THE REVENGE OF GAIA
Earth s Climate Crisis & The Fate Of Humanity
by
James Lovelock
Basic Books
Hardcover, 177 pages, $25
ISBN-13 978-0-465-04168-8
ISBN-10 0-465-04168-X
Previously published in Bloomsbury Review
The
proponents of Gaia theory contend the Earth is a living organism, composed not
only of soil and water, but also the atmosphere, and all matter in between,
both living and inert, which, in a complex web, self-regulates the climate at
least to a point. That point is the
tipping point, and James Lovelock argues we are very close to it, akin to a
pleasure boat above the
The world s annual production of carbon dioxide is 27,000 million tons. If this much were frozen into solid carbon dioxide at -80 C it would make a mountain one mile high and twelve miles in circumference.
That s
for only one year. Compare this to the
end of the last ice age when the amount of carbon dioxide was 280 ppm, which
has now risen to 380 ppm. At present
rates, we will reach 500 ppm in about 40 years. Because an increase in carbon dioxide is
closely related to an increase in temperature, an increase to 500 ppm would
increase temperature about 3 C (about 4 F).
This would cause the melting of
Lovelock asserts the last time comparable quantities of carbon entered the atmosphere was 55 million years ago. Then, temperatures rose 8 C (about 13 F) in the temperate regions and 5 C (about 7 F) in the tropics. It took 100,000 years for 63% of the carbon dioxide to dissipate, and the ensuing hot period lasted 200,000 years. To think, in comparison, that human civilization has only been around a few thousand years is a sobering reminder of how little the Earth needs us, and, in contrast, how much we need the Earth. To avoid calamity, what Lovelock advocates is not sustainable development but a sustainable retreat.
To expect sustainable development or a trust in business as usual to be viable policies is like expecting a lung cancer victim to be cured by stopping smoking; both measures deny the existence of the earth s disease, the fever brought on by a plague of people.
For Lovelock, not even the Kyoto Treaty is adequate, and he views it as mere appeasement which will not address the root of the problem. What he suggests, first, is a change in philosophy that we must understand and treat the Earth as the largest living thing in the solar system.
But how to convert quickly from fossil fuels to another energy source? Follow the French model, he argues and use nuclear power. While Lovelock recognizes this makes him a likely outcast among the greens, he argues that wind power is insufficient to power a first-world lifestyle, that bio-fuels from crops will only aggravate the problem of global warming, and that solar power remains largely inefficient. As for nuclear wastes, he asserts it would generate two million times less waste than the carbon from fossil fuels a mere 16 meter cube per year compared to the mile high mountain of carbon with a twelve mile base.
He also contends the potential harm of radioactivity escaping from a nuclear power plant is minimal compared to the threat of global warming. Specifically, he argues the Chernobyl accident did not kill thousands across Europe but only 75 people, mostly the brave workers exposed while fighting the fire in the reactor and carrying out the cleanup afterward. While this may seem a cold and calculated risk-benefit analysis akin to what Ford did with the Pinto, it is also blunt talk by a plain speaker who fears for our civilization.
While Lovelock has much to say that many may disagree with, and while not all of his ideas are well thought out, thereby detracting from his main points, it is too easy in our comfortable first-world lifestyle of cars, computers, and air-conditioning to remain ignorant of where we may be headed. If, as he says, we are a patient with lung cancer, we need to do more than stop smoking. For Lovelock, who was first a physician, we may need affirmative and aggressive treatment radiation therapy.
#