The Evolution of Climate Change Politics: A Historical Perspective
In the summer of 1988, the United States faced a severe drought, the most significant since the Dust Bowl era. This climatic catastrophe resulted in approximately $60 billion in damages, equivalent to $160 billion when adjusted for 2025. The scorching heat claimed the lives of 5,000 to 10,000 individuals, and Yellowstone National Park experienced its most devastating wildfire. Dust storms swept across the Midwest and northern Great Plains, while urban areas imposed water restrictions to cope with the crisis. AccuWeather
Amidst this turmoil, then Vice-President George HW Bush, campaigning for the presidency, visited Michigan farmers hit hard by crop failures. Bush vowed to be the “environmental president” if elected, acknowledging the “greenhouse effect” as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. He emphasized the importance of addressing global warming through sound environmental policies, stating that curbing emissions was “the common agenda of the future.”
These statements are prominently featured in “The White House Effect,” a new documentary available on Netflix. The film delves into how climate change evolved from a bipartisan concern to a polarized political issue. Co-director Pedro Kos remarked, “There was this moment in time when the science was widely accepted… How do we get there?”
The documentary, crafted by Kos alongside Jon Shenk and Bonni Cohen, traces the political landscape from the 1970s, when the greenhouse effect entered public discourse, to the early 1980s. During this time, President Jimmy Carter’s calls for action were met with public approval, yet enthusiasm waned due to economic struggles. Ronald Reagan’s presidency marked a shift towards deregulation and an alliance with oil companies, as evidenced by a 1984 Exxon document that presented two stark choices: adapt to a warmer planet or reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Despite George HW Bush’s initial commitment to environmental issues, his presidency saw a shift. Appointing William Reilly, an environmental activist, as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Bush urged Congress for immediate action. However, corporations and political maneuvering, particularly by White House chief of staff John Sununu, undermined these efforts.
Relying solely on archival footage, the filmmakers sought to immerse viewers in an era when climate change was not a politically charged topic. “Whenever you turn on a camera and interview someone in the present, that’s automatically going to come with the political connotations that the present brings,” noted Kos. This approach allowed the filmmakers to present a raw and unfiltered view of history.
By 1990, Bush’s stance on climate change wavered. At a White House conference, he presented conflicting scientific views, reflecting the growing political division. By the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit,” Bush’s reluctance to support emissions reduction, citing economic concerns, frustrated international allies and marked a turning point towards climate denial in US politics.
Years later, in 2019, Reilly lamented the missed opportunity at Rio, suggesting that bipartisan efforts could have prevented the current political divide. Bonni Cohen, one of the film’s directors, highlighted the importance of confronting the harsh realities of climate politics to inspire change. “Our job is to create the rage. We can’t shy away from the rage,” she stated, emphasizing the need for action at the ballot box.
Pedro Kos encouraged viewers to reflect on history’s lessons, even as climate-related disasters continue to occur. “The choice is in our hands,” he asserted, urging action in the face of current challenges. The documentary presents a critical moment from 1988 as a reminder of the present “what-if” moment facing the nation.
Original Story at www.theguardian.com