Planning for 'Sustainable Retreat'
Controversial scientist James Lovelock is convinced that current conceptions of "sustainable development" are hopelessly wrongheaded. We're facing a climate catastrophe, he believes, and only radical solutions will be up to the challenge.
"Here, in its oversimplified essence, is Lovelock's doomsday scenario: Rising heat means more ice melting at the poles, which means more open water and land. That, in turn, increases the heat (ice reflects sunlight; open land and water absorb it), causing more ice to melt. The seas rise. More heat leads to more intense rainfall in some places, droughts in others. The Amazon rain forests and the great northern boreal forests --the belt of pine and spruce that covers Alaska, Canada and Siberia --undergo a growth spurt, then wither away. The permafrost in northern latitudes thaws, releasing methane, a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more potent than CO2 -- and on and on it goes.
In a functioning Gaian world, these positive feedbacks would be modulated by negative feedbacks, the largest of which is the Earth's ability to radiate heat into space. But at a certain point, the regulatory system breaks down and the planet's climate makes the jump -- as it has many times in the past -- to a new, hotter state. Not the end of the world, but certainly the end of the world as we know it.
In Lovelock's view, modest cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions won't help us -- it's too late to stop global warming by swapping our SUVs for hybrids. What about capturing carbon-dioxide pollution from coal plants and pumping it underground? "We can't possibly bury enough to make any difference." Biofuels? "A monumentally stupid idea." Renewables? "Nice, but won't make a dent." To Lovelock, the whole idea of sustainable development is wrongheaded: "We should be thinking about sustainable retreat."
Retreat, in his view, means it's time to start talking about changing where we live and how we get our food; about making plans for the migration of millions of people from low-lying regions like Bangladesh into Europe; about admitting that New Orleans is a goner and moving the people to cities better positioned for the future.
For water, the answer is pretty straightforward: desalination plants, which can turn ocean water into drinking water. Food supply is tougher: Heat and drought will devastate many of today's food-growing regions. It will also push people north, where they will cluster in cities. In these areas, there will be no room for backyard gardens. As a result, Lovelock believes, we will have to synthesize food -- to grow it in vats from tissue cultures of meats and vegetables. It sounds far out and deeply unappetizing, but from a technological standpoint, it wouldn't be hard to do.
As a last resort, to keep the planet even marginally habitable, Lovelock believes that humans may be forced to manipulate the Earth's climate by erecting solar shades in space or building devices to strip huge quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Ice Melts Open Shipping Passages - Sep 01, 2008
Treechitecture - Aug 26, 2008
Ending Our Love Affair with SUV Burgers - Aug 06, 2008
Do Sustainable Buildings Need to Be Ugly? - Jul 14, 2008
Green Report Card Rates Countries, Highlights Shortcomings - Jul 02, 2008


Wishful thinking
Contrary to some of the comments above, the science is not "settled." The earth has been much hotter (and colder) in the past, long before we showed up. There are a number of non-anthropogenic theories regarding climate change; we need to let those work themselves out before we trash our entire economy for what are likely to be negligible gains.
The fact is, there is no way to "stabilize" climate, which is what the enviro-nuts seem to be advocating. It changes constantly, along with the rest of the planet. Even the continents are moving, people! You have a plan to stop that? No, the best way to deal with whatever is happening, is to figure out ways to adapt ourselves to it, not the other way around. It's what we've always done.
Wishful denial.
The red herrings don't work here to distract away from the fact that the entire planet - except for the population of a small-minority ideology - understands that man-made climate change is real.
That is why the entire planet - except for the population of a small-minority dead-ender ideology - is now discussing what to do. Welcome to the planet, sir.
Best,
D
Doom and Gloom
Lovelock paints a nasty picture of the future but it shouldn't surprise anyone. The global warming movement gets more and more shrill to get attention. They pick various years as the point of no return so most people will think man-made climate change is irreversible so why bother trying anything to counteract the inevitable.
It is interesting to compare fears of global warming to fears of nuclear power/nuclear war. The public was terrified and a lot of people went to extremes of predicting the end of world a la Dr. Strangelove and the U.S. gave up building nuclear plants. The USSR collapsed without mushroom clouds popping up and now there's a bigger threat and people are reconsidering nuclear power as a sensible alternative. The point is even the experts couldn't predict how future events can drastically change points of view.
It's not a doomer.
The global warming movement gets more and more shrill to get attention.
One ideology's 'doom and gloom' is another's call for awareness. But some folks decry the failing tactics of the environmental movement and argue for a different approach.
Anyway, please, let us avoid Gore Derangement Syndrome-type argumentation.
Best,
D
Read the article
It's pretty clear you didn't read the article just my comment since you went off on a tangent.
Neither link on your reply addresses Lovelock's arguments or my comments. You brought up Gore, I didn't. I could hardly be accused of Gore-derangement syndrome (a rip-off of Bush-derangement syndrome) since I never mentioned him and Lovelock agrees with Gore but thinks it's too little, too late. It's pretty clear Lovelock is predicting the deaths of billions of people so if you don't call that doom and gloom, I don't what will.
"One ideology's 'doom and gloom' is another's call for awareness."
Who isn't aware of the global warming issue? Did you know Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his movie? How exactly do you propose to "raise awareness" when global warming that gets plenty of airtime on TV?
The key issues are can the major industrial and post-industrial take collective action on global? Hasn't happened so far. One nation's pollution is another's economic development.
Secondly, how exactly can man change the global climate?
Posting links on political posturing or PR campaigns won't do much.
Articles of Faith.
It's pretty clear you didn't read the article just my comment since you went off on a tangent.
I read the article thanks. Focus on my italicization, which sets my theme to address your comments. The first link supported my statement that some think the "shrillness" you decry should be reframed, and has many articles focusing on the debate about "doom and gloom" as the message.
The second link's thesis was that the reason why folks don't like the Algore is because his framing worked, and society is finally becoming aware that action is required (some in a certain small-minority ideology, not too long ago, might have called this message "doom and gloom" and the persons spreading this message were called "doomers" or, circa 2001-2002 I believe "chicken littles" was the talking point, and 2005-2006 the talking point was "alarmists" and in 2004 the talking point was "the science isn't settled"...you get my drift).
The societal movement starting to occur is because of the positive publicity around AIT; this societal movement causes certain ideologies to react with the marginalization phrases echoing about - albeit somewhat unfocused - in your initial comment.
Lastly, man can change the global climate by altering landcover to change albedo, increasing CO2 emissions, increasing SO2 emissions, altering the N cycle by overfertilization, deforestation, grazing on marginal land to cause desertification, etc. These all are well-documented.
HTH.
Best,
D
The debate is over (for this thread)
Repackaging environmentalist ideology isn't going to convert enough people to do much good. There are some economic and political obstacles which aren't easily overcome by altering the "tone" of the message.
Interestingly, you didn't explain how we were going to "raise awareness" beyond the present endless stream of media coverage and a movie on the issue. Since you claimed to have read the article in question, you may have noticed Lovelock thought humanity is still largely tribal (care about self or those close to you) and I said collective action by nation-states on climate control (and many other issues) probably won't happen.
"The second link's thesis was that the reason why folks don't like the Algore is because his framing worked"
Not exactly. Gore was a political figure most of his life long before he became an environmental figure. Like all politicians, he made a few enemies along the way.
"the persons spreading this message were called "doomers" or, circa 2001-2002 I believe "chicken littles" was the talking point, and 2005-2006 the talking point was "alarmists" and in 2004 the talking point was "the science isn't settled"...you get my drift)"
Actually, your time line is off by about a decade. The Rio Summit was in 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit. Of course, there's the new "talking points" on the other side about the "the debate is over" and "concensus of scientists".
"The societal movement starting to occur is because of the positive publicity around AIT"
There was a movement before AIT came out in 2006. At least twice as many people saw "The Shaggy Dog" or "Posideon" that year so it makes me wonder if mostly true believers saw the movie and few converts were made.
"Lastly, man can change the global climate by altering landcover to change albedo, increasing CO2 emissions, increasing SO2 emissions, altering the N cycle by overfertilization, deforestation, grazing on marginal land to cause desertification, etc. These all are well-documented."
The list you mentioned are usually externalities associated with development. Merely, going in reverse sounds simple but it's easier to cut down a forest than to plant one and protect it for years. Also, most of the emissions from coal, for example, took place over a 100 years (coal is still king in China). Will it take 100 years to clean it up? Could all the nations band together to combat global warming over political and economic self-interests?
Societal debate over too.
Yes, the debate's over.
The ship has sailed and society is no longer debating man-made climate change, as everyone except a small minority has moved on to discussing how to take action.
It appears some have been left behind on the dock. Hard to tell, as the dock is so small - the ship having sailed for some time now.
Best,
D