I agree with your cogent analysis.  It is counterproductive in the extreme to go around prophesizing doom.  Lovelock's predictions may be right or they might not be.  The important thing is for people to get involved in solutions as soon as possible.  Things need to be done on a grassroots level as well as on a societal level and by governments.  Above all we cannot give up hope.

Charles Justice  

Not to offend anyone's beliefs, but that old duality of gloom versus doom has been around for thousands of years, often having climate change themes as well (e.g., Noah's ark).  Many folks miss the point that large parts of the Middle East were covered in huge cypress trees - the fabled hanging gardens of Babylon might not be all that far off base.  

But immanent gloom versus everlasting hope, neither one really works.  And face it, with all the wars, crappy economy, scandals, and bad stuff going on, it's not very easy to be hopeful these days, is it?

I have repeatedly warned people against using climate change as a religion and David, sorry man, you really blew chunks on that one!  It does not help the cause...

Onward through the fog

Nature also suggests we make changes slowly - evolutionary time-scales are hundreds of thousands of years. I'm sure in that time-frame we really will have figured things out (or become extinct). In the mean-time...

David, when you say large-scale solutions are

"... a species of violence. One can perfectly easily envision governments embracing these solutions, diverting huge amounts of taxpayer money to enormous, politically connected industries, engaging in fraud-ridden boondoggles..."

you seem to be rejecting out of hand organized, thoughtful, cooperative efforts at solving our problems. Is government always bad in your view?

I realize the comments here are directed at solutions based on panic - and I agree, panic is not a good start to solving things. But that doesn't mean the solutions can be found through independent individual action without coordination. Real solutions will require state action, "a species of violence" in right-wing terms, that will involve using taxpayer money for things that not everybody agrees on. Regulations, carbon taxes, subsidies for alternatives, developing and deploying new technologies on a large scale will be essential. I seem to recall you've spoken in favor of such things before. Why descend into the rhetorical "return to nature" talk here?

Well I hope if there's an Inquisition or War it is of the Monty Python kind.

Onward through the fog

Is a great idea.  Well, for science fiction at least.  I love to imagine genetically engineered vehicles absorbing sunlight from their soft self-cleaning green skin.  But what solutions do the biomimicry group have within the timescale of coal use and global warming impact?  

(oh, and nature does use metals - your blood depends on the stuff)

That being said, I was struck by a great solution back in ~1994 in Science Magazine (I think).  The author suggested we start building automated solar-powered self-constructing factories in the deserts that would produce solar panels.  The author predicted we'd be able to power all of the US after a few factory generations, and then we could shift the focus of the factory to desalinization or a dozen other world-changing tasks.  The project would be a massive undertaking, but could have been on its way to running by now if we'd jumped on it.

...to solving the problem.

Accelerate the appearance of natural variation, horizontal gene transfer, adaptation, evolution, and biodiversity.

Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?

Now that the southeastern parts of the United States are going to look like the southwestern parts of the United States, those Concentrated Solar Power Plants will work in more areas.

Gravel for grass isn't that bad, I hear it doesn't take that long to get used to it.

So much for the kudzu taking over Atlanta, I was looking forward to that!

Onward through the fog

I agree that Mr. Roberts' suggestions are a lot more palatable than Lovelock's. I very much want us to have more organic solutions, such as the ones Roberts suggests, to environmental problems. But is that reason to deny Lovelock's doomsaying and extreme proposals? I'm having a hard time seeing how Roberts' argument is something other than that because Lovelock's solutions are so awful and technological, his doomsaying must be wrong. This of course is not a good way to argue - I'd much rather see direct evidence that his gloom-saying is unjustified.

The big problem is, we don't actually know how bad things are.  Reports and predictions vary from "things are getting inconvenient" to, as one analyst whose name I'm forgetting put it, "OMFG we're all totally f*cked!!1!"  And even the most widely accepted predictions have often been shown to be wrong.

Yesterday, it was in the news that net CO2 emissions have increased 35% more than they were expected to in 2000.  (That's 35% more increase, not an actual increase of 35%.  That would be a cause for panic.)  Why?  Fuel efficiency hasn't improved like it was supposed to, and the oceans have stopped absorbing CO2 as fast as they were supposed to.  Does that mean we're f*cked?  Or, does it just mean we need to work a little harder?

It seems to me that the answer is to work for the best, but prepare for the worst.  Right now, the bulk of our effort needs to be in safe, feasible, sustainable changes we can make.  Shift from coal to solar and wind.  Build more fuel-efficient cars.  Stop cutting down the g*dd*mned rainforest.  All that stuff we all know about, and are all constantly harrassing our Congresspeople to make happen.  (We are all harrassing our Congresspeople, or the appropriate elected representatives...  Right?)

But while we're doing all that, we need to prepare for the worst case scenario.  We need to analyze every geoengineering option, every option for emergency screw-the-economy-and-our-nerves energy conservation, and every other harebrained scheme anyone comes up with.  We need to figure out what's likely to work, what isn't likely to work, and what will be necessary to safely and effectively implement whatever option seems the most viable.

Hopefully, none of it will be necessary.  Hopefully, we'll move to a sustainable culture in time to stave off the worst effects, and life will be good.  (I keep trying to start debate on things like geoengineering, but I'm really not trying to fill our atmosphere with sulfur in a blind panic, I promise.  I love this planet, too.)  But if it starts looking like Lovelock is right and seemingly cooler heads are wrong, won't it be useful to have a strategy other than "OMFG we're all totally f*cked!!1!"?