US Climate Policy Over the Decades: Why 9/11 Changed Everything About Environmentalism
I read this book earlier this year: Threat Multiplier: Climate, Military Leadership, and the Fight for Global Security.
(check out more of my eco book recs and join the Eco Book Club to read with me)
As an Air Force veteran turned environmentalist, my interest was piqued. However, I was disappointed to find out that our author is extremely pro-military and doesn’t want to see it go anywhere. She made no acknowledgements that the US military was to blame for climate change. Instead, she focuses on why we need to eco-fy our militaries and why the military should care about climate change, because climate change is much more than warmer temperatures. It’s already creating (and will create more) climate refugees, starting famines, starting wars, and so much more.
Climate change is truly a threat to us all.
But honestly, the most interesting thing I learned in that book was how big an impact 9/11 had on the US beyond just antiterrorism measures. Prior to 9/11, the government was going green, as was the military. But George Bush dropped most of it in the interest of the Global War on Terror. The government once again became pointedly focused on oil and land grabs at the expense of the people and the planet.
To be clear, I’m not praising any certain government before Bush Jr. They could’ve taken more climate measures, of course, but they did more for the planet in the 80s and 90s than I previously thought. Let’s get into it with a little history lesson about the last few presidents. This is going to be VERY brief. It’s hard to succinctly capture 50 years of climate policy, so I’ll do my best!
Rewind…
Lyndon B Johnson: 1963-1969, Democrat
In 1965, LBJ got a scientific report all about the state of our climate to include atmospheric carbon dioxide and man-made climate change. This chart illustrates climate predictions from this report and, sadly, how accurate they were. I say sadly because that means over the last 50 years, we have not done enough to curb these numbers.
Known by the National Parks Service as “The Environmental President,” LBJ signed nearly 300 conservation measures into law, forming the basis of the modern environmental movement. He truly paved the way for the first Earth Day in 1970.
Of course, we cannot ignore his role in the Vietnam War…this is his legacy that overshadows his home-front climate policy. It’s hard to conserve land in the US while destroying land and killing people in another country. War is not climate positive.
Richard Nixon: 1969-1974, Republican
Another president with a reputation where we only think of one singular event: Watergate. That’s not the topic of today’s post, so what did Nixon do for the planet, if anything?
Of course, the 1970s were the rise of the modern climate movement. In his State of the Union address, he did address the fact that the climate was a pressing issue. And he took that seriously. According to the National Security Archive:
"Recognizing the huge political power of environmentalism, the Nixon administration and Congress initiated many of the most important and enduring environmental policies in U.S. history, including:
The signing of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970
The signing of the Clean Air Act of 1970
The signing of the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1969 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973
Establishing the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 1969
Establishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970
Establishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1970.”
But records show that this was his public policy and not necessarily his personal opinion. Listen, if making caring about the planet popular is what gets politicians to act on it, I truly don’t care. If Presidents and their administrations only care about the climate grift, hey, whatever gets climate progress done in my opinion.
Gerald Ford: 1974-1977, Republican
Taking over for Nixon after he stepped down, Gerald Ford took over office. But did he continue this climate legacy? Quite frankly, I didn’t even know he was a modern president. I know nothing about him…until now!
In 1973, the US was faced with an oil shortage from the OPEC Oil Embargo, leading up to Ford taking office. In response, “he advocated for more fuel-efficient vehicles and encouraged the development of alternative energy sources, setting the stage for the response of subsequent administrations to the impact of climate change.”
Additionally, he did a lot to prioritize energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and was a big proponent of public transportation. “He signed the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 authorizing $11.8 billion in funding for mass transit and covering operating costs as well as construction costs, while emphasizing cost-efficiency.”
Did he do this because he cared about the planet? It’s unclear. But this proves that you can do things for selfish reasons, and it can have a net positive environmental impact!
Jimmy Carter: 1977-1981, Democrat
If there’s one thing I know about Jimmy, it’s that he was extremely pro-planet! But just how much?
Faced with the same oil embargoes as his predecessors, Carter was worried about this economically, politically, and environmentally, especially as the Iranian Revolution began. Paired with a memo from the presidential science advisor, Carter set a hefty goal of getting the US to be run on 20% of renewable energy by 2000…this was not met. To help inspire Americans to take this goal seriously, he added 32 solar panels to the White House itself. These were removed by our next President, Ronald Reagan. More on him soon.
Though the Presidents before Carter made similar requests for Americans to go green, when Carter did it, it was seen as a sign of weakness, and he was constantly belittled for these actions.
Other things Jimmy Carter did for the planet were,
Creating the Department of Energy in 1977 for energy research and regulations
Established the Solar Energy Research Institute (now called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in 1977
In 1978, he introduced the National Energy Act to tax gas-guzzling cars, while providing financial incentives for investments in wind and solar energy
Many of these were reversed by subsequent administrations. That brings us to…
Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989, Republican
Now, I have a lot of bias against Ronald Reagan (he truly ruined so much of this country), but I’ll give him this: he helped fix the hole in the Ozone Layer. Dozens of countries met in September 1987 to discuss this problem, and Reagan took it seriously. By 1989, “The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer officially entered into force.” NOAA also estimates that “the Montreal Protocol prevented between 0.5 and 1 degree Celsius of global warming by 2100.”
But truly, that’s all the good credit I can give Reagan for the planet. “The early Reagan administration launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts.” Much like what Trump is doing right this moment.
We went against popular conservative climate policy and went with that instead by the Heritage Foundation. Again, sound familiar? This is all going to start to feel like the Twilight Zone with huge parallels between Reagan and Trump.
Reagan did not appoint agency heads and cabinet members with federal government experience and a passion for the agency’s mission. He chose people who would do exactly as he wanted. The EPA nomination was Anne Gorsuch, a corporate lawyer who opposed the Clean Air Act, water quality rules, and hazardous waste protections. She cut EPA staff by 21% in their first term and slashed their budget. Between fiscal years 1980 and 1983, under Gorsuch, the EPA’s operating budget fell by 27%. The science budget tumbled 58%.
There’s more to get into, but to keep it brief, Reagan was very anti-science and anti-climate. Which makes our next President, VP to Reagan, an interesting discussion.
George H.W. Bush: 1989-1993, Republican
Bush Sr was rather pro-planet…publicly. Many sources say he wasn’t the most concerned behind closed doors. But, again, I don’t care if it’s all an act from politicians if we get climate progress. In 1990, Bush held a “White House summit on the science and economics of ‘global change’ — climate change.” In a 1991 letter to Congress, the White House wrote that “scientists at the time warned that temperatures could rise "10 to 50 times faster than anything in recorded history" if humans continued to burn fossil fuels.”
He also continued work to repair the Ozone Layer and turned his focus on acid rain, which was harming humans, animals, plants, and the planet. He wanted to cap the total amount of sulfur dioxide that could be emitted with the goal of reducing this cap over time. But, “instead of imposing specific sulfur dioxide-reducing procedures and technologies on companies, President Bush proposed the creation of a national emissions market for utilities, in which they could buy and sell pollution rights.” I’ve never been a fan of this measure, and now I know who to blame. Yes, it incentivizes companies to reduce pollution to save money, but companies with a lot of money to spare can pollute as much as they want as long as they pay money for it. Wild.
Interestingly enough (considering his son was so pro-oil), Bush Sr enacted the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The act sought to encourage the use of ethanol, hydrogen, biodiesel, and electricity as alternative fuel sources. Though this seems to have been led by Congress and the president just signed it into law.
After signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bush went to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and even gave his own remarks about protecting the planet. Following this, he established the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal research on climate change and its impacts.
Bill Clinton: 1993-2001, Democrat
How many presidents do we have that we defined by one event? Lots of them. Many of us who were born but too young to remember or born post-Clinton, probably really only know one thing about him. So what did he think about climate change, and what did he do? Here are a few key points (numbers current as of 2001, I think):
Strengthened the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring America's 55,000 water utilities to provide regular reports to their customers on the quality of their drinking water
Increased regulations for soot and smog
Aimed to reduce harmful emissions of smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from heavy-duty trucks and diesel fuels by over 90% for the sake of clean skies and clean air
Initiated the clean up of 3x the amount of Superfund sites (an interesting topic I’d love to discuss if you want to hear more) than the previous administration
Mandated that companies report what toxins they release into the environment
He entered the US into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, though the US military was exempt. At this time, the military used 72% of the nation’s energy (source: Threat Multiplier)
George W Bush: 2001-2009, Republican
Before we get into The Global War for Oil, I mean the Global War on Terror, let’s see if Bush Jr did anything good for the environment…well, the US environment. As discussed with LBJ, participating in a war is terrible for the environment and climate change.
Pros:
Enacted the $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR program, aimed at reducing carbon emissions from vehicles and promoting energy independence
He launched the Generation IV International Forum to advance nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. Learn more about nuclear energy myths here.
Signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 balanced energy independence with environmental goals, providing incentives for renewable energy, biofuels, and clean coal technologies
Cons:
The US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. Entered into this protocol by Bill Clinton, this international measure is put forth to set goals and hold one another accountable for emissions and other things related to climate change. Interestingly enough, he withdrew in March 2001.
He backed out on the promises on the campaign trail to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. NOTE: it is likely he campaigned on these two issues since he was running against Al Gore, a prominent environmentalist. Bush needed something to compete with. This would make sense why he would back out of these so quickly.
What we’ve all been waiting for: lobbying and science denial. “Reports emerged of political pressure on scientists to downplay the threat of global warming, edits to scientific documents, and suppression of key findings related to climate change. The administration's close ties to fossil fuel industries and business lobbyists further fueled accusations of prioritizing economic and corporate interests over environmental concerns.”
Though many claim he never took climate change seriously personally, he started to change his course slightly in his second term, as it became more and more popular to side with science (wild, I know), and he realized he was outnumbered at a global summit in Scotland in 2005.
9/11
2,977 people died in the terrorist attacks, and I do not want to overlook this.
Of course, the US turned its attention to the terrorist attacks in NYC and DC. Priority number one in the immediate aftermath was safety…and retaliation. This turned into the Global War on Terror, or GWOT. This encompassed the on-the-ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also trade wars and diplomacy. The GWOT took any sort of priority the US Government had about the climate and threw it out the window. It got placed on the back burner for years to come.
If you’re interested in the history of the GWOT to include the history of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, here are some sources:
Timeline of Afghanistan’s history
Timeline of Pakistan’s History
I know this is an environmental channel and not a history one, so I won’t bore you. But this information was super interesting to me and very worthy of your time. I grew up in a post-9/11 world and, boy, was I propagandized. This was my first time learning the truth about the GWOT.
Anyway, the oil and gas industry had been sowing seeds of doubt about science, in particular climate science, for over a decade. Even Bush’s father tried to frame climate change as a global issue and take action, it was not enough.
9/11 was precisely the catalyst that Big Oil and the US Government needed to prioritize fossil fuels over the planet and to continue to push anti-science rhetoric. And I’m sure the defense contractors wanted their slice of the capitalist pie. In the 90s, the defense budget had shrunk by 38% and was around $266 billion in 1996, the lowest it had been in modern history. Our defense budget is now at a whopping $962 billion as of 2025.
NOTE: The election of 2000 also had polarizing effects on climate change and environmentalism. This was the first major election where parties began to align one way or the other. Al Gore being such a staunch environmentalist and Bush really not caring about it paved the way for this divide to widen.
Post-9/11 Propaganda
Tragedy will bring people together. And the US government took advantage of our shared trauma to foster patriotism to use as an excuse to go to war. The war was largely popular at first because of this. This led to increased flag displays, feelings of unity (amongst white Americans), support of military action, and rampant Islamophobia and Xenophobia/disdain for immigrants. You can see how this paved a dangerous path for the Trump administration to run amok.
I’m not going to sit here and say that patriotism is good or bad, but when your patriotism revolves around hatred and exclusion, you may need to take a step back.
So, this patriotism fueled by exploiting our shared trauma led to a huge boom in supporting military action, which led to an increased DOD budget, slowly at first, to $335 billion (compared to $266 billion from before in 1996), to an astounding $759 billion by the end of the GWOT in 2021. There really were not a lot of questions asked by the majority of Americans about where their tax dollars were going. And many supported this effort anyway.
From comments on other platforms, I’ve had followers say they also remember an increase of fossil fuel-based ads post-9/11. They remember seeing cars get bigger with worse gas mileage. And I’m sure many of us have seen to this day how much it is praised to drive a gasoline-powered car. I’ve even seen ads for oil on YouTube!
The cycle of war and climate change
Throughout Threat Multiplier, our author outlines this cycle, but she doesn’t draw that connection. I wish she were more critical of the US military, but alas.
Anywho, many major conflicts worldwide stem from crises, be it a flood, an extended drought, a famine, you name it. These environmental disasters are getting worse by the year, worse than scientists originally predicted, due to man-made climate change.
So disaster drives conflict, war creates emissions, emissions make climate change worse, a new disaster starts a new conflict, a new war creates new emissions, emissions drive climate change, a new disaster strikes — you get the idea.
You can learn more about the full environmental impacts of war here.
The premise of this book is all about how we move forward in terms of defense in a world with a changing climate. Well, we have to stop climate change. Climate change is fueling war and climate refugees worldwide. War will only become worse as we continue to ignore climate change. It is in the best interest of defense to curb emissions NOW instead of dealing with war later. But the US war machine doesn’t want to stop war. They don’t want you to know that.
The future of the climate movement
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we need to make climate change a popular topic again. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was a mostly bipartisan issue amongst voters. And look what came of it: both democratic and republican administrations and senates moving climate legislation through to become law. They established environmental agencies, protected public lands, and wanted to curb emissions. They did this because it was popular and not divisive.
So talk about climate change. Maybe don’t use those precise words because they’re so loaded, but talk about public lands, everyone loves to get outside. Talk about clean air, we all need it to survive. You get the idea. Make environmentalism popular and mainstream. No, it doesn’t take a degree to be an environmentalist. You just have to care about the planet…which we all should, we all live here! Learn more about environmentalism here.
And in the digital age, it’s becoming easier and easier to spot propaganda and get to the truth of why someone or some entity does the things that they do. Pay attention, stay informed.
Can we make climate change non-partisan again? We’re going to have to do it willingly, or everyone will be forced to believe the climate science when it hits them in the face. Climate change is here, and it impacts us all every day, whether we can see it with the naked eye or not. It’s our smokier air, our hotter summers, our more intense weather patterns, our more frequent natural disasters, it’s climate refugees, it’s inflation as crops are becoming harder to grow, and so much more.
I honestly don’t have a lot of hope for the broad acceptance of science, especially climate science, under Trump 2.0. He is greatly mirroring what Reagan did in the 80s and somehow driving the wedge further. He is dividing the country on many issues, and this is a prominent one. We can get into that another day, but for now, check out this video.
The future is scary, I’ll admit. But we’ve bounced back before. We have to do it again. We have to fight for our home.
If you want me to cover our more recent administrations, I’m happy to! But for brevity and to stay on the topic of 9/11 and oil wars, I’m ending it with George W Bush for this post. Let me know what you want to see next!
Thank you for watching. I hope that you enjoyed (?) this video or at least found it educational. I learned SO much (wanna talk about my deep dive down the Middle East rabbit hole and colonization???). Let me know what else you’d like to see on this topic.
As always, remember that your small actions make a big difference in the long run :)
Emma
