Climate change and Europeans go way back

At least as far back as the 17th century, Europeans believed that they could change climates

Before I moved to Ireland I did not realise that there were so many different types of rain. I had experienced heavier rain and lighter rain but not the distinct flavour described to me as "not a wet rain". This mysteriously dry precipitation presumably explained the absence of proper rain gear (or any rain gear) from the wardrobes of most of my Irish friends.

Nobody would describe the rains of November, December and on into January as anything other than soaking, and their impact has been nothing short of devastating for many across the country. In a country that loves to talk about the weather, we have had plenty to talk about.

One angle of that conversation is, of course, whether climate change has finally come home to roost. Will we be experiencing more bouts of extreme weather in the future? Can we prevent their worst effects or reverse the trend by reducing emissions? Our present and our futures will be shaped by weather.

The past has also been shaped by weather. Important historical events have often been linked to extreme weather events: Martin Luther’s promise to become a monk was supposedly brought about by fear of a terrible thunderstorm; a “Protestant wind” notoriously prevented the landing of the Spanish Armada in 1588; and poor weather similarly hindered the arrival of French support for the Irish rebels in 1796.

READ MORE

Even more interesting than weather’s contribution to events is the changing way in which human society has viewed its relationship with weather and climate. As the Paris conference and numerous apocalyptic visions in film and literature suggest, we are torn between feeling ourselves to be at the mercy of the elements and believing that we can alter them to our advantage. We are not the first generation to consider how human actions might affect climate. At least as far back as the 17th century, Europeans believed that they could change climates by controlling the local environment.

Colonisation and climate

The possibility of being able to change the climate of a place for the better was an important strand of thinking about colonisation.

As exploration turned to conquest and settlement, Europeans were faced with the challenge of learning to live in different climatic conditions. They did not always seem suited to weather cycles that differed dramatically from those of their European origins. Many were killed by diseases such as yellow fever and malaria, which were thought to originate in the climate of the tropics (it was several centuries before the mosquito's role was understood).

Europeans worried that heat and humidity would reduce their vigour and energy, “lowering” them to the level of native peoples. In North America, people debated the length of time required for “seasoning” or adapting to the new climate.

By the 17th century the North American colonies were well-established, and English writers claimed that the colonists had altered the climate for the better. Through the clearing of trees and the imposition of plantation agriculture, they had created a more familiar landscape and, some suggested, had also raised the average annual temperature. Others thought they had even altered the seasons, bringing more frequent but less severe rains. For those who wished to justify the colonial enterprise and to entice further settlers, this “evidence” of climatic improvement through human intervention was a useful argument.

As England’s empire expanded dramatically, the settlement of new territories with English bodies did not always meet with success. While the North American colonies had effectively become what historian Alfred Crosby termed “neo-Europes”, other places proved more intractable. Europeans continued to die in their thousands from tropical diseases in Africa, India and the West Indies.

By the 19th century some writers had become pessimistic about the ability of Europeans to adapt to new climates. Writing about the fate of the English man in India in 1840, FH Brett claimed that should he survive the challenge of the tropics “his system becomes lowered to the climate and he is no longer the energetic active European . . . He is the ‘dried up Indian.’ ” For Brett, the Indian climate could not be altered by European action – it would instead alter the European.

We should decry the inherent racism of Brett’s views. But an interesting question remains. The climate is changing: can we change too?

  • Juliana Adelman lectures in history at St Patrick's College Drumcondra