Lovelock: Possibly 1000 years before climate change kicks in

[Andy Hunt]

- 2

You're never alone with schizophrenia.

[stumuzz]

I'm in two minds about that.

[Andy Hunt]

It's not uncommon - two in every one people apparently.

[2 As and a B]

From the conclusion...

That's why I always come back to the safest thing to do being adaptation. For example, we've got to have good supplies of food. I would be very pleased to see this country and Europe seriously thinking about synthesising food.

So there you have it. The application of science will solve everything. Seems like he is stuck in the bigger, faster, stronger, quicker technocrat mentality.

Aside: The other week I was following, by TC and PC, a remote IT presentation in which all the wonderful things that people already do face-to-face could be automated so that they could do them faster, with more people at the same time, and with people on other continents - for example, web-enabled mobiles and an electronic whiteboard connected to the intraweb - and I was thinking NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not the sort of world I want to live in. I just wished I could get out in my garden and dig it over a bit rather than sit through this presentation of how to neuter humanity.

On predicting the future: I think Schumacher had it about right in the "A Machine to Foretell the Future" chapter of Small is Beautiful with his clarification of semantics using the Act(active)/Event(passive) vs. Future/Past vs. Certain/Uncertain grid. Climate change is in the future, it is uncertain, and is an event but might be influenced by actions taken now. However, as Schumacher often makes the point, why indulge in complex modelling and computing when the application of common sense and the use of the back of an envelope will suffice? CO2 is a greenhouse gas (retains heat in the atmosphere), it is increasing in concentration (as measured); the atmosphere is warming (as observed by reduced ice). How quickly this process will move, and when effects (whatever they might be) will be felt are not as important as accepting that the process is in train and effects will be felt. So best prepare for the worst (to us) of them.

Of course, vested interests and those in denial at the thought of change to the current society will obfuscate and try to obstruct, which is why 'government', controlled as it is by business, including those with said vested interests, will do too little, too late. Hence, the Transition movement.

[JohnB]

On predicting the future: I think Schumacher had it about right in the "A Machine to Foretell the Future" chapter of Small is Beautiful with his clarification of semantics using the Act(active)/Event(passive) vs. Future/Past vs. Certain/Uncertain grid. Climate change is in the future, it is uncertain, and is an event but might be influenced by actions taken now. However, as Schumacher often makes the point, why indulge in complex modelling and computing when the application of common sense and the use of the back of an envelope will suffice? CO2 is a greenhouse gas (retains heat in the atmosphere), it is increasing in concentration (as measured); the atmosphere is warming (as observed by reduced ice). How quickly this process will move, and when effects (whatever they might be) will be felt are not as important as accepting that the process is in train and effects will be felt. So best prepare for the worst (to us) of them.

Of course, vested interests and those in denial at the thought of change to the current society will obfuscate and try to obstruct, which is why 'government', controlled as it is by business, including those with said vested interests, will do too little, too late. Hence, the Transition movement.

+10, to help compensate for schizophrenic PowerSwitchers

[Andy Hunt]

/0

just to put the tin hat on it.

[biffvernon]

Chris Huntigford has a useful contribution on Lovelock in the grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... -pessimism

[2 As and a B]

Lovelock argues that we ought to suspend democracy in order to fix climate change. This raises several questions.

What would he put in it's place?
Why would that system be more suited to fixing climate change?
Who would then be in charge of fixing it?
How would climate change be fixed?
When would democracy return?

and, most importantly,

Where's my cup of tea?

No, seriously, the key question is

What does he mean by 'democracy'?

Could a true democracy - government of the people by the people for the people - fix climate change? Well, only, I feel, if the people are educated in the matter of climate science and are informed by an honest, impartial media of the likely consequences of action/inaction. And only if the vested interests of business are muzzled; aren't allowed to buy influence; are made by the impartial media to justify their assertions - as also would be those who make the case for man-made climate change.

I suspect that Loveluck's preferred replacement for suspended democracy would be a technocracy. An arrogant, soulless way to cover even more of the planet in monoculture and make the future even more unsustainable.

[RevdTess]

- 2

You're getting shiny new nukes in Anglesey! Eventually. Maybe.

[Johnson02]

I find it "interesting" that it only takes one minor error in the pro argument to get the deniers going, but there must be huge amounts of inaccurate "facts" in the deniers arguments that never get queried.

[Little John]

The only thing I can see consistent in the GW camp is that it's allegedly urgent to shut down modern industrial civilisation.

Are you saying that this is a bad thing? The sooner it gets shut down and the future industrial civilisation comes along the better as far as I am concerned.

Have you not been listening?

Without industrial civilisation a lot of people are going to die.

There isn't a shut down and reboot option. It's a transition option or else a dieoff.

A disorderly retreat from industrial civilisation will result in a lot of people dying. Conversely, a disorderly or orderly advancement of industrial civilisation will result in a lot of people dying. Therefore, the only logical option available to us is to arrange for an orderly retreat. However, if both human history and current indications are anything to go by, we are going to go the way of virtually every previous human civilisation. Except, this time, the collapse will be at the planetary level.

Frankly, in the absence of a viable plan of retreat being centrally imposed, for the majority of humanity there really is bugger-all they can do to prepare adequately. So, for a lot of folks, partying like there is no tomorrow makes as much personal sense as any other "strategy".

[RenewableCandy]

...especially for someone already in their dotage, like Lovelock is.

It strikes me that Nuclear is an Old Man's game and this in fact makes perfect evolutionary sense: they have the least to lose from a thing that damages slowly (as radiation does) and might harm your sex-cells (which females need to look after for life, but which are made afresh in males over and over again). Please don't take offence anyone, I'm just being "pragmatic" here.

To add to all that, nuclear is being presented as a "keep the lights on" guardian, and the very-elderly have, in general, more to lose from a power cut than do those of us who are still in reasonably good health.

The first one of these points came up in Japan, with the retired nuclear power engineers who volunteered to help with the fukushima shutdown/clean-up, on the grounds that they knew the plant and had less to lose than their younger colleagues. If you ask me, they are utter heroes.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, Lovelock is losing the plot due to old age. He comes out with increasingly questionable things these days. Gaia's Revenge was still worth reading though.

[biffvernon]

This thread was also old age - until a troll resurrected it.