On the Topic of Progress: A Brief History of Climate Advocacy and Climate Policy in the U.S.

As I see it, progress occurs in two ways: societal and institutional change. Societal change is simply the shifting of ideas within a population. Often starting with grassroots movements and local-level activism, this change occurs when citizens witness or experience something important enough to motivate them to change their habits and even share these ideas with friends and their communities. As these ideas grow and gain popularity, they become more mainstream and commonplace in society. While these small movements and changes in habit are great, their effectiveness and capacity for large-scale change are limited. For societal change to fully take hold and become the new standard, the second type of change, institutional change, must occur.

Institutional change is what truly enables modern society to progress. This kind of change is difficult to achieve as it relies on those in power to recognize that the status quo must be addressed. But this is an essential function of modern governments: to not only address the current issues facing a nation but also have the foresight to be proactive enough to mitigate future threats before we are left with no time to act.

Environmental and other significant social movements have traditionally followed this path from societal activism to institutional change. Citizens draw attention to a cause, and policymakers enact laws and draft new policies that align with the movement. As years pass, we forget that these large movements were once viewed as social activism, led by individual citizens standing up for what may have been an obscure new idea at the time. Instead, we see the benefits of living in a cleaner environment and experience the numerous societal benefits these movements fought for. Without grassroots activism and passionate citizens speaking up for their beliefs, policymakers have little to no incentive to change the status quo.

Prior to today’s leading environmental movement, the Climate Change Movement, the United States had experienced numerous environmental movements. As someone living after these movements generated institutional change, I am grateful that those before me had the foresight and passion to fight for environmental protections that we now take for granted in our everyday lives.

Without the Conservation Movement led by John Muir, we would not have the National Parks and, therefore, the protections for what are, in my opinion, some of the world's greatest natural wonders, which have served as places of inspiration for generations of Americans. In 2024 alone, over 330 million people visited a National Park site, up from 325 million in 2023. This is not just a societal benefit but an economic one as well. The National Park Service’s budget in 2023 was $3.6 Billion, from which it generated $55.6 Billion for the economy and over 400,000 jobs. If the only result of the Conservation Movement had been the preservation of these gorgeous and inspiring public lands, I would view that alone as a victory and outstanding achievement. However, the additional economic benefits demonstrate how these movements often generate far more value than initially intended. And that is just one of our nation's many citizen-led environmental movements. The Environmental Movement of the 1960s and 70s, initially fueled by Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” started as a movement to bring awareness to the impact of pollution on the environment. This movement led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and key legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Without them, there would be no protections for everyday citizens who would otherwise not have access to safe air for breathing or clean water for drinking, access that most of us take for granted every day. Like those mentioned above, two other movements, the Environmental Justice Movement and Wilderness Movement, also generated great societal benefits, all of which would have never happened had it not been for the grassroots movements that led to significant institutional improvements.

So, where does the Climate Change Movement now fit into the timelines of past environmental movements? Often, climate change is viewed as and, therefore, understood as a ‘new political issue.’ While it is certainly not a new issue, it has evolved into a political issue in recent decades. Back in the mid to late 1800s, scientists uncovered how carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere trap heat, meaning that we have known how the greenhouse effect works for nearly two centuries. Scientists are not suddenly coming out of the woodwork to create issues for fun or just for the sake of argument. Instead, scientists and citizens are watching fossil fuel emissions continue to rise, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continuously increase, and unsurprisingly, global temperatures are following along. Yet, rather than taking these issues seriously, we choose to double down on destroying our only habitable planet. We are at the point where we are no longer discussing institutional change as a means of progress; instead, we are now relying on institutional change to prolong our existence.

While climate change is incredibly contentious in the United States today, environmental and climate issues have not always been so divisive. I discussed the numerous movements above but left out one in particular as it represents a different model for change, one where an issue is identified and rapidly addressed through scientific research, advocacy, public education, and political pressure. This rapid movement was effectively open and shut in a few decades, or you could even argue in about two years. I am referring to the acknowledgment of mankind's impact on the ozone layer, which I am referring to as the Ozone Movement; it is not commonly known as a movement as it was arguably too short-lived to even qualify as such. In the 1970s, scientists first discovered the depletion of the ozone layer, which acts as a protective atmospheric barrier, absorbing nearly all UVB and UVC radiation from the sun and preventing it from reaching the Earth’s surface. Without the ozone layer to protect us, we would effectively be exposing ourselves to radiation levels that would simulate living your entire life in a tanning bed and X-ray machine. The effects would have been felt immediately if we had lost the ozone layer, as exposure to these dangerous levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation would have caused higher rates of skin cancer and other issues like cataracts. Not too long after that, we would start to feel the impacts of the massive declines in biodiversity and the destruction of global food chains, as the increase in radiation would begin to damage the DNA of all plants and animals, crumbling our natural environmental systems in rapid fashion. Essentially, the global community acknowledged that we would be nose-diving into our planet’s sixth great mass extinction event by not addressing this environmental issue.

So what happened after scientists identified the issue and its causes, which led to citizens advocating for the protection of the ozone layer? Well, after a significant paper that showed the thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica came out in 1985, it took only two years for an international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol to be adopted, calling for a global effort to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, specifically chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In only a few short years, policymakers were able to acknowledge and address a global environmental issue rather than drawing it out over two centuries. They chose not to resist progress.

So why can’t the Climate Change Movement do the same thing? Why has it taken so long for the grassroots movements to lead to institutional change? Frankly, it is pretty obvious, and I certainly would be ignoring any objectivity by stating that we should have just stopped all GHG emissions from fossil fuels decades ago. The reason we have not been able to treat GHGs and CFCs with the same institutional scrutiny is that CFCs were mainly only used in refrigerants and aerosols, and they were able to be replaced with relative ease. GHGs, however, provided the energy necessary for our industrial revolution, and they remain a key energy source in our daily lives. Not all that long ago, it would have been nearly impossible to justify reducing GHG emissions as we would have had no alternative; however, this is no longer the case.

We now have the means and technology necessary to divest from fossil fuels in a way that would not significantly impact our global systems. The ‘green energy’ generated by solar panels and wind turbines is far more efficient than energy from fossil fuels, which waste significant amounts of energy through combustion. Not only is green energy more efficient, but it could provide us with nearly an unlimited supply of energy, as each day, the Earth receives the equivalent of 10,000 times our society's daily energy demands. Essentially, we are passing up on a massive energy surplus. On top of that, green energy allows more communities and individual citizens to have greater energy independence by relying less on centralized large power plants. Shifting towards decentralized power grids that use green energy would enable individuals to take control of their energy needs, leaving them less reliant on power grids that are expected to become less reliable in the future due to the increasing severity of natural disasters and rising temperatures which will increase the stress on our large centralized power grids. Moving towards green energy is also a move toward economic growth. As the demand for green energy grows, so will the number of jobs necessary to keep up with the demands of the green energy sector. In many parts of the world, job growth in the green energy sector already surpasses jobs created by the fossil fuel industries.

Additionally, individuals using renewable energy will lower their personal energy costs, saving consumers money. An institutional push towards green energy is an improvement for everyone: greater efficiency, more cost-effectiveness, more secure energy systems, and most importantly, more cash staying in your pocket. The argument that fossil fuels are the only way to sustain our modern energy needs is no longer valid, so once again, I ask why we continue to resist progress.

So then, where does that leave us? We understand that environmental movements in the past have gone from movements of societal change, which in turn generated institutional change, we know how past environmental policy has led to beneficial change, and we know where green energy stands today, so why do we still refuse progress? Humans did not go from burning wood to burning fossil fuels just for fun; they did it because they were more efficient and cost-effective than burning wood. Believe it or not, humans used common sense to address a need to keep up with the pace of an evolving civilization. If we still prioritized innovation, efficiency, and the benefits of cost-effective energy today, we would continue to drive institutional change by divesting from fossil fuels and adopting green energy sources, allowing more individuals to achieve energy independence and allowing us all to waste less of our own money.

Our not-so-distant past has shown that grassroots movements have led to institutional changes that, in hindsight, have created a better world for everyone. The Montreal Protocol showed how global collaboration can generate large-scale institutional change, which protects our planet and, therefore, every species on Earth, including us. So why can’t we do the same for climate change? That is precisely what 194 nations did when the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted in 2015, establishing a global framework to lower greenhouse gas emissions by investing in green energy so that we can keep global warming below 1.5°C. The Paris Climate Agreement represents a global commitment to preserving the existence of the human race for generations to come. While we, the United States, were once a leader in this global effort, after withdrawing from this global agreement, we now stand alone as the only nation working against progress and our collective long-term survival.