"Iron Lady" Took Strong Stance on Climate Change

Margaret Thatcher, who passed away on April 8, saw global warming as a threat

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady" of British politics who died Monday at the age of 87, is being lionized as the woman who tilted British domestic and economic policy to the right.

Less noted is how seriously she viewed the threat of climate change and the robustness, more than 20 years ago, of climate science and United Nations body tasked with assessing state of that science.

In a 1990 speech at the second World Climate Conference, in Geneva, Thatcher compared the threat of global warming to the Gulf War, which was then just escalating following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And Thatcher, who spent 11 years as the United Kingdom's prime minister, called the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "remarkable" and "very careful."

'Real enough'
"The danger of global warning is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations," she told delegates, according to a transcript of the speech archived online at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. A short video also survives.

 

"Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community," she said. "We shall need statesmanship of a rare order."

Thatcher goes on to highlight the work of several institutions that have been savaged in recent years by conservative radio, think-tanks and others denying that humans can influence the climate or that such influence can have negative consequences.

She touts the work of the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the IPCC. All three continue to be plagued by the so-called "Climategate" e-mail controversy of 2009.

Science was clear
To Thatcher in 1990, at the end of her tenure at 10 Downing Street, the science was already clear.

"Our immediate task is to carry as many countries as possible with us, so that we can negotiate a successful framework convention on climate change in 1992," she said in that 1990 speech. "To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress."

That 1992 conference, the Rio Earth Summit, set the stage for a series of annual global meetings on climate change that 20 years later has yet to produce a meaningful accord limiting emissions.

Thatcher said little more about climate change after being ousted in November 1990, shortly after her climate address. The Guardian's environmental reporter, John Vidal, notes on a blog post that over the next 10 years global warming became highly politicized, and that Thatcher, in her 2002 memoir, rejected former Vice President Al Gore and his "doomist" predictions.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe