James Lovelock says that
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.
That is an extreme view so why would anyone believe it? James Lovelock also warns us that we have to make radical changes quickly to the way we live if we are to avoid disaster.
The very words 'radical' and 'extreme' are inherently negative and make ridiculous anything to which they are applied. What if someone very clever and learned stands up and tells us the world is nigh, tomorrow - ha! we'd just label them cracky and sip on something moderate to reassure ourselves.
But then why should anyone believe mainstream opinion just because its moderate?
Well, on the one hand we have moderate environmental commentary from people like
George Manbiot,
Richard Black and
Jeremy Legget - on the other hand we have Dr Lovelock and
Dr Andrew Weaver (
video).
If we all believed Lovelock there'd surely be social chaos. But mainstream environmental views that are never extreme or radical, make me feel like im getting cooled down, spoon fed porridge.
Perhps this is because the vast majority of mainstream environmental commentary comes from scientists, reporters and commentators who all have careers. That means that they are all beholden to the positions they maintain and their own credibility, without which they surely wouldn't get to put their kids through private school.
We just dont get extreme or radical views and opinions in the mainstream - not from serious credible commentators.
What matters then, is that James Lovelock has never had to moderate his views for mainstream consumption because his living has never depended on it. (He abandoned the mainstream scientific community in the 1964 to work independently).
And from his own work came radical truths:
He was the one who told us that CFC gases were destroying our ozone layer. He proved it through invention and experimentation. He wasn't the only biochemist around, but he was
the only one who stood back far enough to see the big picture.
He was the one who told NASA in the late 60's that was no life on mars because the planets atmosphere was near equilibrium.
He awarned us to the effects of burning fossil fuels 20 years before anyone seriously talked about global warming. I dont think anyone can really deny that he was right on with that prediction, but back then, mainstream science thought he was a crackpot.
Winston Churchill had a pretty hard time convincing people that Germany was going to invade Poland before they eventually did in 1942. He had access to information that gave him special knowledge and vision, but there was no appetite for doom and gloom and they did not heed his warning.
James Lovelock says that nuclear is the only way we can save ourselves. This has obviously enraged the renewable energy industry and given lots of lazy climate change deniers a good excuse not to care about the planet. He thinks we simply dont have the ability to act quickly enough.
Many experts in renewable energy calculate that we could get 100% of our energy from renewable[green] sources[wind, solar, tidal etc.] by 2020. But what about NIMBY's and legislation and local planning regulators and local community objections to planning applications? These are surely the democratic constructs that would slow us down.
Assuming that we [humans] need to make some radical changes to overt catastrophe, the
main barrier is probably modern
democracy and
capitalism - neither of which allow for radical change on the scale necessary. During the second world war we put democracy on hold and let someone outspoken[Churchill] take charge to make the difficult decisions for our own survival.
I guess what we could do with is a pill that makes everyone desire windmills in their garden and immediately boycott fossil fuels - either that or another world war which would permit our leaders to take radical action and get away with telling us its for our own good in the long run.
