|
|
And Who Shall Save the Earth?
By Sanjay Suri |
"Solar
power and windmills are not a realistic way out. Nuclear energy
is the only real and practical solution, but there has been such
a hysterical reaction to it," says Lovelock, one of the most important
and controversial scientists of the century
LONDON
- And who shall save the Earth? If James Lovelock believes that
no one can for at least the next 50 years, then there is much to
worry about.
The
difficulty - you've heard this before - is global warming. As much
as global warming, the difficulty is ignorance about this phenomenon
that we've all heard of but seem to care dangerously little about.
"I
don't think that even the world of environmentalists is aware of
this danger enough," says James Lovelock, the environmental guru,
who at 80 is considered one of the most important and controversial
scientists of the century.
He
spoke with Tierramérica in London shortly after the release of his
long-awaited autobiography ''Homage to Gaia: Life of an Independent
Scientist."
Gaia?
"Gaia, or Nature, or whatever you want to call it," says Lovelock.
It was Nobel Prize winning author William Golding who used ''Gaia''
(a Greek goddess) to describe Lovelock's theory. In brief, the theory
describes Earth as a planet able to regulate itself so as always
to be fit for life - unless grossly intruded upon as it has been
by humans.
It
has been 35 years since that theory was launched, Lovelock reminds
us. "And it is generally accepted as a systems science, even if
many critics do not like the name 'Gaia theory'." For too long geologists
and biologists, for example, worked separately, each thinking they
were right. Only now are they working together, and within the framework
of Lovelock's theory.
The
man who led the invention of the microwave oven, who came up with
a device for detecting CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in the atmosphere,
is considered by many to be responsible for the green movement.
It
is not a movement he cares to claim. "Politically speaking I do
not consider the Greens necessarily necessary," says Lovelock. "They
don't have the political skills." It is the more usual politician,
"more intelligent that most people think, who can fight for the
environment."
Most
politicians around the world are aware of the problem of global
warming, says Lovelock. But political leaders have their own limitations
in failing to halt damage to the environment. And the destruction
this has caused will not easily be reversed.
"I
think of it as a car going down hill with the brakes failed," says
Lovelock. "All you can really do is to take the foot off the accelerator."
There
can be no doubt "that there is global warming and we are responsible
for it," he says.
No
Worse Than War
A telling
diagram from the International Panel on Climate Change has shown
that, of the past 1000 years, it is only over the last 150 that
the climate pattern has shown a sudden warming. "That's far larger
than anything over the previous 850 years." Today the damage caused
is so serious that "if we stop burning fossil fuel the warming will
still go on for another 50 years," Lovelock points out.
Seaside
dwellers, beware! One of the most damaging consequences to come
is flooding as the sea level rises. "London would have been seriously
flooded eight times by now if it were not for the Thames barrier,"
he says.
But
other areas, he says, may not get such protection. Flooding can
be particularly acute in Bangladesh. "You have a double problem
there," explains Lovelock. "The sea level is rising and as the sea
gets warmer there is more evaporation, and so more rainfall - which
brings more flooding."
Reforestation
will not necessarily do the job either, Lovelock believes. "Planting
trees will absorb quite a lot of carbon dioxide, but new research
shows that trees will absorb more sunlight and heat than the ground
they cover and that will only add to global warming."
Despite
it all, Lovelock does see a silver lining, if silver is what you
could call the less dark side of the picture he paints. "Global
warming will cause a crisis, but not necessarily a fatal crisis,"
he says. "It may be no worse than famine and wars and other disasters;
it is something people will just have to live through."
One
of the chief causes of climate change is coal burning, Lovelock
says. "And there's an awful lot of coal around," he says. "If there
is any increase in the use of coal the problem will just get worse
and worse."
Thus
the environmentalist-scientist continues to be emphatic in promoting
nuclear power as a source of energy. "The French have been very
wise to get all their power from nuclear sources," he says. "No
doubt nuclear plants carry a risk, but there is no power system
that is not risky," he says.
"You
have big dams which burst every so often but you don't say we won't
use hydroelectricity because a dam might burst. Solar power and
windmills are not a realistic way out. Nuclear power is the only
real practical solution but there has been such a hysterical reaction
to it," he says.
The
great guru did not fail to provide this interview with one of his
famed contradictions: It is the coal-burning East that is damaging
the Earth more than nuclear France, he says. But it is in the East
that people are in touch with the Earth more than Westerners, "who
want to treat it as though it were some big garden." The East needs
to spread their message to the West, where children are growing
up in cities but not with Earth. East or West, however, not enough
people are listening.
|
