So, James Lovelock -- he of the famous "Gaia Hypothesis" -- has a rather, uh, grim piece in the Independent today, mainly as advance hype for his new book The Revenge of Gaia.
(The paper also has a follow-up piece that does little but point out the existence of the original piece. Oh, and another follow-up piece, doing the same. And, um, another follow-up piece, in case you missed the first three.)
I'm not really clear on what Lovelock thinks he's trying to accomplish. Does he think people aren't more concerned about global warming because environmentalists haven't yelled loud enough? Haven't been apocalyptic enough? Haven't painted a vivid enough picture of the end of civilization? Does he think becoming even more melodramatic -- "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic" -- is going to snap people awake?
I'm mystified by this attitude, which seems to be widely shared. Just shouting, louder and louder and louder, isn't going to do anything. Lovelock's latest piece is not going to reach anybody who's not already sympathetic. Public opinion polls show that the majority of people believe in global warming and believe it's human-caused and believe it's a threat. What are they supposed to do? Panic? They need to see pathways, from where we're standing now to a place where it will be OK. Lovelock offers no such pathways.
This kind of street-corner "the end is nigh" stuff has, in my humble opinion, largely exhausted its usefulness.
Here are some of the high low points:
I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.
...
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
...
So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent.
...
... the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.
...
So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords.
Comments
View as Flat
tomgray Posted 2:42 am
18 Jan 2006
Paid skeptics contend that it will just mean a greener Earth;
The Bush Administration decries the loss of jobs that would result from reining in global warming pollution;
There is still talk of simply adapting to an Earth that is a few degrees warmer, as if it were an unusually warm day;
A best-selling novel chalks the whole thing up to a sinister green conspiracy, including pages of bogus references;
Most scientists hedge their words with great care, lest they become targets of the paid disinformation lobby.
I think it is great to see someone stand up and say, not only is this real, extreme and immediate action is required. It is his job as a scientist to tell us what he sees, not to say what he hopes will conform to existing political wisdom.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:25 am
18 Jan 2006
So the articles in the Independent gave me a sinking feeling.
I haven't gone deeply into Lovelock's arguments, but it seems as if he's concerned about positive feedback loops, in which a warming trend stimulates further warming.
Some bloggers have complained that most scientific projections are not as pessimistic as Lovelock's. True, but the uncertainties in predicting climate change are very high, as scientists will admit. Recent scientific studies are painting a more complex, more disturbing picture than we previously had envisioned.
About Lovelock's specific recommendations I have my doubts. Political and economic change is not his specialty. I would, however, listen carefully to his worries about climate.
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 6:08 am
18 Jan 2006
You shouldn't criticize him for putting "too gloomy" a spin on global warming. His obligation is to the truth.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:59 am
18 Jan 2006
Says James Annan (a scientist actually working with climate models):I don't know what planet he's living on, but these estimates are ridiculous. The globe will probably warm by about 2-3C in the next century, with oceans and tropical areas generally warming less than the average, and land and northern latitudes warming more. Something in the region of 8 degrees warming by the end of the century might be about right for the north pole, but not for the UK. 5C in the tropics is simply make-believe.
I hope that intelligent readers will see this for what it is - a plug for his new enviro-horror fantasy thriller, and not a scientifically meaningful comment any more than the execrable Crichton. It's a shame to see formerly-respected scientists "go emeritus" ... but his past achievements do not immunise him from criticism.We shouldn't give Lovelock a pass just because he's on our "side."
www.grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:21 am
18 Jan 2006
The best analyses of climate change show a range of outcomes, each with an estimated probability. Because the consequences of climate change are so drastic, we should plan not just for the most probable outcome, but also for the more extreme possibilities, including Lovelock's.
I had to smile at Annan's suggestion that Lovelock is just plugging his new book. Lovelock is 86 years old and I'm sure has all the fame and success he needs. Let's keep on subject and avoid the ad hominems!
Reactions from environmentalists:
UK Independent (" Green campaigners support Lovelock for sparking fresh debate on global warming")
Tim Flannery (Australian environmentalist/author/scientist)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:30 am
18 Jan 2006
I think that's a misreading, both empirically (polls show people do believe in warming, and believe it's bad) and sociologically. An intellectual belief in something is not the same as the will to act, much less the ability to act. On one hand we tell people that the future is billions of dead and a few breeding couples fleeing to the Arctic. On the other we urge them to change their lightbulbs. What are they supposed to do with this?
I just think greens need to get way more savvy about how deep social change happens.
www.grist.org
Permalink
felixkramer Posted 8:44 am
18 Jan 2006
I'm not sure if Lovelock's alarms will help or not, but that's not really the point. I think it's up to every person on the planet to start doing something about this. My own choice is to try to get cars off carbon--if we do that we've addressed over 1/4 of the CO2 problem. I've put together some of my top resources at http:///www.calcars.org/globalwarming.html and I suggest http://www.realclimate.org for those interested in the science.
Felix Kramer
Founder, California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 8:52 am
18 Jan 2006
If the great majority of climatologists come out and dismiss Lovelock as over doing it, then probably he is. But even then it would not be a certainty. He has a history of being farsighted and ahead of his time. That is an undeniable fact.
I think Annan loses a lot of credibility when he says that Lovelock is making "a plug for his new enviro-horror fantasy thriller, and not a scientifically meaningful comment any more than the execrable Crichton." That is an ignorant and outrageous comment about Lovelock. He is a respected scientist not a science fiction novelist. He was a pioneer in our understanding of how the Earth works with his Gaia theory, which is widely accepted today.
I've seen other climatologists comment on Lovelock's article and none of them have been dismissive of the man. Many have said that coming from him it must be taken seriously. It should not be gospel just because Lovelock says so. So you are right, he doesn't get a "free pass", nobody does. But it can't be dismissed either.
Personally, I feel Lovelock is credible. And that is scary. Most people you could dismiss it as hyperbole. But this man has a deep understanding of the Earth. Let's hope that he is wrong.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:00 am
18 Jan 2006
Agreed. And genius-inventors-who-live-in-the-countryside (like Lovelock) are probably not the best people to develop strategies for social change! That's up to you and your readers.
Speaking of apocalyptic articles, Fortune magazine just ran a stunner:
Cloudy With a Chance of Chaos ("Climate change may bring more violent weather swings -- and sooner -- than experts had thought.")
Personally, I hate the apocalyptic tone -- it makes for hysteria, bad poltitics and bad science. On the other hand, these recent articles have racheted up my concern and awareness.
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 10:30 am
18 Jan 2006
Accelerated melting of arctic ice cap. This is melting far faster than was early thought. As it melts it uncovers dark ocean which absorbs the sun's energy rather than reflects it as ice does.
Melting permafrost. Permafrost is melting all across the arctic, as it does it decays and produces methane which is a greenhouse gas some 20 times more powerful than C02.
Warming oceans are preventing nutrient upwelling from deep water. This is a body blow to the ocean food chain and reduces the growth of photosynthetic plankton which extract enormous amounts of C02 from the air.
These are just 3 major feedback effects that I've seen in the news recently. There are undoubtably many more. Lovelock is aware of them and is basing his conclusions on that. How many of the climatic models have factored these in yet? Lovelock may be ahead of the curve here. I don't believe the IPCC projections of warming reported in 2001 included them or any other feedback effects. Climatologists working off those earlier projections are now seriously out of date.
Permalink
tomgray Posted 11:40 am
18 Jan 2006
Recently, it was reported that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing more rapidly than in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that negative feedback mechanisms may be kicking in. (Lovelock, as others have noted here, is an expert on feedback loops.)
It has also been reported recently that permafrost in Russia and Alaska is melting and releasing methane at an unexpectedly high rate. This is one of the major potential negative feedback mechanisms.
Recent findings on the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice seem to fall in the same category.
Perhaps all of this stuff has in fact percolated through the international scientific assessment systems--my guess is that it hasn't, and that the ranges are going to be revised upward again in the future.
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 12:13 pm
18 Jan 2006
If he truly believes that we have "passed the point of no return" and we face an automatic death sentence, why publish the article? or the book? what purpose does it serve to destroy people's hope even if it is false? I suspect he feels that there may still be time and this is his way of shaking up the debate. I believe that he is sincere about the likely concequences of not acting however--collapse of civilization and devastation of the Earth. I don't think he would exagerate that.
Here's a quote from an interview with The Guardian on Dec. 31, 2005:
"One of the awful things I find today is that young people come to me and ask if there is any hope. Of course there's hope. At the moment, we are just waiting as we were in the 30s, when everyone knew war was coming but no one knew what to do about it. The moment the war started, we knew that the prospect was pretty awful, but there was a wonderful sense of purpose. There were no consumer goods, and food was strictly rationed. We never considered that time hopeless. When climate change gets bad, then there will be excitement, and that's the payoff. As Crispin Tickell said, what we need is leadership - and disaster."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 pm
18 Jan 2006
Once you buy the false premise, you have bought the false conclusion.
This is such an overwhelming emergency that any dangers of nuclear power must be accepted, they pale in comparison!!
Isn't this the same old false dilemna, big lie, fear campaign so familiar to all of US skeprical observers of the bush administration war, energy, and foreign policies?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:53 pm
18 Jan 2006
The fresh water released by the melting ice cap drives the gulf stream that warms the northern regions, as the ice disappears the gulf stream will slow creating less warming.
A mini-ice age in Europe and North America will increase snow cover and duration of winter. Winter snow tends to reflect sunlight creating further cooling.
That cooling could then increase arctic ice, in turn restoring the gulf stream.
A hopeful theory of negative feedback. Is this a reason to ignore the human causes of global climate disaster?
No, because the cost of that mini-ice age, to economies, the natural world, and civilization would be astronomical.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:02 pm
18 Jan 2006
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
tomgray Posted 6:12 pm
18 Jan 2006
Let's look on the "bright" side, Dave: talking doom and gloom can't hurt, and maybe it will add the sense of urgency that cannot be obtained by pretending that global warming is just a minor problem.
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 12:17 am
19 Jan 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:35 am
19 Jan 2006
Then:
"we don't have 50 years to wait for visionary technology to save us"
Therefore:
"He advocates nuclear"
Buy the false premise.. trapse down the garden path.. and shell out for the false conclusion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:20 am
19 Jan 2006
<blokquote>We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.</blokquote>
Forget, for a second, that inelagant construction, "breeding pairs." If what he's stating is scientific fact, then one legitimate conclusion to draw is: forget conservation, I'm going to buy a hummer, a huge house, and consume like mad until the world ends. What's the point of doing changing, if all-out calamity is imminent?
If disaster really is imminent, then more power to him for saying so; but he's not making an argument for change.
The New Yorker writer who's been focusing on climate change is a much more effective proponent for change, I think. She writes rigorously fact-based accounts of what's going on with butterflies, etc. You read her stuff and think, Holy shit--what can we do? And then maybe even hardcore free marketeers start thinking about higher CAFE standards or public investment in local food systems and publi transport, or tax breaks for buying hybrids, or whatever.
You read Lovelock and think, Holy shit--a) time to stock up on canned food and ammo; or b) consume now before it's too late. Neither is an effective strategy for addressing global warming.
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 2:03 am
19 Jan 2006
Or is he saying that we aren't dead yet, but he doesn't think the major CO2 emitters will act in time, so we are dead.
Or is he saying that we shouldn't give up hope because the world will join the war on global warming when it gets bad? This is what he expressed in an interview only a couple of weeks ago.
Or is he saying that the war on global warming will be "exciting" (his word) but hopeless anyway and we are dead?
Or is he saying that the war on global warming will come and it will be "exciting" and it will prevent us from all dying but the world will be irreversible devasted and we will wish we were dead anyway?
I respect the man and his knowledge, but I don't get it anymore. I don't think a man of his stature should predict doom without a lot more clarity. A doctor doesn't tell you you have a serious disease probably fatal, tune in later for more details.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 2:53 am
19 Jan 2006
Permalink
thinkfuture Posted 8:10 am
19 Jan 2006
Though our current administration insists that global warming is but a figment of our imagination, the majority of us who are able to read believe that such a thing does exist.
Anyone wearing a placard can proclaim that the end is near. It takes intelligence and sensitivity to be able to use information in a way that will promote awareness and the possibility of positve changes. It is a waste of trees to simply foretell inescapable destruction of all mankind. Gloom and doom only captures the attention for so long. What would be much more helpful is to actually say what can be done to avert such destruction.
Permalink
joneden Posted 10:52 am
20 Jan 2006
Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course . Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about20."
Excerpted from report of the same title from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCC). The signatories were 1500 of the world's leading scientists including 104 Nobel laureates in the sciences--the majority of those recipients then living. The report can be ordered from UCC.
jon eden
StudentsForTheEarth.org
Permalink
Rod Bhar Posted 12:08 pm
20 Jan 2006
I think if that happened Lovelock might write another article telling us that there is now hope. His dire prediction was based on a worst case scenario of US, China, etc. doing too little too late. There's no guarantee that that will happen. Disasters can be very motivating. What's needed is a 9/11 for global warming.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:34 pm
20 Jan 2006
An emergency that finally gets nuclear power back on track? Overcoming the fear of nukes, and replacing it with fear of global warming.
Just like the original 911 was used to overcome the fear of military action (invasion, occupation, and nation building), caused by the Vietnam War legacy, and replace it with the fear of terrorism.
Gotta love that neocon strategery.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
foodnotoil Posted 5:32 pm
20 Jan 2006
To think and act like we can actually save humanity from our ecologically destructive footprint rather than just submit to ecological death by default as the end result of ecological rapture of global warming fire & brimstone apocolypse drenched second coming of some dead guy claiming to be god. Because, theoretically, if we are dealing with a superorganism, and this "Gaia" has certain ecologically-inbuilt mechanisms that are activated (sound like intelligent design?) when things start to spin out of control and we begin to look like cancer, and the host sends out antibodies in the form of global warming to warm the waters which builds stronger hurricanes that rams into some oil producing shores to try and slow the enourmous rate of our fossil fuel greenhouse gas burning frenzy, and even might I add terrorism blowing up the "World Trade Center" hub of global trade releasing x amount of greenhouse gas for every single quantifiable product wether it be harvested/produced by slaves, or a continuous flow of environmental toxification being released/applied.
However, most everytime these things are brought up, at least from my experiences, people throw up walls of resistance against learning about their negative impacts, so they don't have to feel extremely bad about it. I'll say look, I have over 600 documentaries, pick a topic and ill burn it onto a DVD-RW and send it over so you don't have to read that nasty text, you can just flick on the tube and absorb it mindlessly. God forebid they actually read something in their life, lol... at least this makes it easier. Try talking to people about what's in much of the factory farmed meat, or the slaves that probably harvested the tobacco and coffee, or the acidification and warming of the entire ocean that's going to cause a near complete collapse of the entire ocean food chain because what's coming out of their tailpipe, and you might find resistance to exposing the hidden mechanism lurking behind every umbilical cord to the supermarket big box store. Most of the people I lend documentaries to end up holding on to it for over a month because they "don't have time to watch it." and sometimes even give it back without watching it at all because they felt guilty they were holding onto it for so long... Others sometimes simply say they just are not interested in anything like that and would rather play videogames and watch expensive blockbuster movies... Why do I even bother?
The downside is that they cant make informed decisions. If they only knew that A leads to B leads to C leads to Death of Ecosystem, possibly leading to Fury of Gaia against Humans, then they might think... hey maybe we should do things differently, and not act against our own interests and our family's future since christians pride themselves in their family values and anti-abortion stances so much. Indeed, global warming is going to be an abortion! An abortion of the entire future race of inhabitants living on earth in yonderyears... Every single excess ounce of greenhouse gas coming out of their tailpipes on into the atmosphere is really another babie thrown on the heap... Hear the grinding of flesh, hacking away each person's future destiny, imaginary blood and guts flying everywhere as their life's promise comes to a screenching grinding halt, clutching onto the very fabric of their existential future...
Instead, the uninformed consumer hops in their vehicle to drive to some big box store, releasing x amount of greenhouse gas, to then purchase some kind of processed / factory-farmed / slave-laboured / toxic-chemical-drenched product, which probably was transported to the big box store by using x amount of greenhouse gas, all the while living out the rest of their life in ignorance drenched by the blood of unsustainability. Unsustainabilty can only have one outcome.
Just think, if people knew that negotiation and change could take place... Instead, we have an administration that just shouts from capital hill that the American way-of-life is non-negotiable, and that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Accross the board even, global warming is non-negotiable; hence, the american way of life is non-negotiable... I predict peak-oil, terrorist-attacks, superflues, or natural disasters, among others, will be tested (according to this superorganism theory) before it ever moves into final stages... because the final stage of climate change will effect more than just humans. Of course, this is all theory and none of it may be intentional, just living at the whim collective random mechanical happenings of some asteroid fuzing dust evolving into complex biological homosapians mimicing bacterial ancester cultures forming wierd growths with brown smelly stuff spewing out; need I say more?
Permalink
C Jordan Posted 6:13 am
22 Jan 2006
I'm simply speaking from my own perspective, which may not be the one that many of you have, but I am much more likely to listen to someone that tells me how it is in a straightforward manner through facts instead of just opinions. Lovelock may have some good points about the current state of the world, but he leaves no hope for improvement, simply leaving us waiting for the end. I refuse to believe that the world is just going to come to an end with each of us looking out for ourselves, when I know that we can come together and impact the future.
We need to continue looking out for one another, quit pointing fingers, and come up with a plan to positively change the world. I'm not saying that we should not be realistic, but be at least a little optimistic for the future instead of just rolling over and playing dead. Sitting there waiting for bad things to happen is no kind of existence at all. We need to simply come together and make some changes in the world to make the future better than the past. Pessimism will get us nowhere and being optimistic can only improve circumstances.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:53 am
22 Jan 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Corey McKrill Posted 12:42 pm
22 Jan 2006
http://grist.org/
Permalink
foodnotoil Posted 4:22 pm
23 Jan 2006
He's the founder of the Worldwatch Institute and head of the Earth Policy Institute. The Washington Post has called him "one of the world's most influential thinkers." More at WorldChanging
He also makes all of his chapters available here. However, he only offers a pdf for each chapter, not the whole book. I took the time to integrate all of the chapters into one pdf and reduced the file size, which can be downloaded here; or buy it online here.
There are also a few videos available online for free. This one was recorded back in December 2004, and this one more recently.
"Participating in the construction of this enduring new economy is exhilarating. So is the quality of life it will bring. We will be able to breathe clean air. Our cities will be less congested, less noisy, and less polluted. The prospect of living in a world where population has stabilized, forests are expanding, and carbon emissions are falling is an exciting one." Lester Brown, Plan B 2.0
Lester also formed a "Plan B Team" to distribute thousands of copies to heads of state, cabinet members, Fortune 500 CEOs, U.S. Congress, and others. With this team now in place as this revised, expanded revision comes out, they're hoping that they can expand their membership so that before long there will be thousands of people actively promoting this plan to save our civilization.
Early praise for Planet B 2.0:
"Lester Brown tells us how to build a more just world and save the planet from climate change in a practical, straightforward way. We should all heed his advice." -President Bill Clinton
"A quantum jump forward from the original. And the original was damn good." - Peter Goldmark, former Editor, International Herald Tribune
"A great book which should wake up humankind!" - Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum
"Your visionary activism over decades is greatly appreciated." - Denis Goulet, Professor Emeritus, O'Neill Chair in Education for Justice, University of Notre Dame
"...long overdue." - Gilbert White
"Bravo!" - Herman Daly
Permalink
Desmodia Posted 3:54 pm
26 Jan 2006
As to what we should be doing, I would like to see people working on worst-case scenarios: how can we preserve/transmit culture in a situation where familiar institutions and technologies are crumbling? How do we keep the remnant population from falling into the grip of "brutal warlords"? At the same time, we should work as hard as we can to head off the worst consequences.
Frankly, I sometimes find myself praying for a major bird flu epidemic. One way to cut down the risks is to reduce population dramatically, and this is the only quick way I can think of that is worldwide and works by random chance so might be perceived as somewhat fair.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:32 am
01 Feb 2006
I first learned of the Gaia Hypothesis many years ago from a presentation by Thomas Berry. It confirmed what I had known intuitively ever since I could remember: the Earth is alive. I am a part of the Earth, as is every species here. The Earth and I are connected. The life force in me is the same life force in trees, fungi, ants , and so on and there is incredible power in this. And the most powerful aspect of all is the participatory nature of our relationship with the Earth. To me this means that we can work with the Earth, with the species and forces of Earth for our mutual benefit. A good gardener does this. We don't try to force our will, rather we work with the land and the plants knowing that to do otherwise is self-defeating.
If the Earth is alive then the Earth will respond not only to actual physical acts but also to thoughts, emotions, prayer and intention. The Earth will respond to love. This is the insight I was given all those years ago listening to Thomas Berry and I still believe it to this day, pie-in-the-sky though it may be.
We all know the power of love to heal. Doctors can do much, but love and prayers take the healing process to the next level. Why should the Earth be any different? I'm not saying loving the Earth is enough. But loving the Earth would be a great place to begin. Love changes everything. When we love someone we act in that person's best interests. When we make mistakes (and we do), we try and correct them as soon as we can. We don't deliberately try to destroy what we love even if it will make us rich. Acting from love helps us know what to do.
The Earth, I know, is not like a big human. Earth consciousness is not human consciousness. The Earth is not personal -- folks in New Orleans were not being punished personally by a vengeful Gaia. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are consequences for our actions and they will be paid and people will be hurt and it's nothing personal. It just is.
But one of the most amazing consequences of the many natural diasters of 2005 was the outpouring of compassion over and over and over again. This energy could be felt everywhere and it felt good. It felt good to help my local veterinarian take several trips to New Orleans to help rescue abandonned animals. It felt good to know people care and were doing what they could to help, whether it was by sending money, by volunteering, by praying, by opening their homes to those less fortunate. The energy of compassion is a living force, and it makes a difference. If there was anything positive that came out of the disasters of 2005 it was this outpouring of compassionate, loving energy and, yes, if it takes more disasters to continue this outpouring, then so be it.
There are many forces at work, both obvious and not-so-obvious. Lovelock's role as scientist and bearer of bad news is important. His take on climate models makes absolute sense to me. Just as he looked at the whole system of the Earth to come to see the Earth as alive, so he's looking at the whole system to see the absolute unpredicatability of climate change. It's human nature to want to understand things in a logical fashion. We want to know that action A leads to result B. But the Earth, being alive, isn't like that. There are too many variables to be able to predict with any kind of certainty what the future holds. All we know is we are headed down a road that, as Lovelock says, is like heading in a pleasure boat above Niagra Falls. There are no easy ways out. There are no simple solutions (at least not simple in implementation). The way out is a dramatic shift in values, an awakening of spirit, an outpouring of love and compassion. Then the specifics will be revealed to us. We'll know what to do.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:44 am
01 Feb 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:39 pm
01 Feb 2006
Whether Lovelock is correct or not, there are serious problems coming, and maybe someone needs to be jumping up and down and saying "We're heading for the cliff!!! We must stop!!!" Right now, the environmental movement seems to be in a "Oh, we have time to stop, look at the scenery" mode, which allows the right wing loonies the chance to jump up and down and say "no, you can't have my car!!!"
The truth is that the abyss is some distance off, but our speed is accelerating, we can't wait until we get there to stop. We will be long past our "tipping point".
Americans seem to listen best to loud and strident voices, or to notice things that are exciting and unusual. Look at the success PETA has had with it's "nude models" strategy. They are not afraid to disrupt fashion shows. And they have reduced the amount of fur used in the industry.
If you believe that we are on a train heading for a cliff, you need to find a way to get through to a publice more interested in the Superbowl and the Pitt-Jolie romance than the environment.
I am NOT suggesting violence (I consider it counter productive since it becomes the issue, thus distracting from whatever real issues are being addressed, and, oh, yes, it is illegal).
But right now, people are not really listening, and there is no sign that this will change unless the environmental movement begins to change it's spots. What folks HAVE been doing is NOT working.....
peace.
Permalink