|
  |
|
|
James Lovelock's future world
While agreeing with James Lovelock's recent interview in The Guardian on the fact that global warming and associated climate change is leading inevitably to catastrophe, I disagree strongly with his attitude of resignation and particularly with his criticism of renewable alternatives to carbon emitting power generation. His attitude to wind turbines seems remarkably in tune with that other old man Bernard Ingham, both of them defenders of the nuclear mirage. If Lovelock's estimate of 80% population reduction due to climate change is accurate (and I have no reason to disagree with him other than to say I think he is overly optimistic), this country and the rest of the world will have changed drastically by the time there is only 20% or less of the population left. The survivors of global famine and floods, environmental refugees and fighting over resources, would have to be capable of keeping a string of nuclear power stations running safely with all that implies; uranium ore mining, extraction and processing, transportation round the world, disposal of dangerous waste, and keeping a national grid running. Wind turbines, on the other hand, are built to be capable of running virtually mainentance free and often supply local communities with direct power, so no need for a national grid distributing power to parts without any need. Having realised early on the environmental catastrophe which was coming, I have spent the last four decades trying to live without adding to the burden humanity has placed and continues to place on the ecosystem, and I object to Lovelock dismissing this as scams to allow me to feel better. This dismissal may allow him to live without limits, fly when he wishes and presumably pollute along with those like Ingham who deny climate change is happening, but for those who actually care about the planet, its other species and future generations of humans, this isn't an option. Lovelock, as is made clear in the article, is a scientist not a green, and his accidental discovery of the gaia hypothesis - an extremely important discovery akin to Darwin's evolution of species and complimentary to it - doesn't mean his instincts are those of greens. And while agreeing with him that climate change and resulting chaos is inevitable, I wouldn't think to criticise those who have been trying to do something about it, to mitigate the effect of humanity's burden on the ecosystem, to educate others of the dangers inherent in their lifestyle, to bring about change. Without hope, mass suicide would be the only intelligent and sane option. Accepting a reduced global population and societal disruption as inevitable for the near future, we should be thinking of providing increased chances of survival, rather than ridiculously impractical high-tech non solutions. Lovelock's dismissal of low tech, green [sustainable] alternatives in favour of the techno fix is confused, self-deceiving and arrogant, I trust his grandchildren will forgive his selfishness ('Enjoy life while you can') as they struggle to survive in a future world which is anything but high tech. Technology depends on a highly complex society to supply all the necessary ingredients. The wealth and stability necessary to invent and produce such wonders of modern society as nuclear reactors (and to provide a comfortable living for scientists and other non food producers) is just not there with a subsistance level society where most of the population has already starved, and where civil order has broken down. Renewable energy installed before the breakdown would continue to supply power for decades; whether wind, solar or biogas, at least until the individual units started failing. BY then most people will be trying to grow enough food to feed themselves and will not have the time or inclination to work in a power station. Who would pay them and feed them? His dismissal of wind turbines is peculiarly restricted; he fails to mention other renewables, but seems to think only wind is to be considered as an alternative to nuclear - and by all estimates could provide 20% of our present energy needs, so about the same as nuclear currently supplies. But it is one of several methods of generating energy, which, along with reductions in use and wastage, is quite capable of supplying all present energy needs let alone those of a much reduced population. That it is preferable to have entirely non polluting energy generation is surely a given. There is no waste to dispose of, there are no carbon emissions. Unlike Lovelock, I became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change twenty years ago, I wonder what took him so long as to only arrive at that conclusion in 2004. Perhaps he has still not come to terms with the realisation yet, and is still panicked and searching for something to comfort himself with; a nuclear dummy. So a bit like the green sustainable lifestyle he criticises for making people feel better. But nuclear is not the answer, and can never be the answer, even if we look at the situation simplistically in the manner of Brown and co whose thinking extends as far as paying a poor country not to pollute so we can continue as usual. To think it is the solution for the long term neglects to take into account the very likely deterioration in societal cohesion that the future holds, much more of a threat that climate refugees from Europe. We will have our own climate refugees fro Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex just for starters. Those who have thought of Lovelock as a guru have only themselves to blame. He is just a man, he stumbled upon a truth about the ecosystem, but that doesn't make him infallible. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/
| http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/
| http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTTPP_0xIhrRmq2-aCf76Eed_sAg
| http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/issues/climate_change/
| http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/
| http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/
| http://www.campaigncc.org/
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjOcOcQ90U
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "James Lovelock's future world" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
 |
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
