FW: Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

[Guest guest]

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

 

Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth

possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit

for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now,

he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work

against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already

insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

 

By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor

 

Published: 16 January 2006

 

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and

civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James

Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the

Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

 

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent

Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot

succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

 

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster

timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " 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."

 

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of

comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going

out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of

looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of

what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the

self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other

scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System -

which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

 

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the

past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise

would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being

caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge

emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

 

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living

planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words,

likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

 

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in

a new book with that title, to be published next month.

 

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than

reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into

climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at

individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably

are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth

behaves when put under stress.

 

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while

examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been

warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first

began nearly 20 years ago.

 

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on

global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April

1989.

 

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming

climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at

the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now

melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

 

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The

Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing

opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of

conventional power stations.

 

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear

power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement

roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

 

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than

calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on

governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for

surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell

of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

 

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible

European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to

prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

 

And in today's Independent he writes: "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 [CO2] emissions.

The worst will happen ..."

 

He goes on: "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." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure

energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the

expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society

may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led

by brutal warlords."

 

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in

particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being

held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the

atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the

product of the world's industry.

 

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is

known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global

temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn,

the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the

global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

 

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for

global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling

to exist after a total societal collapse.

 

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting

print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of

humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won

only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the

fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

 

 

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

 

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of

industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the

greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark

over the very habitability of the Earth.

 

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may

become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor

and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising

sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries

such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are

mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity

of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban

infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events,

such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

 

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported

by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report,

in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up

to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to

be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than

anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be

shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is

controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think

again.

 

'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2

February, price £16.99

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

 

James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as

long as 100,000 years

 

Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation

for as long as they can

 

Published: 16 January 2006

 

Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfilment of her vocation;

then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had

been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young physician

newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an

aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many

accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it

 

Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened

to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the awesome

responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some

comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police

have no escape from their duty.

 

This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons.

My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly

anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a

planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have

to bring bad news.

 

The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the

pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical condition,

and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a

morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. 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.

 

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal

does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was

ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for

comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a

state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more

than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as

the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in

temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

 

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no

longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth's

surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

 

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global

warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This "global dimming" is

transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is,

leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. 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.

 

By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we

have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in

charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If

we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for

keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A

task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so

badly, she had freely done for us.

 

To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your

own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys

know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein

intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for

living healthy kidneys.

 

My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may

ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth. I

think it is because Darwin's vision was so good and clear that it has taken

until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of

the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him

to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.

 

Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled,

Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but

the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if

it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth's

skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of products to

feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that

those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living

Earth.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and

we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent

on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular

supplies of food and fuel from overseas.

 

We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War,

but 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.

 

Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do.

Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human

civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease

we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of

the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know

her place in the universe.

 

We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. 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. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part

of it, and it is indeed our home.

 

The writer is an independent environmental scientist and Fellow of the Royal

Society. 'The Revenge of Gaia' is published by Penguin on 2 February

 

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece

 

Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment

 

By Michael McCarthy

 

Published: 16 January 2006

 

 

With anyone else, you would not really take it seriously: the proposition

that because of climate change, human society as we know it on this planet

may already be condemned, whatever we do. It would seem not just radical,

but outlandish, mere hyperbole. And we react against it instinctively: it

seems simply too sombre to be countenanced.

 

But James Lovelock, the celebrated environmental scientist, has a unique

perspective on the fate of the Earth. Thirty years ago he conceived the idea

that the planet was special in a way no one had ever considered before: that

it regulated itself, chemically and atmospherically, to keep itself fit for

life, as if it were a great super-organism; as if, in fact, it were alive.

 

The complex mechanism he put forward for this might have remained in the

pages of arcane geophysical journals had he continued to refer to it as "the

biocybernetic universal system tendency".

 

But his neighbour in the village of Bowerchalke, Wiltshire, the Nobel

Prize-winning novelist William Golding (who wroteLord of The Flies),

suggested he christen it after the Greek goddess of the Earth; and Gaia was

born.

 

Gaia has made Professor Lovelock world famous, but at first his fame was in

an entirely unexpected quarter. Research scientists, who were his original

target audience, virtually ignored his theory.

 

To his surprise, it was the burgeoning New Age and environmental movements

who took it up - the generation who had just seen the first pictures of the

Earth taken by the Apollo astronauts, the shimmering pastel-blue sphere

hanging in infinite black space, fragile and vulnerable, but our only home.

They seized on his metaphor of a reinvented Mother Earth, who needed to be

revered and respected - or else.

 

It has been only gradually that the scientific establishment has become

convinced of the essential truth of the theory, that the Earth possesses a

planetary control system, founded on the interaction of living organisms

with their environment, which has operated for billions of years to allow

life to exist, by regulating the temperature, the chemical composition of

the atmosphere, even the salinity of the seas.

 

But accepted it is, and now (under the term Earth System Science) it has

been subsumed into the scientific mainstream; two years ago, for example,

Nature, the world's premier scientific journal, gave Professor Lovelock two

pages to sum up recent developments in it.

 

Yet now too, by a savage irony, it is Gaia that lies behind his profound

pessimism about how climate change will affect us all. For the planetary

control system, he believes, which has always worked in our favour, will now

work against us. It has been made up of a host of positive feedback

mechanisms; now, as the temperature starts to rise abnormally because of

human activity, these will turn harmful in their effect, and put the

situation beyond our control.

 

To give just a single example out of very many: the ice of the Arctic Ocean

is now melting so fast it is likely to be gone in a few decades at most.

Concerns are already acute about, for example, what that will mean for polar

bears, who need the ice to live and hunt.

 

But there is more. For when the ice has vanished, there will be a dark ocean

that absorbs the sun's heat, instead of an icy surface that reflects 90 per

cent of it back into space; and so the planet will get even hotter still.

 

Professor Lovelock visualises it all in the title of his new book, The

Revenge of Gaia. Now 86, but looking and sounding 20 years younger, he is by

nature an optimistic man with a ready grin, and it felt somewhat unreal to

talk calmly to him in his Cornish mill house last week, with a coffee cup to

hand and birds on the feeder outside the study window, about such a dark

future. You had to pinch yourself.

 

He too saw the strangeness of it. "I'm usually a cheerful sod, so I'm not

happy about writing doom books," he said. "But I don't see any easy way out.

 

His predictions are simply based on the inevitable nature of the Gaian

system.

 

"If on Mars, which is a dead planet, you doubled the CO2, you could predict

accurately what the temperature would rise to," he said.

 

"On the Earth, you can't do it, because the biota [the ensemble of life

forms] reacts. As soon as you pump up the temperature, everything changes.

And at the moment the system is amplifying change. "So our problem is that

anything we do, like increasing the carbon dioxide, mucking about with the

land, destroying forests, farming too much, things like that - they don't

just produce a linear increase in temperature, they produce an amplified

increase in temperature.

 

"And it's worse than that. Because as you approach one of the tipping points

the thresholds, the extent of amplification rapidly increases and tends

towards infinity.

 

"The analogy I use is, it's as if we were in a pleasure boat above the

Niagara Falls. You're all right as long as the engines are going, and you

can get out of it. But if the engines fail, you're drawn towards the edge

faster and faster, and there's no hope of getting back once you've gone over

- then you're going down.

 

"And the uprise is just like that, the steep jump of temperature on Earth.

It is exactly like the drop in the Falls."

 

Professor Lovelock's unique viewpoint is that he is just not looking at this

or that aspect of the Earth's climate, as are other scientists; he is

looking at the whole planet in terms of a different discipline, control

theory.

 

"Most scientists are not trained in control theory. They follow Descartes,

and they think that everything can be explained if you take it down to its

atoms, and then build it up again.

 

"Control theory looks at it in a very different way. You look at whole

systems and how do they work. Gaia is very much about control theory. And

that's why I spot all these positive feedbacks."

 

I asked him how he would sum up the message of his new book. He said simply:

"It's a wake-up call.''

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338879.ece