Monday's Independent carried a series of articles, which I didn't get round to reading until yesterday, on James Lovelock's predictions about an environmental catastrophe. Lovelock is a scientist who has been researching climate change for thirty years. His predictions are apocalyptic.
Lovelock reckons that climate change is already insoluble and that we have gone past the point where it would have been possible even to slow down global warming, let alone stop it. The impact of the sudden rise in temperature will be rapid, he says:
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.
Not only are his predictions more terrifying and immediate than those of most scientists, he also differs on what we should do about it. Lovelock thinks that it is too late for international agreements:
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.
His conclusion is that each country will need to look out for itself:
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. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.
He goes on to argue that Britain does not have enough space to grow bio-fuel and enough food to feed ourselves, once our overseas food supplies have disappeared. For this reason, he sees nuclear power as our only chance of survival, which has put him at odds with many other environmentalists.
His vision for Britain seems to be a sort of return to a wartime economy and standards of living but with nuclear power and a hotter climate. Globalisation would be thrown into reverse with each nation taking what measures it could to protect its own people - "a broken rabble led by brutal war lords".
This might appeal to some on the "back to nature" eco-left, or indeed the ultra-traditional conservative right but it sure as hell doesn't appeal to me. I hope he is wrong but even if he is right, his terrifying vision is more likely to make people stick their heads in their hands and shout "We're all doomed," than to get them actively tackling the impending crisis.
It will be interesting to see how the scientific and political establishment respond to James Lovelock's new book. It is out on 2 February and it will be on my ever growing reading list.
Incidentally, if he is right, all those stupid "place in the sun" programmes that try to persuade people to buy property in southern Europe are well wide of the mark. I reckon this place looks like a far more sensible bet.
It will indeed be interesting to see the response to Lovelock's views - - in the press, in politics, and in the enviromental movements.
Another prominent long-time enviromentalist, Stewart Brand (founder of The Whole Earth Catalog) has also called for a second look at nuclear power. Mr. Brand has also endorsed an entertaining techno-thriller on the subject, "Rad Decision", as a way for the lay person to better understand this energy source. The novel was written by a longtime engineer in the American nuclear power industry. It is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.
Posted by: James Aach | 19 January 2006 at 05:54 PM
Throughout history people have predicted that the 'End is Nigh' only to be proved wrong. Why should Lovelock be any different?
Posted by: | 19 January 2006 at 11:12 PM
We'll just wait for Capt'n Kirk to come back in time and save us with whales...
Posted by: GZ Expat | 20 January 2006 at 02:32 AM
"James Lovelock's new book. It is out on 2 February". Well, who'd a thunk it?
Posted by: dearieme | 20 January 2006 at 03:07 AM
Hmmm, 2 February is Groundhog Day!
Posted by: Steve | 20 January 2006 at 08:49 AM
Anon- the difference is that now the 'end of the world is nigh' brigade have some scientific evidence to back them up, rather than just relying on God to bring about the final judgement.
Posted by: Steve | 20 January 2006 at 09:01 AM
Steve, thirty years ago, Lowell Ponte had a huge bestseller called "The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun?" That too was chock full of fancy scientific graphs and charts. In 1968, in his bestselling book The Population Bomb, the scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”
All that scientific evidence didn't amount to much did it?
Posted by: Mike D | 20 January 2006 at 10:48 AM