing to help change it”. Businesses or entire nations were also targets.

The next most common grievance (about 13%) was at those who deny climate change. For instance:

There are a lot of people who still think that climate change is not happening.

About 11% directed their anger at those they see as most to blame for causing climate change such as large corporations, while 10% were angry at humanity (“humans have done this”). Around 9% were mad about the damage climate change was doing and 8% about the slow pace of climate action. Another 8% felt angry because they felt powerless, believing their actions would be just a drop in the ocean.

Less common forms included:

  • the injustice that younger generations would be more affected than older generations

  • environmentally harmful behaviours participants had observed in others

  • a lack of cooperation between people and nations on climate change

  • a sense of unfairness when individuals or certain countries are expected to make sacrifices when large corporations or other nations are not doing more.

Which types of anger lead to action?

We wanted to know what our participants were doing about climate change, and whether their actions differed depending on what they were angry about.

We found clear trends. People who were angry about inaction and apathy reported more environmental behaviours such as reducing their meat consumption, or joining climate marches. This was especially true when they were angry about ordinary citizens not doing or caring enough, or governments not doing or caring enough.

Interestingly, participants angry about other people’s inaction and apathy had more symptoms of depression and anxiety. But participants angry about government inaction and apathy had fewer of these symptoms.

Being angry about a sense of powerlessness, or angry humanity broadly was to blame for climate change, was unrelated to taking action on climate change. But this group, who felt angry but powerless, were more likely to have increased symptoms of depression and anxiety.

One possible explanation for these findings is that anger could motivate climate action, but if that action leads to nothing, the anger might curdle into despair or fade into resignation.

Anger about a sense of powerlessness and humanity’s role in causing climate change were both higher in younger than older participants. Young Australians involved in climate action have told researchers taking action helps alleviate despair. But they also said having their anger ignored or dismissed has the opposite effect.

young woman using phone at night
Climate anger can turn into isolation and despair. WPixz/Shutterstock

Climate anger could motivate action

Anger is complex. When we’re angry, we usually respond by trying to right something we see as wrong, by discussing the issue or compensating people who were harmed by the situation.

On climate change, our findings suggest feeling angry about broad inaction could motivate personal action. But if someone is directing their anger at fellow citizens they think aren’t doing or caring enough, it could affect their wellbeing.

Many people were angry because they feel nobody cares. But our results suggest the opposite is true. If 49% of Australians are angry about climate change, this means many, many people care.

Among young Australians, this figure is higher still – 57%, according to 2021 research.

People tend to falsely assume most other people don’t support climate action. For example, in the United States, people assume support for climate policy is about 40%. But real support is 66-80%. For instance, Americans assume only 43% of people support generating renewable energy on public land, but in reality, the figure is 80%.

In our body of research, we have found Australians are similar. Most policies aimed at tackling climate change we tested enjoyed healthy support, but people assumed support from other Australians was much lower.

As children, we were often taught to see our anger as a “bad” emotion. Anger has long been seen this way. But as we struggle to rise to the growing challenge of climate change, we could see anger differently. If harnessed appropriately, it could be a useful ally to strengthen our collective resolve on climate.

The Conversation

Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Iain Walker receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Teaghan Hogg and Zoe Leviston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Amazon rainforest faced ‘ominous’ drought, fires, deforestation in 2024, but also saw positive signs

A warming climate fed drought that in turn fed the worst year for fires since 2005.

2024 was a brutal year for the Amazon rainforest, with rampant wildfires and extreme drought ravaging large parts of a biome that’s a critical counterweight to climate change.A warming climate fed drought that in turn fed the worst year for fires since 2005. And those fires contributed to deforestation, with authorities suspecting some fires were set to more easily clear land to run cattle.The Amazon is twice the size of India and sprawls across eight countries and one territory, storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise warm the planet. It has about 20% of the world’s fresh water and astounding biodiversity, including 16,000 known tree species. But governments have historically viewed it as an area to be exploited, with little regard for sustainability or the rights of its Indigenous peoples, and experts say exploitation by individuals and organized crime is rising at alarming rates.“The fires and drought experienced in 2024 across the Amazon rainforest could be ominous indicators that we are reaching the long-feared ecological tipping point,” said Andrew Miller, advocacy director at Amazon Watch, an organization that works to protect the rainforest. “Humanity’s window of opportunity to reverse this trend is shrinking, but still open.”There were some bright spots. The level of Amazonian forest loss fell in both Brazil and Colombia. And nations gathered for the annual United Nations conference on biodiversity agreed to give Indigenous peoples more say in nature conservation decisions.“If the Amazon rainforest is to avoid the tipping point, Indigenous people will have been a determinant factor,” Miller said.Forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon — home to the largest swath of this rainforest — dropped 30.6% compared to the previous year, the lowest level of destruction in nine years. The improvement under leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva contrasted with deforestation that hit a 15-year high under Lula’s predecessor, far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro, who prioritized agribusiness expansion over forest protection and weakened environmental agencies.In July, Colombia reported historic lows in deforestation in 2023, driven by a drop in environmental destruction. The country’s environment minister Susana Muhamad warned that 2024’s figures may not be as promising as a significant rise in deforestation had already been recorded by July due to dry weather caused by El Nino, a weather phenomenon that warms the central Pacific. Illegal economies continue to drive deforestation in the Andean nation.“It’s impossible to overlook the threat posed by organized crime and the economies they control to Amazon conservation,” said Bram Ebus, a consultant for Crisis Group in Latin America. “Illegal gold mining is expanding rapidly, driven by soaring global prices, and the revenues of illicit economies often surpass state budgets allocated to combat them.”In Brazil, large swaths of the rainforest were draped in smoke in August from fires raging across the Amazon, Cerrado savannah, Pantanal wetland and the state of Sao Paulo. Fires are traditionally used for deforestation and for managing pastures, and those man-made blazes were largely responsible for igniting the wildfires.For a second year, the Amazon River fell to desperate lows, leading some countries to declare a state of emergency and distribute food and water to struggling residents. The situation was most critical in Brazil, where one of the Amazon River’s main tributaries dropped to its lowest level ever recorded.Cesar Ipenza, an environmental lawyer who lives in the heart of the Peruvian Amazon, said he believes people are becoming increasingly aware of the Amazon’s fundamental role “for the survival of society as a whole.” But, like Miller, he worries about a “point of no return of Amazon destruction.”It was the worst year for Amazon fires since 2005, according to nonprofit Rainforest Foundation US. Between January and October, an area larger than the state of Iowa — 37.42 million acres, or about 15.1 million hectares of Brazil’s Amazon — burned. Bolivia had a record number of fires in the first ten months of the year.“Forest fires have become a constant, especially in the summer months and require particular attention from the authorities who don’t how to deal with or respond to them,” Ipenza said.Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Guyana also saw a surge in fires this year.The United Nations conference on biodiversity — this year known as COP16 — was hosted by Colombia. The meetings put the Amazon in the spotlight and a historic agreement was made to give Indigenous groups more of a voice on nature conservation decisions, a development that builds on a growing movement to recognize Indigenous people’s role in protecting land and combating climate change.Both Ebus and Miller saw promise in the appointment of Martin von Hildebrand as the new secretary general for the Amazon Treaty Cooperation Organization, announced during COP16.“As an expert on Amazon communities, he will need to align governments for joint conservation efforts. If the political will is there, international backers will step forward to finance new strategies to protect the world’s largest tropical rainforest,” Ebus said.Ebus said Amazon countries need to cooperate more, whether in law enforcement, deploying joint emergency teams to combat forest fires, or providing health care in remote Amazon borderlands. But they need help from the wider world, he said.“The well-being of the Amazon is a shared global responsibility, as consumer demand worldwide fuels the trade in commodities that finance violence and environmental destruction,” he said.Next year marks a critical moment for the Amazon, as Belém do Pará in northern Brazil hosts the first United Nations COP in the region that will focus on climate.“Leaders from Amazon countries have a chance to showcase strategies and demand tangible support,” Ebus said.-- The Associated Press

Humanity is failing to meet its climate change goals. Here's what experts say we can still do

There's still time to act to limit the worst effects of climate change, but we need political willpower

Last month the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization run by the European Union to monitor global heating, revealed that Earth was on track to surpass the 1.5º C threshold. This manifested throughout 2024 in so-called “weird weather,” from unusually extreme hurricanes and floods to intense heat waves, parching droughts and unprecedented wildfires. It’s little wonder this year was the hottest in recorded history, breaking the record shattered in 2023.  A recent study even found that 2024 experienced 41 days of extra dangerous heat because of human-caused climate change. To make matters worse, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating even faster than scientists predicted, meaning we’re rapidly entering uncharted territory. International conferences to address environmental issues like climate change (such as COP29) consistently ended in disappointment. Why are continuing to go backward on this issue? It’s certainly not from a lack of awareness or passion for the environment. Many people understand the stakes: climate change threatens to kill billions of humans and wipe out millions of species, pushing the definition of “habitability” to the brink. Top climate scientists say there’s still reason to hope and time to act, explaining why humanity has failed to meet its climate goals — and what we can do from here. “The obstacle isn’t technology,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann told Salon. “We have the technological knowhow and infrastructure to decarbonize our economy on the needed timescale. What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will.” "What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will." Mann said humanity needs to rapidly decarbonize our economy. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates humanity’s overuse of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, as doing so releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “We need governmental incentives that will massively incentivize renewable energy and phase out fossil fuel energy as soon as possible,” Mann said. “It won’t happen, however, if young people in particular don’t turn out to vote for climate-forward policymakers.” He added that many did not turn out in sufficiently large numbers during the 2024 election, “and too many fell victims to dishonest tactics of the Republicans and even voted for them out of ignorance of their true agenda. As a result, we elected the most pro-fossil fuel, climate-adverse government in modern history.” Going forward, Mann hopes people who prioritize climate change turn out to vote in larger numbers. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explicitly argued for three specific policy measures: “Cut emissions and use of fossil fuels; promote renewables; prepare for the consequences,” Trenberth said. He also noted that growing trees, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of carbon dioxide emissions tend not to work. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. In general, it appears like humanity has failed to make limiting greenhouse gas emissions a priority, according to Tom Knutson, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, said that it appears humanity as a species has not “decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal that should be pursued and treated as a critical ‘pass or fail goal.’” Knutson, who has contributed to the scientific efforts behind reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. Fifth National Climate Assessment, views his job as providing relevant scientific information rather than offering policy prescriptions. Regardless of the specific measures that people choose to democratically decarbonize our society, it will be essential that they establish realistic goals and reliably follow through in implementing them. “Broadly speaking, humanity can decide, based on the above scenario information (with uncertainties) provided by IPCC and other scientific sources, what future emission pathway to set as a goal,” Knutson said. “Then society and policymakers can enact policies in an effort to reach the emission goal that is set. If they decide collectively that scenario X is the goal, and they fail to enact or implement the policies to achieve scenario X, or the policies are not followed as desired by the policymakers, then that would constitute a failure in my view.” It appears humanity as a species has not "decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal." As humanity swims against the tide of rising temperatures, they will also need to solve lingering mysteries regarding these scientific facts. At the time of this writing, Knutson and his colleagues are researching issues such as why current climate models are not able to reproduce the observed pattern of sea surface temperature trends (1980 to 2022) in the tropical Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean. Other scientists are examining why climate change has been accelerating even faster than previous models anticipated. Because climate science includes many variables that humans do not know, experts cannot precisely anticipate or explain every phenomenon that ensues as people continue global heating through greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Knutson does have his own hypothesis about why climate change seems to be getting worse at an ever more rapid rate. “I would speculate that natural variability may be creating temporary trends (either ‘hiatus’ periods of little warming or temporary ‘spurts’ of accelerated warming) lasting up to a few decades,” Knutson said. “Maybe that is part of the explanation for the recent changes.” Citing his 2016 paper for Nature Communications on possible future trajectories for global mean temperature, Knutson said that this “suggests to perhaps just be patient for now to see if the recent acceleration we have seen is just a temporary effect of internal variability or temporary forcing change, or if it really does represent an accelerated long-term warming rate, relative to the trend we've been on since about 1970.” He added that these are his personal views and do not necessarily represent those of NOAA or the U.S. government. Mann emphasized that the most recent peer-reviewed scientific research does not find any acceleration of warming itself. “Some impacts of climate change are proceeding faster than expected,” Mann said. “Examples are ice sheet melt and sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events. The longer-term warming itself is steady and is proceeding as predicted by the models.” Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that human beings must stop relying on fossil fuels. Dr. Friederike Otto, the lead of World Weather Attribution and an Imperial College climate scientist, put it bluntly when announcing the extra 41-days of extreme heat that occurred in 2024. "Climate change did play a role, and often a major role in most of the events we studied, making heat, droughts, tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall more likely and more intense across the world, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions and often uncounted numbers of people," Otto said during a media briefing. "As long as the world keeps burning fossil fuels, this will only get worse." Read more about this topic

The Bold Environmental Vision of President Jimmy Carter

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.