A new report strengthens claims that the United States and other major industrialized countries knew they could face legal obligations to reduce climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions long before they signed the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb global warming.
The “What Countries Knew” report released Wednesday by the International Environmental Law Center tracks when climate scientists first presented research outlining the risks posed by emissions from burning fossil fuels to the governments of the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union and Russia.
These countries account for about 40% of all emissions since the beginning of the fossil fuel era in the late 1800s. Meeting summaries and notes cited in the report show that these governments and others were already discussing the risks of rising global temperatures, melting polar ice sheets, and rising sea levels as early as 1957, during the International Geophysical Year.
This warning became more urgent in the 1960s, when governments and economies in developed and industrialized countries began to devote nearly all their resources to fossil fuel-based growth. In 1965, scientists warned US President Lyndon Johnson that rising carbon dioxide could cause “significant changes” to the climate. Around the same time, researchers at national oil companies in Norway and Italy warned of potential climate impacts while governments encouraged oil company expansion.
As reports and warnings piled up, German newsreels celebrating record coal harvests showed footage of grinning miners with soot-covered faces, and federally subsidized oil production in the United States meant prosperity and the freedom to “put a tiger in the tank” at an Esso gas station.
Lindsay Fenrock, a senior fellow at the International Environmental Law Center and the report’s lead author, said as she examined decades of archived material from the pre-internet era, she continued to be struck by the breadth of international governments’ recognition of climate impacts that pose a “threat of serious consequences.”
She said that during the International Geophysical Year, some 70 countries collaborated to study the Earth as an interconnected system and measure the impact of increasing human activity on the planet. In the same year, a study by American scientists Roger Revell and Hans Suess characterized the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as an unprecedented, irreversible “massive geophysical experiment” unlike any other in human history.
Fenrock noted that several other early international conferences had “particularly impressive conversations about what we should do to combat climate change and move away from the use of fossil fuels.”
A government-industry symposium held in France in 1968 included a detailed discussion of alternatives to fossil fuels. In 1973, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria hosted a lecture on government responses to climate change. Fenrock then searched for old Canadian federal agency employee newsletters and found that scientists openly discussed climate change throughout the 1970s.
Michael Berger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, said the report draws “an important link” between the government’s history of knowledge and the legal obligations outlined in the ICJ’s advisory opinion.
“This is a warning to those who are wary of possible incidents following the ICJ’s opinion,” he said.
Mr Fenlock said the report was not meant to be comprehensive, but said it showed the government often overlooked life-or-death scientific evidence.
“I think it was pretty shocking how much was known and how quickly,” she said. “But now people aren’t talking about it.”
Nikki Reisch, CIEL’s climate and energy program director, said the report could reignite these debates by framing the historical record in the context of international climate law. What governments knew and how they responded, or failed to act, took on new legal significance after the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion last year found that states have long-standing legal obligations to prevent serious climate damage and may be required to pay compensation if harm is caused by breaching that obligation.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides free advertising for our award-winning climate coverage. We rely on donations from readers like you to continue our work. Donate now to support our work.
donate now
Reisch said tracking government knowledge could help determine whether a country’s greenhouse gas emissions violate its international obligations to avoid environmental damage across its borders, and whether it can be held responsible for the resulting harm.
The report shows that early scientific evidence was “not just sitting in a drawer or on a shelf,” she said. “It was being published and disseminated. Their information was being communicated directly to government officials, sometimes to the highest levels, and then to the broader public. “All of this information was in the hands of people who were able to act,” she said.
A broad reading of international environmental law principles suggests that some countries could be held responsible for their share of the climate damage caused by their emissions even before they understand the risks, he said. However, pinpointing when the government became aware of those risks establishes a clearer standard of liability. From that point on, governments have an opportunity to change course, and those that instead continue or expand their use of fossil fuels have a greater responsibility for the resulting damage and for supporting affected communities, she added.
Reisch said governments should be judged by what was appropriate at the time, not by today’s standards. Once we have reliable evidence that fossil fuels can cause serious harm, we have an obligation to stop expanding their use, develop alternative fuels, and utilize the tools available to limit harm, she said.
Documenting widespread knowledge of the risks undermines attempts by governments to ignore their historical responsibilities, especially as many countries continue to expand the production and use of fossil fuels, and in some cases thwart efforts to scale them back. While the report alone does not establish liability, it provides important evidence that could help hold governments accountable for the resulting harm and call for more urgent action from governments, she said.
Sabin Center founder and professor Michael Gerrard added that the legal significance of the report could be understood from a common sense perspective.
“If you continue to drive even though you know your car’s brakes are not working, you will be more liable if you crash and injure someone,” he said.
About this story
As you may have noticed, this article, like all news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We don’t charge subscription fees, keep our news behind paywalls, or fill our website with ads. We provide climate and environmental news free to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with dozens of other news organizations across the country. Many of them cannot afford to do their own environmental journalism. We’ve established bureaus across the country to report on local news, partner with local newsrooms and co-publish stories to ensure this important work is shared as widely as possible.
The two of us started ICN in 2007. Six years later, we won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting and now run the nation’s oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom. We tell the story in its entirety. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We explore solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund all aspects of our work. If you haven’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our coverage of the biggest crises facing our planet, and help us reach more readers in more places?
Please make a tax-deductible donation. Each one makes a difference.
thank you,
bob berwin
reporter, austria
Bob Barwin is an Austria-based reporter who has covered climate science and international climate policy for more than a decade. Previously, he reported on the environment, endangered species, and public lands for several Colorado newspapers, and also worked as editor and associate editor for a community newspaper in the Colorado Rockies.
