James Lovelock Surfaces. How the Climate Effort Could Backfire.

The venerable James Lovelock has chosen the opening of the COP26 climate summit to send a few words of warning.

His message is we don't stand a chance unless we tie the climate crisis to our destruction of nature. They're not separate problems, just different sides of the same coin.

This division is as much of a mistake as the error made by universities when they teach chemistry in a different class from biology and physics. It is impossible to understand these subjects in isolation because they are interconnected. The same is true of living organisms that greatly influence the global environment. The composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and the temperature of the surface is actively maintained and regulated by the biosphere, by life, by what the ancient Greeks used to call Gaia.

At the risk of sounding immodest, Lovelock validates the writer's longstanding contention that every existential threat we now face, primarily climate change, overpopulation and over-consumption, are directly linked; that we must solve them all if we are to solve any of them; and that the solution to each demands that humanity accept the need for mankind to live in harmony with nature and within the very finite limits of our one and only biosphere, Spaceship Earth.

Warnings that once seemed like the doom scenarios of science fiction are now coming to pass. We are entering into a heat age in which the temperature and sea levels will be rising decade by decade until the world becomes unrecognisable. We could also be in for more surprises. Nature is non-linear and unpredictable, never more than at a time of transition.

Lowering these risks and adapting to those we can no longer avoid will require a mobilisation of resources on the scale of a war economy. We have no choice but to reduce the burning of fossil fuels or face even worse consequences.

But we should also not become over-reliant on renewable power, which will leave us with an energy gap. We need to build more nuclear power stations to overcome that, though the greens will first have to get over their overblown fears of radiation.

We also need to address the problem of overpopulation and to urgently halt the destruction of tropical forests. Most of all, we need to look at the world in a holistic way.

...my fellow humans must learn to live in partnership with the Earth, otherwise the rest of creation will, as part of Gaia, unconsciously move the Earth to a new state in which humans may no longer be welcome. The virus, Covid-19, may well have been one negative feedback. Gaia will try harder next time with something even nastier.

Each point Lovelock makes is prescient. He can see what's coming if we stay on this myopic course of allowing the enormity of the climate emergency to blind us to other existential challenges that also loom large.

Comments

  1. I do like the moniker 'heat age' used here by James, and for many of us Gaia-theory is established science.

    But the remarks on Lovelock's long support of nuclear power bring to mind his hissy-fit about 5 years ago ("I was wrong, no imminent crisis") , followed by soon by a return to his long term 'Final Warning' message.

    He is really old. Greta's generation, otoh, is young.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lovelock gave us the big picture.
      Also found in the Guardian, Monbiot's practical advice for green-washers like Trudeau Jr.

      "Cop26 has to be about keeping fossil fuels in the ground. All else is distraction

      And yes, it really is this simple. We have the technology required to replace fossil fuels. There’s plenty of money, which is currently being squandered on the destruction of life on Earth. The transition could take place in months, if governments willed it. The only thing that stands in the way is the power of legacy industries and the people who profit from them. This is what needs to be overthrown. The handwaving, the complexity, the grandiloquent distraction in Glasgow are designed above all for one purpose: not to accelerate this transition, but to thwart it."

      Delete
    2. Trudeau revealed himself utterly disingenuous and contemptible in Glasgow. He spiffed up his old pledge to cap fossil fuel production emissions as a cover to the damage coal and bitumen will cause the efforts to avert climate catastrophe.

      Urging world leaders to follow the "Trudeau initiative" of carbon pricing is a stretch. How much effect can he show from carbon pricing in Canada? Carbon pricing has an Achilles Heel - how do you distribute the taxes you levy at the pump?

      The idea is to return it to the taxpayers to buffer, even offset, the impact on Joe Lunchpail while reforming the behaviour and practices of heavy fossil energy users. How many countries could be relied upon to be so benignly generous with another source of "found money"?

      Let's remember, the poor and vulnerable nations, that bear negligible responsibility for the mess we largely created, are begging for help, aid. Why not stream carbon tax revenues directly to them? How popular do you imagine that idea would be?

      As I listened to this "Look at me. Aren't I great? Shouldn't you be following me?' spiel it was apparent that either Trudeau knows this fanciful idea of a global carbon tax is a farce or, worse, he's stupid enough to actually believe it.

      Take your pick.

      Delete
  2. Carbon levies pay for pipelines.

    TB

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Up in Smoke. 300 Sq. Mi. of Amazon Rainforest Lost Every Day.

The Cognoscenti Syndrome

"Creeping Normalcy" in the Plague Age