Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Glaring ‘Own Goal’ by Patriarchy – Part 4

From Warning to Denial: How Two US Presidents Handled Climate Truth

By Prof. Yukio Kamino

Welcome back to our series examining patriarchy’s devastating environmental legacy. In Part 1, we explored the urgent need for ecological consciousness among young women. Part 2 examined the physical processes behind atmospheric transformation, while Part 3 traced the historical development of climate science from the 1800s onward. Today, we examine how U.S. presidents responded to mounting scientific warnings in the crucial decade of the 1970s—a period that could have changed everything.

According to Carlin/History News Network (2020), even “before John F. Kennedy took office [as President, 1961-63], many scientists were already warning that current emissions trends had the potential to drastically alter the climate within decades.” Then in 1965 came the “first official warning from scientists to policy-makers” (McNutt, 2015). President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) received a groundbreaking report from the President’s Science Advisory Committee titled “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel” (1965).

The report astutely observed that industrialization represented men’s tendency to act without foreseeing consequences: “Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment” (Corneliussen, 2015).

The report’s section on atmospheric emissions was “Appendix Y4: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” with the particularly relevant “Section 1: Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels – The Invisible Pollutant.” This section documented the exponential growth of the problem:

“Throughout those hundred years, the rate of fossil fuel combustion, and thus of CO2 production, continually increased, on the average about 3.2 percent per year. The amount produced in 1962 was almost 25 times the annual production in the mid-1860’s. The rate of increase may be accelerating” (p. 119; emphasis mine).

Section 1’s “Conclusions and Findings” warned that by the year 2000, atmospheric CO2 could cause significant climate change: “By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate…” (pp. 126-27; emphasis mine). Moreover, it advised: “The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings. The possibilities of deliberately bringing about countervailing climate changes therefore need to be thoroughly explored” (p. 127; emphasis mine).

Since the 1965 report represented a historic milestone, fifty years later scientific groups held a one-day climate symposium, deeply disturbed by the ever-worsening situation despite the convincing advice provided by the report. The renowned journal Science (November 2015) published an editorial by Marcia McNutt titled “Climate Warning, 50 Years Later,” which highlighted the exceptional quality of the 1965 report:

“[T]he U.S. President’s Science Advisory Committee…cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson that the continued release of CO2 to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels would ‘almost certainly cause significant changes’ and ‘could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.’ The committee’s report concluded that there could be ‘marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts'” (emphasis mine).

One of President Johnson’s most remarkable actions was conveying the scientists’ message to Congress. On February 8, 1965, he delivered a “special message to Congress, warning about build-up of the invisible air pollutant that scientists recognize today as the primary contributor to global warming” (Corneliussen, 2015). Given that American culture celebrated the “American Dream” of super-affluent lifestyles—owning huge automobiles and castle-like houses—the President’s report to Congress must have been received as either a “painful truth” or dismissed as a “false argument.”

Nixon’s Environmental Duplicity

How did the next U.S. president handle the environmental crisis facing the world’s most polluting country? For insights into President Richard M. Nixon’s (1969-1974) approach to ecological issues, I draw upon Rachel Santarsiero’s (2024) “The ‘Carbon Dioxide Problem’: Nixon’s Inner Circle Debates the Climate Crisis.” Her analysis proves invaluable because she cites newly released declassified documents from the “National Security Archive’s Climate Change Transparency Project” (April 2024), which “seeks to uncover previously closed and classified documents that illuminate the policy debates and decisions that have guided the United States through more than 40 years of climate change negotiations and global environmental issues.”

Santarsiero (2024) reveals that publicly, Nixon presented himself as a leader strongly committed to environmental protection: “In his first State of the Union Address in 1970, President Nixon designated the environment as the defining issue of the decade: ‘The great question of the Seventies is… shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water?'” (emphasis mine).

However, though Nixon proclaimed that the ecology-human relationship was the pivotal issue for the 1970s, his private thoughts drastically differed from his public pronouncements. Santarsiero (2024) reveals the shocking truth:

“According to historian Joan Hoff, Nixon ‘turned the environmental policies over to [John D.] Ehrlichman [White House Domestic Affairs Advisor, 1969-73],’ telling him to ‘keep me out of trouble on environmental issues,’ while privately continuing to call the environmental movement ‘crap for clowns'” (emphasis mine).

“Despite his green record as president, Nixon was…often derisive in his personal opinions about environmentalism. In a private meeting with Henry Ford II [CEO, Ford Motor Company, 1945-79], Nixon said environmental predictions were ‘greatly exaggerated’ and he blasted environmentalists for wanting humans to ‘go back and live like a bunch of damned animals'” (emphasis mine).

“Nixon and principal foreign policy advisor Henry Kissinger [National Security Advisor, 1969-75] never ‘assigned any significance to environmental concerns’ in any of their later foreign policy writings” (emphasis mine).

Santarsiero (2024) concludes that Nixon’s “green posture” was entirely deceptive, reflecting only his recognition of “the huge political power of environmentalism” at that time. Beyond his duplicitous character, Nixon’s intellectual limitations become apparent when we consider that he was completely unaware that humanity exists only as part of the Earth system. Such intellectual poverty is evident in his: 1) labeling environmentalism as “crap for clowns,” 2) dismissing science-based predictions as “greatly exaggerated,” 3) referring to non-human animals as “a bunch of damned animals” (despite sharing 99% of chimpanzee DNA), 4) asking his aide to “keep me out of trouble on environmental issues,” and 5) reportedly never assigning “any significance to environmental concerns.” These attitudes underscore both his impoverished intellect and self-centered character.

Looking Ahead

Next week in Part 5, our final installment, we will examine patriarchy’s most insidious response to climate warnings: the deliberate disinformation campaign that began in the 1980s and continues to confuse and paralyze public action today. This calculated deception represents perhaps the most cynical aspect of the male elite’s response to existential environmental threats.

Until then, I encourage you to reflect on how these early presidential responses established patterns of environmental duplicity that persist today. The contrast between public environmental rhetoric and private dismissal reveals the fundamental disconnect between patriarchal power structures and planetary survival.

References:

• Carlin, David/History News Network (2020). “Scientists Have Been Talking About Climate Change for More Than a Century. Here’s Why It Took So Long for the World to Listen.”
• President’s Science Advisory Committee (November 5, 1965). “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel.”
• McNutt, Marcia (November 2015). “Climate warning, 50 years later.”
• Corneliussen, Steven T. (December 14, 2015). “Climate Science, 50 Years Later.”
• Santarsiero, Rachel (2024). “The ‘Carbon Dioxide Problem’: Nixon’s Inner Circle Debates the Climate Crisis.”

VIP Columnist

Dr. Yukio Kamino is a distinguished resource person at OISCA International, a Japanese NGO devoted to promoting ecological sustainability. With a rich academic foundation in social sciences, humanities, and metaphysics, he has contributed extensively to the fields of ecofeminism and sustainable development. Kamino’s research and writing skillfully intertwine feminist principles with ecological wisdom, illuminating the urgent need for female-led approaches to environmental crises. His work continues to inspire global dialogues on achieving a fairer, more inclusive, and ecologically conscious world.

If you are here, reading this article, you are probably interested in elevating your aspirations, taking bold leadership and leading a more meaningful life. At ShePower Club, we offer worldwide sisterhood for driven women like you! – A platform to connect, develop and amplify your voice

Come, Join the ShePower Movement!