They Knew

 They Knew is a book printed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. The author is James Gustave Speth. If you have any interest in the modern history of determined scientists versus ineffective, irresponsible, and often hypocritical politicians, this is your book. Neither political party is spared but you can determine which party bears the greatest guilt. If you have a kindle, the digital version has the advantage of being able to bring you quickly to reports and references via links. The printed version is fine and the graphs will be easier to read.  If your budget precludes purchase, ask your local library to buy, “They Knew”.

Today, more than ever, this book is of critical importance. We are 50 years behind on climate action. For the last 50 years US scientists have delivered report after report to the legislative and executive branches of government telling them we must quickly wean ourselves off coal, oil, and gas. Today, in a reversal of 50 years of ineptitude, the Biden Administration is attempting to make up for lost time.

You may have questions. Is the science conclusive? How long has the science community been warning us? How long have they been ignored? Which political party was weak? Which political party is in the pocket of the fossil fuel companies?

His in-depth book spanning 50 years will answer these questions.  While I have been a student, studying the risk of ignoring climate for eight years, Mr. Speth has been on top of this issue for 50 years. His work, saving the planet for both current and future generations, has been the focus of his brilliant career.

Who is James Gustave Speth? He is now 79. His advanced education began at Yale where, in 1964, he graduated “Summa Cum Laude”. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. He entered Yale law school specializing in environmental and constitutional law. He was a co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He served under Jimmy Carter on the Council on Environmental Quality, (CEQ). He taught both environmental and constitutional law at Georgetown University. In1982, he founded the World Resources Institute. From 1993 to 1999 he served as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. I counted five prestigious awards for his service to mankind and five universities who bestowed on him honorary degrees.

His most important contribution to mankind may have been his pro bono work for the 21 young plaintiffs in “Juliana vs the U.S.” It is a sad commentary on our legislative and executive branches of government that our youth, represented by the 21 young plaintiffs in Juliana, had to resort to the desperate action of appealing to our Judicial Branch demanding their generation be allowed to survive. They leaned on Professor Speth for help.

They could not have picked a better protagonist than James Gustave Speth. He has been instrumental in helping compile 36,000 pages of rock-solid science and law supporting the student plaintiffs. 

The legal issue goes straight to the Constitution.  The Constitution guarantees no citizen can be deprived of their life, liberty, nor property without due process. The young plaintiffs  simply make the case, in 36,000 pages of expert evidence, they are being deprived today, or will be further deprived, of all these things because the US government knowingly promoted the use of coal, oil, and gas. In fact, the government not only ignored the recommendations of scientists to slow the deadly use of fossil fuels, but the US government encouraged more drilling via permits and even gave fossil fuel companies money to expand their operations via subsidies.  

American scientists believed if they did outstanding work, in response, politicians would do what was responsible. Here is a quote by Professor Speth in 2013: "I used to think the top global environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address these problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a spiritual and cultural transformation, and we scientists don't know how to do that."

Mr. Speth pulls no punches. After you read, “They Knew”, you will know why. But is his judgement entirely fair? Politicians react to the wisdom, or the ignorance, of their constituents. They are as much elected by monied interests as by the independent voter. How do we know what to demand, or who to vote for?

There has been no easy way for the common person to inform themselves. Today information is easy to come by via social media.  But we are so poorly educated in critical thinking skills it is proven we will “believe” falsehoods well before truths.

The work of scientists is to discover truth, or just as important, rule out what is false. If the work of our best climate scientists over the last 50 years had been put into “plain language” and, by law, printed in newspapers, and broadcast on TV, wouldn’t we have been capable of sorting out truth vs lies? Today both newspapers and social media can be held to the same requirements. Social media companies are being challenged to find and omit lies. It is proven they pander to liars to create controversy which increases readership. Wouldn’t it be better and be proactive requiring them to print scientific truths?

In this line of reasoning, shouldn’t federal science agencies and dedicated federal science employees tasked with discovering what will keep us safe and prosperous be insulated from the wild swings of our political parties? 

Today, science agency employees, whose job it is to discover the truth, are overseen by political appointees who often have little qualification. What sense does this make? This reminds me of the Soviet Communist system where every organization had to have a communist political overseer who would squash truth at every step of the way. The Trump administration not only had political hacks muzzling our best scientists, but they attempted to destroy the whole system. Science should not fall victim to the political mob.

Shouldn’t our 13 Federal Science Agencies have well-funded departments which put their critical work in language we can understand? Shouldn’t these agencies be funded to the extent needed so every American can make themselves competently informed? Wouldn’t these unmuzzled sources, free to speak and funded so we can hear them, give us a better base of information?

From this information, and patient civil discourse, could we not vote intelligently and demand wise action? This beats waiting 50 years to do the right thing.