George Hammond: What Would He Say About Climate Change?

As someone who’s spent years diving into the minds of historical figures, I’ve often wondered how George Hammond — the first civilian Governor of Alaska under U.S. control — might have viewed today’s climate challenges. Though he lived in the 19th century, long before the term "climate change" entered our vocabulary, his writings and actions reveal a deep respect for nature and the delicate balance between human progress and environmental preservation.

Hammond wasn’t just a bureaucrat; he was a man of principle who believed in stewardship over exploitation. Appointed in 1884, he arrived in Sitka at a time when Alaska was still seen as a remote frontier, ripe for resource extraction with little regard for its Indigenous peoples or ecosystems. Yet, Hammond often wrote about the need to protect Alaska’s natural wealth, not just for its economic value, but for its intrinsic worth.

So what would this early Alaskan leader say about the warming Arctic, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels? Let’s explore.

##Did George Hammond care about the environment?

Absolutely — though not in the modern activist sense. Hammond was a product of his time, but his letters and reports reveal a man deeply attuned to the land. He frequently warned against overfishing and reckless logging, advocating for sustainable practices long before they became mainstream. In his 1887 report to the Secretary of the Interior, he urged restraint in resource use, writing that Alaska’s wealth must be "husbanded with care" lest it be squandered.

His concern wasn’t purely ecological — he understood that Alaska’s economy depended on its natural resources. But he also believed that those resources could only serve future generations if protected today. In many ways, Hammond was an early conservationist, laying the groundwork for policies that would later influence the national park system in Alaska.

##Would Hammond have supported climate action?

I believe he would have — cautiously, but firmly. Hammond was pragmatic. He wouldn’t have dismissed scientific findings outright, and in his time, he relied on naturalists and explorers for environmental insights. Today, he’d likely look to climatologists and glaciologists much the same way.

He would have been troubled by the rapid melting of Alaska’s glaciers and the destabilization of native ecosystems. Given his concern for Indigenous communities — which he often defended against exploitative practices — he would likely have spoken out about the disproportionate impact of climate change on Alaska Natives, whose villages now face relocation due to coastal erosion and permafrost thaw.

##How did Hammond view Indigenous knowledge of the land?

Hammond had a rare respect for Tlingit and other Indigenous peoples, especially compared to many of his contemporaries. He recognized their deep understanding of Alaska’s environment and often consulted with tribal leaders on land use and resource management. While he still worked within the framework of U.S. colonial authority, he acknowledged the value of Indigenous stewardship practices.

Today, Indigenous knowledge is increasingly seen as vital in climate science — from tracking animal migrations to understanding weather patterns. Hammond would likely have found common ground with modern Indigenous environmental leaders, seeing their insights as complementary to Western science.

##Would Hammond have supported fossil fuel extraction?

Most likely not — at least not without strict regulation. Hammond was wary of unchecked corporate influence, particularly in his battles with the Alaska Commercial Company, which held a virtual monopoly over trade in the region. He saw how monopolistic practices harmed both people and the environment.

Given that history, he would probably approach oil and gas development with skepticism. He’d likely demand rigorous oversight, transparency, and protections for ecosystems. He might even support a transition to cleaner energy sources, seeing them as a way to sustain Alaska’s economy without depleting its natural capital.

##What would Hammond tell today’s policymakers?

He’d probably remind them of their duty to future generations. Hammond believed that public office carried moral responsibility. If he were alive today, he might say something like, “We are but temporary stewards of this land. Our choices must reflect not just our needs, but those of those who will inherit what we leave behind.”

He’d call for measured, science-based policies that protect Alaska’s environment while supporting its people. And he’d urge leaders to listen — to scientists, yes, but also to fishers, hunters, and Indigenous communities whose lives are most affected by environmental change.

If you're curious how Hammond might expand on these views in conversation, you can talk to him on HoloDream — where his voice, values, and convictions come alive.