In Behind the Curve: Science and Politics of Global Warming, Joshua P. Howe critically examines the complex history of climate change science and its intersections with political actions, advocacy and public policy. He uses the concept of the “Keeling Curve”, which visually represents the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1958 to present. The Keeling Curve symbolizes the larger, multifaceted global challenge of climate change. He argues that despite scientific progress and global warming awareness, the political response to the climate change crisis has been inadequate. He further argues that despite the significant progress made in sciences, the failure to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions has persisted largely due to a “science-first” approach that fails to address the complex political and social dynamics behind the issue.
What struck me the most in Howe’s analysis was his argument about the limitations of the science-first approach to climate change advocacy. While the scientific community has made incredible advancement in understanding the causes and potential impacts of global warming, Howe emphasizes that simply presenting scientific data does not automatically translate into political action. Scientists have often assumed that presenting these data, knowledge, and findings would trigger policy change. This “science-first” approach has marginalized the necessary political engagement and failed to account for the deeper cultural and institutional barriers to climate action. I found this perspective particularly insightful because it challenges the often-idealized view that scientific knowledge alone can drive societal change, especially in a world where economic interests and political power structures are so deeply entrenched.
The most surprising element in his critique is his exploration of the ambivalence of climate scientists in their advocacy. While scientists have been at the forefront of climate change research, their professional commitment to objectivity has made them hesitant to engage in political advocacy. Many climate scientists are trained to prioritize objectivity and neutrality. This cultural and professional inclination to avoid political engagement has weakened the impact of climate change advocacy. This tension between scientific objectivity and political advocacy is an intriguing and often overlooked aspect of climate change discourse. It forces us to reconsider the roles that scientists, policymakers, lobbyists, and the public play in shaping climate action.
Howe’s analysis has direct concurrent implications for ongoing climate discussions. The political resistance to climate action, whether from corporate interests, conservative politics, or entrenched economic systems continues to prevent meaningful and urgent climate change policies. For instance, the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and the limitations of the Paris Climate Accords reflect the ongoing struggle to integrate scientific understanding with political will. The same forces that resisted climate action in the 1980s continue to shape the discourse today. In particular, global economic systems remain largely dependent on fossil fuels, and powerful lobbying groups, like those representing the oil and gas industries, have effectively stalled progress on climate change mitigation. The ongoing failure to translate scientific knowledge into meaningful political action is the symbolism of the challenges Howe identifies in this book.
Therefore, this leads me to a pressing question: how can we bridge the gap between science and political action, morals and economics of the issue? As the climate crisis intensifies, the need for a more holistic and integrated approach to advocacy becomes ever more urgent. This question is important to the future of climate advocacy as the generation strives to address the ever-worsening crisis that the Keeling Curve represents.
Will Wright 