In a revealing discussion about the planetary crisis we face, Yale historian Sunil Amrith has identified human need and human greed as the twin engines driving climate change. The environmental historian, author of the recently released The Burning Earth, shared profound insights about why technological fixes alone cannot resolve the crisis and how political systems continue to struggle with climate action.
The Fundamental Drivers of Planetary Crisis
Amrith draws inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi's famous observation that "the world has enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's greed" to frame his analysis of climate change. According to the historian, understanding both human necessity and human excess is crucial to comprehending how we reached this critical point in Earth's history.
The quest to feed global populations represents the most fundamental way human activity has transformed the planet, Amrith explains. However, the maldistribution of resources creates additional complications. Greenhouse gas emissions from food waste alone exceed those of every country except the United States and China, highlighting the inefficiencies in our global systems.
Simultaneously, Amrith's research reveals that the pursuit of luxuries by a small elite has disproportionately contributed to environmental damage throughout history and continues to do so today.
Missed Opportunities and Alternative Paths
The sense of missed opportunities drives much of Amrith's historical work. He acknowledges that industrial technologies enabled vast expansion of human possibilities, with early observers describing them in almost religious terms—similar to how many discuss artificial intelligence today.
However, alternative paths existed where these technologies could have been deployed on smaller scales with more local control and less power concentration. Amrith particularly notes the "what if" question haunting Global South nations: what if industrial technologies had developed autonomously without colonial distortions?
When examining post-colonial approaches, Amrith finds that regimes and scientists in newly independent nations demonstrated greater moral and technical ambition than their colonial predecessors. Figures like Indian scientist Meghnad Saha genuinely believed technology could bring social liberation, viewing engineering infrastructure and engineering society as interconnected processes.
Despite this ambition, post-colonial societies missed significant opportunities. Amrith references Rabindranath Tagore's astonishingly prescient 1922 speech that used a parable of future beings destroying a distant planet to describe human environmental damage. From innovative urban planning to water conservation methods, alternative approaches existed in our historical archive—an archive that remains accessible today.
India, China and the Politics of Climate Change
Amrith identifies haste as a common sensibility linking post-colonial India and China. Despite ideological differences, leaders in both nations shared a sense that change wasn't happening rapidly enough, leading to environmental recklessness.
While noting that India never matched the concentrated ecological damage of Mao's Great Leap Forward, Amrith acknowledges the Indian state's substantial capacity for social and ecological violence, as documented by scholars like Nandini Sundar and Alpa Shah.
In contemporary times, China has demonstrated stronger commitment to decarbonization and pollution control than India, though Amrith questions who pays the price for this success. Meanwhile, India's environmental movements have shown greater scale, diversity, and impact despite China allowing environmental activism as a relatively "safe" form of criticism during the 1980s and 1990s.
Both nations now concern Amrith with their restrictions on dissent and targeting of environmental defenders.
Why Climate Change Struggles Politically
Despite growing academic attention—with climate change becoming unavoidable across disciplines including humanities—and overwhelming student concern, political traction remains elusive, particularly in the United States where hostility toward climate action has intensified.
Amrith attributes this struggle to climate change's abstract, complex nature, which often feels disconnected from daily experience. However, he suggests flipping the perspective: identity politics and economic challenges are increasingly intertwined with climate impacts.
The historian emphasizes the need for new storytelling approaches, citing literary scholar Rob Nixon's concept of "slow violence" that requires making visible gradual environmental risks. Data alone cannot create the emotional connections needed to shift perceptions, making creative arts crucial for linking climate change with identity questions.
Technology, Migration and Cautious Optimism
Addressing Bill Gates's recent comments about not worrying excessively about exceeding the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold, Amrith agrees that human welfare should be the focus but argues we must stop considering human welfare separately from ecosystem wellbeing.
While technological advances like clean energy expansion will likely reduce emissions and pollution, Amrith remains skeptical about grand technical fixes due to the concentration of power in the tech industry and potential unintended consequences.
Regarding climate migration, Amrith's research reveals complex relationships between environmental pressures and movement patterns. Contrary to Global North fears of masses arriving at their borders, most climate-driven migration will be domestic, with Global South countries bearing the greatest impact.
Despite irreversible warming already locked into Earth's systems, Amrith maintains that strong mitigation can keep warming within adaptable limits. The Global Tipping Points report shows how quickly environmental destruction can escalate but also indicates positive tipping points in clean energy affordability and accessibility.
The fundamental lesson from Amrith's historical analysis remains clear: failing to ask who benefits from technologies, who controls them, and whether they'll create new inequalities has brought us to this planetary crisis—questions we must prioritize moving forward.
