Book Review
“The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is fighting back – and how we can still save humanity", by James Lovelock
The gargantuan, awe-inspiring new Madrid airport, designed by architect Richard Rogers, is at the cutting edge of energy efficiency. It is designed to retain heat and maximise its energy consumption, and makes exemplary use of natural light. This is impressive stuff, if one ignores the primary reason for the building’s very existence: the arrival and departure of some 120 aeroplanes each hour, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The airport is a perfect synopsis of the international community’s myopic approach to climate change. Governments are all too willing to cut corners and do their bit for the environment, so long as it doesn’t harm their economic prospects.
In his latest book, scientist and James Lovelock takes an excoriating look at the hypocrisy of our attitudes to global warming, exemplified by such projects as Madrid’s airport and hollow agreements like Kyoto, which he likens to the Munich treaty of 1938 – “politicians out to show that they do respond, but in reality playing for time”. It is a devastatingly pessimistic examination of just what the dangerous levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere will do to the planet, and a savage prediction of the type of civilisation that we could be left with as a result.
Lovelock gained notoriety for the concept of ‘Gaia’; the idea that the Earth is not a lump of rock with immeasurable numbers of life forms crawling across its surface, but in fact is a kind of organism itself, with the sum total of every type of living thing existing in symbiotic harmony with the very atmosphere itself; the former regulated by the latter which in turn offers the perfect conditions for the former to live. It is a particularly metaphysical way of interpreting the Earth, and one that in the 1970s was derided by scientists whilst simultaneously being embraced by hippies and new-age spiritualists; yet in the decades since, the scientific community has gradually acknowledged the fundamental accuracy of Lovelock’s theory.
As Lovelock sees it, human activity is threatening the ability of Gaia to maintain a planetary environment fit for habitat, and we are quite literally teetering on the very edge of outright disaster. Rise in fuel consumption, and increasing demands on electricity supply, mean a constantly mounting supply of carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere. As he states more than once, the amount of CO2 from human activity would, over a year, form a mountain one mile high and twelve miles in diameter. Meanwhile, the eradication of vast swathes of natural forest – the destruction of billions of plants and trees (through hostile farming practices and our rabid expansion across the globe) that would normally counteract any increase in CO2 emission – means that the fundamental atmospheric balance of the planet is changing. As a result, we are approaching what Lovelock fears will be a tipping point of positive feedback: instead of the planet regulating itself against climate increase, any upward deviations are amplified, leading to a rapid spike in temperature. This is an irreversible process, and one that, while not necessarily wiping humanity from the face of the planet, will inherently mean the decimation of billions of people and the utter collapse of human civilisation in its current form:
“…it becomes hot enough to melt most of the Greenland ice and some of the west Antarctica ice; enough water will then be added to the world’s oceans to raise sea levels by fourteen meters… nearly all of the present great centres of population are currently below what could be the ocean surface”.
Western governments, when they address our reliance on fossil fuels and the future of energy production, usually frame the topic in terms of geopolitical significance; witness President Bush’s recent State of the Union address, in which he laid out the idea that America needs to become less reliant on oil – not because of environmental concerns, but rather because his country cannot ransom itself to a hostile region. Perhaps mindful of this prevalent attitude, Lovelock’s solution is to bring in a fast-tracked program of nuclear development, in particular the inchoate – but potentially bountiful – technology of nuclear fusion. Far from being a panacea, Lovelock sees nuclear as merely a stopgap measure, during which the burning of fossil fuels and the over-exploitation of the Earth’s resources would cease. As he sees it, we are looking at the lesser of two evils: on the one hand, a planet which quite simply ceases to have the conditions on which human life can exist, or on the other, a reliance on nuclear which – despite the danger – would at least give civilisation a fighting chance.
Lovelock’s disdain for ‘sustainable development’ is evident from the start, He equates the philosophy behind it with those who choose to ignore global warming: “the error they share is the belief that further development is possible and that the Earth will continue, more or less as now, for at least the first half of this century…. It is much too late for sustainable development; what we need is a sustainable retreat”. He powerfully decimates the claims of environmental groups who suggest that bio-fuel, wind farms, solar and tidal power would be able to provide enough energy. For him, such an attitude is calamitous: vast areas of woodland would be turned over to wind farms or intensive fuel-crop growing, thus further upsetting the natural balance that Gaia has been denied.
Is Lovelock right? The range of scientific opinion on global warming encompasses those, such as Lovelock, who are concerned that civilisation’s very existence is in imminent peril, to those who believe it all to be a prefabricated myth – although the latter, embodied by oil industry puppets and ignorant non-scientists such as the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips, are fast becoming an entirely discredited minority. However, Lovelock’s position is radical; his apocalyptic predictions for humanity’s future evoke sandwich-board-man ‘end of the world’ prophecies, albeit backed up by a lifetime’s worth of scientific study. Lovelock himself is in his eighties, and it occasionally shows; at one point he describes the competition amongst living cells as being “not unlike the behaviour of unruly, drunken mobs that gather in the city centres at night”, and his curmudgeonly opposition to wind farms rests at least partly on the facile grounds of aesthetics. Is he influenced by the knowledge that, at his age, he is unlikely to witness any of what he describes and hence can shock with impunity?
Whilst his controversial avocation of nuclear energy is one that this reviewer shares, some of the other angles that Lovelock explores seem half-baked and fanciful in the extreme: a stratospheric ‘shield’ to deflect some of the sun’s rays; the synthesisation of foodstuffs from basic elements; the re-introduction of sailing ships as a form of mass transportation. It says much of Lovelock’s meagre intellectual investment in these ideas that they are discussed briefly in the shortest chapter.
None of this takes away from the qualities of this short, sharp book. To describe it as a wake-up call would be misleading, as Lovelock as been predicting the human-led demise of Gaia for decades, and his frustration at the failure of the world’s leaders to take the matter seriously until very recently (if at all) comes across strongly. Ultimately, this is a deeply troubling work, and despite its subtitle it conveys a deep pessimism for the future of human civilisation. If only a fraction of Lovelock’s predictions comes true, then the 21st century will inevitably see a blinkered humanity finally overstep its planetary limitations.
The gargantuan, awe-inspiring new Madrid airport, designed by architect Richard Rogers, is at the cutting edge of energy efficiency. It is designed to retain heat and maximise its energy consumption, and makes exemplary use of natural light. This is impressive stuff, if one ignores the primary reason for the building’s very existence: the arrival and departure of some 120 aeroplanes each hour, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The airport is a perfect synopsis of the international community’s myopic approach to climate change. Governments are all too willing to cut corners and do their bit for the environment, so long as it doesn’t harm their economic prospects.
In his latest book, scientist and James Lovelock takes an excoriating look at the hypocrisy of our attitudes to global warming, exemplified by such projects as Madrid’s airport and hollow agreements like Kyoto, which he likens to the Munich treaty of 1938 – “politicians out to show that they do respond, but in reality playing for time”. It is a devastatingly pessimistic examination of just what the dangerous levels of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere will do to the planet, and a savage prediction of the type of civilisation that we could be left with as a result.
Lovelock gained notoriety for the concept of ‘Gaia’; the idea that the Earth is not a lump of rock with immeasurable numbers of life forms crawling across its surface, but in fact is a kind of organism itself, with the sum total of every type of living thing existing in symbiotic harmony with the very atmosphere itself; the former regulated by the latter which in turn offers the perfect conditions for the former to live. It is a particularly metaphysical way of interpreting the Earth, and one that in the 1970s was derided by scientists whilst simultaneously being embraced by hippies and new-age spiritualists; yet in the decades since, the scientific community has gradually acknowledged the fundamental accuracy of Lovelock’s theory.
As Lovelock sees it, human activity is threatening the ability of Gaia to maintain a planetary environment fit for habitat, and we are quite literally teetering on the very edge of outright disaster. Rise in fuel consumption, and increasing demands on electricity supply, mean a constantly mounting supply of carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere. As he states more than once, the amount of CO2 from human activity would, over a year, form a mountain one mile high and twelve miles in diameter. Meanwhile, the eradication of vast swathes of natural forest – the destruction of billions of plants and trees (through hostile farming practices and our rabid expansion across the globe) that would normally counteract any increase in CO2 emission – means that the fundamental atmospheric balance of the planet is changing. As a result, we are approaching what Lovelock fears will be a tipping point of positive feedback: instead of the planet regulating itself against climate increase, any upward deviations are amplified, leading to a rapid spike in temperature. This is an irreversible process, and one that, while not necessarily wiping humanity from the face of the planet, will inherently mean the decimation of billions of people and the utter collapse of human civilisation in its current form:
“…it becomes hot enough to melt most of the Greenland ice and some of the west Antarctica ice; enough water will then be added to the world’s oceans to raise sea levels by fourteen meters… nearly all of the present great centres of population are currently below what could be the ocean surface”.
Western governments, when they address our reliance on fossil fuels and the future of energy production, usually frame the topic in terms of geopolitical significance; witness President Bush’s recent State of the Union address, in which he laid out the idea that America needs to become less reliant on oil – not because of environmental concerns, but rather because his country cannot ransom itself to a hostile region. Perhaps mindful of this prevalent attitude, Lovelock’s solution is to bring in a fast-tracked program of nuclear development, in particular the inchoate – but potentially bountiful – technology of nuclear fusion. Far from being a panacea, Lovelock sees nuclear as merely a stopgap measure, during which the burning of fossil fuels and the over-exploitation of the Earth’s resources would cease. As he sees it, we are looking at the lesser of two evils: on the one hand, a planet which quite simply ceases to have the conditions on which human life can exist, or on the other, a reliance on nuclear which – despite the danger – would at least give civilisation a fighting chance.
Lovelock’s disdain for ‘sustainable development’ is evident from the start, He equates the philosophy behind it with those who choose to ignore global warming: “the error they share is the belief that further development is possible and that the Earth will continue, more or less as now, for at least the first half of this century…. It is much too late for sustainable development; what we need is a sustainable retreat”. He powerfully decimates the claims of environmental groups who suggest that bio-fuel, wind farms, solar and tidal power would be able to provide enough energy. For him, such an attitude is calamitous: vast areas of woodland would be turned over to wind farms or intensive fuel-crop growing, thus further upsetting the natural balance that Gaia has been denied.
Is Lovelock right? The range of scientific opinion on global warming encompasses those, such as Lovelock, who are concerned that civilisation’s very existence is in imminent peril, to those who believe it all to be a prefabricated myth – although the latter, embodied by oil industry puppets and ignorant non-scientists such as the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips, are fast becoming an entirely discredited minority. However, Lovelock’s position is radical; his apocalyptic predictions for humanity’s future evoke sandwich-board-man ‘end of the world’ prophecies, albeit backed up by a lifetime’s worth of scientific study. Lovelock himself is in his eighties, and it occasionally shows; at one point he describes the competition amongst living cells as being “not unlike the behaviour of unruly, drunken mobs that gather in the city centres at night”, and his curmudgeonly opposition to wind farms rests at least partly on the facile grounds of aesthetics. Is he influenced by the knowledge that, at his age, he is unlikely to witness any of what he describes and hence can shock with impunity?
Whilst his controversial avocation of nuclear energy is one that this reviewer shares, some of the other angles that Lovelock explores seem half-baked and fanciful in the extreme: a stratospheric ‘shield’ to deflect some of the sun’s rays; the synthesisation of foodstuffs from basic elements; the re-introduction of sailing ships as a form of mass transportation. It says much of Lovelock’s meagre intellectual investment in these ideas that they are discussed briefly in the shortest chapter.
None of this takes away from the qualities of this short, sharp book. To describe it as a wake-up call would be misleading, as Lovelock as been predicting the human-led demise of Gaia for decades, and his frustration at the failure of the world’s leaders to take the matter seriously until very recently (if at all) comes across strongly. Ultimately, this is a deeply troubling work, and despite its subtitle it conveys a deep pessimism for the future of human civilisation. If only a fraction of Lovelock’s predictions comes true, then the 21st century will inevitably see a blinkered humanity finally overstep its planetary limitations.
posted by DN at 11:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home