Monday, January 16, 2006
Apocalypse soon: the revenge of Gaia
Just when you think that we've reached the bottom of the trough of pessimism, along comes James Lovelock. He's about to have his new book "The revenge of Gaia" published, and today's Independent fairly revels in the chance to give him a pulpit. In Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment by Michael McCarthy, we have a front-page spread on how we have already passed the point of no return. For those readers who feel strong enough, Lovelock himself preaches his gospel of hopelessness in The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever which may last as long as 100,000 years.
For example, the good professor says:
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.
and follows with:
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.
This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.
So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.
I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.
Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.
For example, the good professor says:
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.
and follows with:
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.
This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.
So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.
I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.
Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Good plants/bad plants
In a paper published in Nature, scientists in Germany have reported the apparantly surprising finding that plants produce methane even when there is plenty of oxygen present, not just when they decay (see Plants revealed as methane source on the BBC website). According to this:
On the other hand, this shows how easy it is to think we understand what's going on. If a significant percentage of atmospheric methane is a product of normal plant growth, that makes the centrally planned dictates of the Kyoto protocol an even blunter instrument than we all thought.
Fortunately, the article ends on a note of reason:
How true.
The possible implications are set out in Nature by David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who writes: "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide."
If this turned out to be true, it would have major implications for the rules of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which allows countries and companies to offset emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil by funding the planting of new forests or the restoration of deforested areas.
On the other hand, this shows how easy it is to think we understand what's going on. If a significant percentage of atmospheric methane is a product of normal plant growth, that makes the centrally planned dictates of the Kyoto protocol an even blunter instrument than we all thought.
Fortunately, the article ends on a note of reason:
In fact, of course, trees are neither good nor bad. They are just there, and if they are producing methane now they always have been in natural conditions.
The study highlights, however, the extreme complexity of the relationship between the biological processes of the Earth and the chemistry of our atmosphere - and how much there is yet to discover.How true.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The Soil Association: 60 years old and still a minority interest
The Soil Association, the leading band of organic foodies in the UK, has just held its 60th anniversary conference. This has gone largely unnoticed by the general public, apart possibly from the fact that David Cameron spoke at their dinner. Since the Tory new boy is eager to prove his environmentalist credentials, this should come as no surprise.
What surprised me, however, was the fact that Caroline Lucas, the UK's single Green Party MEP, made a comment about Cameron's speech which, I have to admit, I agreed with:
Mr Cameron made a warm speech almost entirely devoid of content, according to Dr Lucas.
However, she restored my faith in her by herself making a very silly speech the next day (see Feeding our cities in the 21st century). It seems to surprise her that very little farming goes on in cities, and that large quantities of food need to be brought in on a daily basis. In fact, she seems to regard the very nature of cities to be "unsustainable" (whatever that means). According to her sources, the EU's "environmental footprint" is twice as large as its global carrying capacity. This arrant nonsense is based on dubious calculations designed to "prove" (all very Marxist, this) that we are living beyond our means, when all visible indications show this is clearly not the case.
Her solution is to encourage consumption of locally-produced food, organic of course. The "encouragement" would include public procurement rules which effectively mandate it. But the end result would be a vast cut in food miles and a blissfully happy and healthy society. Apart that is, from the farmers, both in Europe and developing countries, who make a living by selling urban dwellers food they can't grow themselves because they are working in other sectors and don't want to turn their flowerbeds over to potatoes. Oh, and perhaps the general public who appreciate a choice of good quality, affordable food. Still, if it makes the Soil Association happy...
What surprised me, however, was the fact that Caroline Lucas, the UK's single Green Party MEP, made a comment about Cameron's speech which, I have to admit, I agreed with:
Mr Cameron made a warm speech almost entirely devoid of content, according to Dr Lucas.
However, she restored my faith in her by herself making a very silly speech the next day (see Feeding our cities in the 21st century). It seems to surprise her that very little farming goes on in cities, and that large quantities of food need to be brought in on a daily basis. In fact, she seems to regard the very nature of cities to be "unsustainable" (whatever that means). According to her sources, the EU's "environmental footprint" is twice as large as its global carrying capacity. This arrant nonsense is based on dubious calculations designed to "prove" (all very Marxist, this) that we are living beyond our means, when all visible indications show this is clearly not the case.
Her solution is to encourage consumption of locally-produced food, organic of course. The "encouragement" would include public procurement rules which effectively mandate it. But the end result would be a vast cut in food miles and a blissfully happy and healthy society. Apart that is, from the farmers, both in Europe and developing countries, who make a living by selling urban dwellers food they can't grow themselves because they are working in other sectors and don't want to turn their flowerbeds over to potatoes. Oh, and perhaps the general public who appreciate a choice of good quality, affordable food. Still, if it makes the Soil Association happy...
