Introduction

On Monday, April 14, 2025, GA hosted Dr Frank Gerits, an Assistant Professor in International History, for our bi-monthly Expert Talks. Dr. Gerits’ presentation was to share and discuss his research and ideas regarding the history of climate change and how addressing climate change differed from the Global North as opposed to the Global South. He began by criticising the Whiggish historical perspective that makes the case that as man becomes more aware of climate change and environmental damage, more steps will be taken to combat this. Instead, he presents the discourse surrounding climate change as having a fundamental disconnect between those in the Global North and the Global South. His research focuses on the history of climate change and discusses how environmentalism historically was tied to other issues such as development. 

Global North 

Dr Gerits notes that in the 1970s, discourse around climate change, especially in the Global North, focused on a techno-optimistic tone. Dr Gerits notes that the view of climate change as a unique and separate threat is a recent understanding of it. In the 1960s and 1970s, climate change was fundamentally tied to questions of development and overpopulation, among other things. 

In the 1970s, discourse in the Global North was very much focused on problems with the Global South. In particular, a common theme was the fear of overpopulation. Environmentalists in the Global North were deeply influenced at the time by Malthusian beliefs about exponential population growth. 

Dr Gerits mentions Barbara Ward, who spoke of climate action as part of one common struggle. However, despite this focus on one planet and a common struggle, her works often point the finger at the Global South and its overpopulation issues. 

The Nixon administration echoed similar sentiments. Despite his negative reputation due to other scandals, Nixon is remembered quite positively for his environmental policy. However, the influence of Malthusian beliefs at the time meant that Nixon and his administration believed that addressing the Global South and overpopulation was the only way to combat climate change and pursue environmentalist policies. Additionally, under Nixon’s administration, scientists were unsure how climate change would manifest. Global Cooling was also seen as a significant possibility.  

Later, we have Jimmy Carter’s administration. Dr Gerits notes that when looking at the archives, Carter’s primary concern is scarcity. Tied to the era’s worries of population growth and overpopulation combined with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Carter, despite being remembered quite fondly as an environmentalist, did not look at Climate Change the same way people today do. Despite being celebrated as an environmentalist for taking actions such as putting solar panels on roofs, Carter also notably advocated burning more coal amidst a gas shortage. Dr Gerrits used this example to emphasise that what an environmentalist looked like in the 1970s is completely foreign to what we conceive as environmentalism today. 

Finally, when it came to solutions to this, the Global North placed a heavy emphasis on technological solutions. Techno-optimism was dominant in the Global North. Dr Gerits likens the Global North’s approach to a sense of techno-Wilsonianism, the idea that by exporting technology, the Americans and the Global North believe that the Global South will be more favourable to them. 

Global South

In the Global South, the narrative is different. Dr Gerrits begins by bringing up the case of Indira Gandhi and how she blames environmentalism on the “isms” of the world, which assumes that acquisition is man’s cardinal need. Gandhi was a speaker at the 1972 UN Stockholm conference.

In her speech, Gandhi makes three main points. First, she argues that India should not be forced to stop developing, as the Global North has often pushed for India and other developing countries to do. Second, she makes the case that fighting against pollution should not become another business. In this regard, she combines the Global South’s environmentalist stance with an anti-capitalist stance. Finally, she speaks against the fear of overpopulation, which dominates discourse within the Global North. 

Gandhi’s speech remains relevant as it clearly repudiated the Global North’s view regarding environmentalism. While discourse in the Global North often talks of the Global South being unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps, Gandhi was able to vocalise the grievances that many in the Global South had against the Global North and its rhetoric.

At the time, environmentalism in the Global South was tied to a broader ideological framework of anti-colonialism. There was a deep link between environmentalism and anti-colonialism, with the idea that nature could act as a refuge from empire. However, much like the Global North of the 1970s, the environmentalism of the Global South is very different from what we conceive of today. 

Today, we have a “loss and damage” fund that seeks to compensate countries for the damage caused by climate change. In the 1970s, there was also a call to create an environmental fund to compensate developmental countries for not digging up raw materials from the ground and selling them to the Global North. The fund that the Global South pushed for in the 1970s was not connected to today’s “loss and damage fund”; instead, it was about making up for the profit that the Global South nations were giving up. 

Fundamentally, Dr Gerrits makes the case that the discourse in the 1970s was one of development, not climate protection or climate justice. The discourse at this time concerns the divide between the Global North and the Global South and questions of development. This is fundamentally different from how we view questions of environmentalism today. 

The 1990s

After a short break, we move forward to the 1990s. This period is closer to the present discourse, with the foundation of the COP conference in 1995. The COP was created to monitor countries to ensure they meet their targets and agreements. So why are we still so far from our climate goals?

An important point is that the different parties did not agree on a method for reducing carbon at the COP meetings. This creates new targets without a common methodology, reinvigorating the gap between the Global North and Global South. 

The common method comes from the Kyoto Agreement. The common solution reflected the dominant ideology of the time, free market neoliberalism. If the 1970s was the era of scarcity, the 1990s was the era of free market liberalism. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union cemented Capitalism as the dominant ideology of the world order.

Dr Gerits argues that how we view addressing climate change depends on timing and the ideological dogma of the time. He argues that if we understood Climate Change in the 1950s, then we would have a more state-centred approach, as the 1950s was the era of expanding social security and state intervention. 

The solution proposed at Kyoto was emission trading. This method creates a set target of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere. Industries that exceed the set target can purchase rights to emit more from other factories. 

The 1990s saw a continuation of the 1970s, with the divide between the Global North and Global South and the overreliance on technology. However, now there was an additional layer, with the dominance of free-market Neoliberalism. Dr Gerrits ended his talk by urging us to think about the ideological frameworks that shape how we think of the issues and look toward new solutions that are better suited for the 21st Century.

Q&A

We ended the talk with an active Q&A with various questions from students. One of the first topics discussed was how countries in the Global South today see climate action as an opportunity for development, reinforcing these old ideological frameworks. China was brought up as it considers climate change as a development opportunity through its investment in renewables, building solar panels, and electric vehicles. Dr Gerrits asked, ” Can you do green policy if that’s not your objective?” 

This was also present regarding climate discussions from an International Relations perspective, such as whether great power competition between the U.S. and China or questions of energy security for Europe would shape better climate policy. 

There was also a discussion on reparations and how that has changed. In the 1970s, reparations took the form of paying the Global South for not making money off its resources. At the same time, environmental justice today looks very different, focusing on a broader demand for colonial justice. 

There were also discussions on our struggles in conceptualising the worst effects of climate change, such as sinking islands. This relates to our ideological framework’s limitations, which is why the global climate strategy has become “adaptation.” In that sense, we are seeing the techno-optimism of the 1970s remaining present in our current approach to climate change.  

However, while much of our current approach to climate change remains tied to how we saw it in the 1970s, there was progress. For example, banning CFPs used in hairspray and finding an alternative that allowed them to be prohibited helped close up the hole in the ozone layer. 

In essence, the easiest solution is to find a more profitable carbon-neutral energy source. However, this solution is broadly limited in its application. Many renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, are not very profitable, which limits their appeal in the capitalist profit-making framework.

We also discussed how, as opposed to overpopulation concerns in the 1970s, the opposite is true today, as fears of low birth rates and the economic consequences of this trend are present. Dr Gerrits makes the case that this narrative primarily benefits a small segment of society seeking to maximise their wealth and prioritise economic growth. 

On a more optimistic note, there were areas of progress. It was mentioned how changes that faced strong opposition initially, such as the ban on lead in gasoline or the transition to less car-centric infrastructure, were met with massive resistance but were accepted mainly within a few years. 

We ended the night discussing the level of environmentalism in the Global South. We discussed how many in the Global North are unaware of the great strides made in the Global South. We discussed how, just like those in the 1970s, we are also shaped by the ideological frameworks that shaped our perceptions of the Global South. Many of us still hold on to the narrative that the problem is others, not ourselves (the Global North). 

Additionally, while the Global North provides aid to the Global South, it often only meets the bare necessities and does not take the necessary steps to help these nations. It then blames these nations for not doing enough. An example is how many blamed India for rejecting a ban on coal mining while ignoring the Global North’s refusal to pay into the Lost and Damage fund to make up for India’s losses.

Conclusion 

The event touched on several important themes, such as ideological frameworks, the limitations in our conception of how to solve the climate crisis, the divide between the Global North and South, and the overreliance on technological solutions. 

The event was very much in the spirit of what GA aims to be, with Dr Gerrits presenting his ideas to students and having a thoughtful discourse surrounding this idea. We are honoured to be a platform for ideas and discussions such as this. 

We want to thank Frank Gerits for giving us his time, presenting his ideas and research, and helping us challenge our own ideological narratives and biases. Additionally, we thank those who attended for contributing to a fascinating discussion and discourse.