How the Energy Crises of the 1970s Shaped Today’s Climate Politics

A pop culture snapshot of the 1970s calls to mind bell bottom fashion, a disco soundtrack and the advent of Star Wars. This decade also gave rise to the environmental movement in the U.S., marked by the national recognition of Earth Day on April 22, 1970. 

For Leah Aronowsky, a historian of science and environmental history, the 1970s is where the work of her ongoing book project begins. State of the Planet spoke with Aronowsky, an assistant professor of climate at the Columbia Climate School and co-director of the Climate School’s undergraduate programs in sustainable development, about her research on the history of climate and energy policy, the history of climate denialism, and how the two together shaped the current state of policy inaction. 

What is the focus of your research and book? 

My research deals with the history of climate and energy politics. It begins in the late 1970s, when, perhaps surprisingly, many of the leading climate scientists in the world were skeptical about whether climate change could in fact be prevented. These were scientists like Roger Revelle, Wallace Broecker and Walt Roberts. One of the reasons why they were pessimistic, as I explain in the book, had to do with the political circumstances of their time. These scientists had just lived through the social and economic upheavals caused by the 1973 oil crisis, and also believed the world was barreling toward a showdown between the coal-rich Cold War superpowers. In other words, from their perspective, fossil fuels sat at the heart of the international economic and political order; abandoning them in the name of preventing climate change would likely prove an uphill political battle, to put it mildly. 

How did the international community then come together to try to prevent climate change?

From the vantage of the 1970s, what’s remarkable is that the world did in fact come together to try to prevent climate change in the first place. The world really changed from the 1970s to the 1980s. We could point to any number of developments, but I’ll mention one of the most important, which was the emergence of new frameworks for environmental politics like “sustainable development,” which suggested that economic growth and environmental protection were not necessarily incompatible. More generally, there was the idea that climate would be part of a bigger transition to a liberal international order. By the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union was on the decline, and there’s this sense that the world coming together to address climate will be one of the triumphs of liberal environmentalism.

Are there parallels between the challenges related to climate 50 years ago and today? 

I do notice parallels between what we’re living through today and what was experienced in the 1970s. Among them, affordability crises, energy prices and overall prices going through the roof. So that’s not so dissimilar to what scientists were experiencing then. One takeaway from my book is that the horizon of possibility for climate is deeply linked to the energy demands of the day. 

Are there current climate policies or movements that give you hope? 

I’ve been excited about what Mayor Mamdani is doing in New York City. His administration is making a compelling argument about the relationship between affordability and climate; that making New York City more affordable for people is actually good for the climate. It means that people aren’t leaving the city for a carbon-intensive lifestyle in the suburbs. Cities, in that sense, are a great opportunity for living a carbon-neutral lifestyle.

When we talk about affordability, it shifts the focus to kitchen-table political concerns that feel close to home for people. Sometimes climate, the way it’s been [historically] framed, has felt removed from people’s everyday lives, and this approach makes it more integrated.