What do you think?
Rate this book
The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
Celebrities drive hybrids, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, and supermarkets carry no end of so-called “green” products. And yet the environmental crisis is only getting worse. In The Vanishing Face of Gaia , the eminent scientist James Lovelock argues that the earth is lurching ever closer to a permanent “hot state” – and much more quickly than most specialists think. There is nothing humans can do to reverse the process; the planet is simply too overpopulated to halt its own destruction by greenhouse gases. In order to survive, mankind must start preparing now for life on a radically changed planet. The meliorist approach outlined in the Kyoto Treaty must be abandoned in favor of nuclear energy and aggressive agricultural development on the small areas of earth that will remain arable. A reluctant jeremiad from one of the environmental movement’s elder statesmen, The Vanishing Face of Gaia offers an essential wake-up call for the human race.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
81 people are currently reading
1087 people want to read
About the author
James E. Lovelock
29 books311 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
January 29, 2010
James Lovelock writes very scary books. Since the 1960’s, he has been warning that we are abusing the planet and that we do so at our peril. Now, at the age of 90, this British scientist has written what is likely to be his last book, with ominous sub-title of “A Final Warning”.
Lovelock believes that our current population of nearly seven billion is completely unsustainable, and that we are about to see a catastrophic plunge in our numbers, likely to something under one billion. In fact, he says that he thinks the long-term stable population level may be on the order of just 100 million. This is about as profoundly pessimistic a vision as I have heard of from any environmental writer. It’s Malthus on steroids. But, it is the viewpoint of a scientist who has been studying the question for many decades.
Lovelock’s name and reputation will be forever linked to the Gaia hypothesis. In brief, he thinks of the planet as alive. This was considered a radical notion in the 1960’s, and depending on how it is stated, might still be considered radical today. In reality, I think he is really stating that the Earth is a living system, where both geo-chemical and biological processes interact to create the environment that regulates itself to make life possible. Since life has existed on the planet for three billion years, the Gaia theory seems very likely true. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t likely be here. And as for the interaction of biological and geo-chemical processes, the evidence of climate change shows many examples of how it works. A dramatic example: when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and put hundreds of tons of sunlight-blocking particulates in the air, the climate cooled for years afterwards, with significant effects on many species and ecosystems.
From this model of how Earth works, Lovelock proceeds to the observation that carbon levels in the atmosphere are rising rapidly and inexorably, and that there is no evidence that the many peoples of this planet have the emotional desire or political will to do anything about it in time to prevent disaster. Result: the planet warms by several degrees centigrade, the oceans acidify, the waters rise, the land dries out, a large proportion of species vanish forever, crop failures become widespread, and humans die in droves. He does not see this scenario as inevitable, but highly likely. Pretty bleak stuff.
Not only does he see dramatic global heating as likely, he also thinks it will come upon us much more suddenly than the IPCC models predict. Climate, he says, is subject to tipping point events that cause dramatic swings in temperature in a short period of time. We don’t know what those tipping points are, but the evidence strongly points to their existence. It could be a sudden change such as a die-off in ocean plankton, a major change in ocean currents, the rapid melting of Arctic permafrost, or any of a number of other hard-to-predict events. Climate follows a fickle and decidedly non-linear pattern. A classic example is the effect of the melting of the Arctic icecap: today, the highly reflective (high albedo) surface of the ice serves to reflect most solar energy back into space; but as the planet warms and the ice changes to seawater, its darker (low albedo) surface mostly absorbs that solar thermal energy, acting therefore as a de-stabilizing positive feedback loop that causes an even more rapid rise in global temperature. Already, the 2007 climate forecasts of the IPCC are looking too rosy, with rates of sea ice melting, glacier retreat, and seawater temperature rise all increasing faster than predicted. It seems we may be moving quickly to a new steady-state climate equilibrium, but at a much hotter temperature than today. How hot? Lovelock says the range of outcomes is large, but could be five to nine degrees centigrade warmer. Either end of this range would be disastrous.
How do we avoid this disaster? There are a few possibilities, but the two that he highlights are:
• Mass adoption of nuclear energy
• Planetary scale geo-engineering (to block sunlight, increase carbon dioxide sinking and so on)
The other choice, assuming Lovelock’s dire scenario is right, is for us to move to those places on Earth that will be least affected by global heating. These include high latitude islands such as the British Isles, New Zealand, Tasmania, Japan – as long as they’re not flooded. They also include northern locations such as Canada, Scandinavia, Siberia and Alaska. Lastly, you can head for the mountains, as long as they’re high enough to stay cool and moist. None of this bodes very well for the most densely populated parts of the planet, such as India, China, Bangladesh, Africa and much of Europe. I think this says that the already grim real estate market in Florida -- a hot and low-lying state -- is looking like a worse and worse investment.
Is Lovelock right? I don’t know, but the worrisome thing is that his thesis is plausible. I hope his vision of the future is a worst case scenario, but sometimes worst case scenarios actually materialize. So, start preparing for the possibility of a hotter and drier world – and hope that the technology to save us moves faster than the technology that may destroy us.
Lovelock believes that our current population of nearly seven billion is completely unsustainable, and that we are about to see a catastrophic plunge in our numbers, likely to something under one billion. In fact, he says that he thinks the long-term stable population level may be on the order of just 100 million. This is about as profoundly pessimistic a vision as I have heard of from any environmental writer. It’s Malthus on steroids. But, it is the viewpoint of a scientist who has been studying the question for many decades.
Lovelock’s name and reputation will be forever linked to the Gaia hypothesis. In brief, he thinks of the planet as alive. This was considered a radical notion in the 1960’s, and depending on how it is stated, might still be considered radical today. In reality, I think he is really stating that the Earth is a living system, where both geo-chemical and biological processes interact to create the environment that regulates itself to make life possible. Since life has existed on the planet for three billion years, the Gaia theory seems very likely true. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t likely be here. And as for the interaction of biological and geo-chemical processes, the evidence of climate change shows many examples of how it works. A dramatic example: when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and put hundreds of tons of sunlight-blocking particulates in the air, the climate cooled for years afterwards, with significant effects on many species and ecosystems.
From this model of how Earth works, Lovelock proceeds to the observation that carbon levels in the atmosphere are rising rapidly and inexorably, and that there is no evidence that the many peoples of this planet have the emotional desire or political will to do anything about it in time to prevent disaster. Result: the planet warms by several degrees centigrade, the oceans acidify, the waters rise, the land dries out, a large proportion of species vanish forever, crop failures become widespread, and humans die in droves. He does not see this scenario as inevitable, but highly likely. Pretty bleak stuff.
Not only does he see dramatic global heating as likely, he also thinks it will come upon us much more suddenly than the IPCC models predict. Climate, he says, is subject to tipping point events that cause dramatic swings in temperature in a short period of time. We don’t know what those tipping points are, but the evidence strongly points to their existence. It could be a sudden change such as a die-off in ocean plankton, a major change in ocean currents, the rapid melting of Arctic permafrost, or any of a number of other hard-to-predict events. Climate follows a fickle and decidedly non-linear pattern. A classic example is the effect of the melting of the Arctic icecap: today, the highly reflective (high albedo) surface of the ice serves to reflect most solar energy back into space; but as the planet warms and the ice changes to seawater, its darker (low albedo) surface mostly absorbs that solar thermal energy, acting therefore as a de-stabilizing positive feedback loop that causes an even more rapid rise in global temperature. Already, the 2007 climate forecasts of the IPCC are looking too rosy, with rates of sea ice melting, glacier retreat, and seawater temperature rise all increasing faster than predicted. It seems we may be moving quickly to a new steady-state climate equilibrium, but at a much hotter temperature than today. How hot? Lovelock says the range of outcomes is large, but could be five to nine degrees centigrade warmer. Either end of this range would be disastrous.
How do we avoid this disaster? There are a few possibilities, but the two that he highlights are:
• Mass adoption of nuclear energy
• Planetary scale geo-engineering (to block sunlight, increase carbon dioxide sinking and so on)
The other choice, assuming Lovelock’s dire scenario is right, is for us to move to those places on Earth that will be least affected by global heating. These include high latitude islands such as the British Isles, New Zealand, Tasmania, Japan – as long as they’re not flooded. They also include northern locations such as Canada, Scandinavia, Siberia and Alaska. Lastly, you can head for the mountains, as long as they’re high enough to stay cool and moist. None of this bodes very well for the most densely populated parts of the planet, such as India, China, Bangladesh, Africa and much of Europe. I think this says that the already grim real estate market in Florida -- a hot and low-lying state -- is looking like a worse and worse investment.
Is Lovelock right? I don’t know, but the worrisome thing is that his thesis is plausible. I hope his vision of the future is a worst case scenario, but sometimes worst case scenarios actually materialize. So, start preparing for the possibility of a hotter and drier world – and hope that the technology to save us moves faster than the technology that may destroy us.
July 13, 2012
الكاتب عالم قدير وباحث سابق بناسا والكتاب ترجمته جيدة وموضوعه العلمي غني ومهم، أنصح بقراءة الكتاب، ينتقد الكاتب سياسة الحكومات في وضع خططها لمواجهة الاحترار العالمي لعدة عقود إلى الأمام بناء على نماذج (آي بي بي سي) وهي منظمة حكومية، ورغم كفاءة هذه الجهة العلمية فإن المعطيات اثبتت أن الاحترار العالمي يزداد بشكل يفوق أكثر السيناريوهات الموضوعة سوءا، وأن السياسة المعتمدة حاليا على وسائل الطاقة المتجدد كالرياح والطاقة الشمسية لن تفيد في تجنب الكارثة القادمة
ويصر الكاتب على خيار الطاقة النووية، التي نحيت جانبا لعدة اسباب من أهمها طمع الشركات الصناعية الكبرى في مجال الطاقة المتجددة
ويحذر الكاتب من أن الأرض كانت متكيفة مع آثار الإنسان السلبية في زيادة الاحترار العالمي حتى بضع مئات من السنين حيث انتهت قدرتها على التكيف، وأخذ النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، حيث ستتخلى غايا (كوكب الأرض) عن عدد كبير من البشر، وستكون بقع معينة من العالم صالحة للحياة ستستضيف لاجئين مناخيين، منها جزر بريطانيا مثلا، ويجب أن يحسب حساب أن تكفي موارد هذه البقاع لأصحاب هذه الأراضي واللاجئين إليها بحيث لا يتجاوزون اعدادا معينة، سنصبح في ذلك الوقت في ظروف ستكون فيها الحروب والمجاعات والكوارث السابقة أحداثا صغيرة قياسا لما سنعيشه وما هو قادم
ونظرية غايا التي وضعها الكاتب تقول أن النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، واجهت النظرية معارضة شديدة في أوساط العلماء في بداية ظهورها بستينات وسبعينات القرن الماضي وعانت من نقد علماء الجيولوجيا وعلماء الداروينية الجديدة، لأنها عدت كثورة على المفاهيم العلمية الراسخة كما لم تكن مبنية على دلائل كافية، وكان الرأي بأن علم الأرض وحده كافي لتفسير جيوكيمياء الأرض ولا حاجة فعلية لغايا، يفرض نفسه، لكن نظرية غايا عادت وأثبتت نفسها وأنه من الجدير الأخذ بها على محمل الجدية والخطورة الكافية، منذ الثمانينات إلى اليوم
وازدادت أهميتها اليوم وفي الوقت الذي أثبتت فيه جدارتها العلمية فانه لم يؤخذ بها حتى الآن في الحد من الاحترار العالمي
ويصر الكاتب على خيار الطاقة النووية، التي نحيت جانبا لعدة اسباب من أهمها طمع الشركات الصناعية الكبرى في مجال الطاقة المتجددة
ويحذر الكاتب من أن الأرض كانت متكيفة مع آثار الإنسان السلبية في زيادة الاحترار العالمي حتى بضع مئات من السنين حيث انتهت قدرتها على التكيف، وأخذ النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، حيث ستتخلى غايا (كوكب الأرض) عن عدد كبير من البشر، وستكون بقع معينة من العالم صالحة للحياة ستستضيف لاجئين مناخيين، منها جزر بريطانيا مثلا، ويجب أن يحسب حساب أن تكفي موارد هذه البقاع لأصحاب هذه الأراضي واللاجئين إليها بحيث لا يتجاوزون اعدادا معينة، سنصبح في ذلك الوقت في ظروف ستكون فيها الحروب والمجاعات والكوارث السابقة أحداثا صغيرة قياسا لما سنعيشه وما هو قادم
ونظرية غايا التي وضعها الكاتب تقول أن النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، واجهت النظرية معارضة شديدة في أوساط العلماء في بداية ظهورها بستينات وسبعينات القرن الماضي وعانت من نقد علماء الجيولوجيا وعلماء الداروينية الجديدة، لأنها عدت كثورة على المفاهيم العلمية الراسخة كما لم تكن مبنية على دلائل كافية، وكان الرأي بأن علم الأرض وحده كافي لتفسير جيوكيمياء الأرض ولا حاجة فعلية لغايا، يفرض نفسه، لكن نظرية غايا عادت وأثبتت نفسها وأنه من الجدير الأخذ بها على محمل الجدية والخطورة الكافية، منذ الثمانينات إلى اليوم
وازدادت أهميتها اليوم وفي الوقت الذي أثبتت فيه جدارتها العلمية فانه لم يؤخذ بها حتى الآن في الحد من الاحترار العالمي
May 5, 2009
The Vanishing Face of Gaia is my first exposure to James Lovelock’s work and is my first in-depth reading of a work about Gaia theory, the idea that the Earth is a self-regulating organism. Environmentalists and New Age movements speak of the earth being alive and this perspective is often lumped with Gaia theory to discredit the concept. The origination of Gaia in the 1960’s didn’t win any skeptics over either. Sadly, mainstream science has sidelined Lovelock’s ideas for the last 30 years, gaining acceptance only recently as predictions from the theory have been proven true time after time. In fact, 8 out of the ten major predictions (table of predictions on p.177) of Gaia theory have been proven or generally accepted, including:
1. Oxygen has not varied by more than 5% from 21% for the past 200 million years (confirmed through studying ice-core and sedimentary analysis)
2. Boreal and tropical forests are part of global climate regulation (generally accepted)
3. The biological transfer of selenium from the ocean to the land as dimethly selenide (confirmed through direct measurements)
4. Climate regulation through cloud albedo control linked to algal gas emissions (many tests indicate high probability, pollution interferes)
That’s a much better hit rate than string theory, an idea receiving magnitudes of greater funding. Unfortunately the decades of widespread skepticism has prevented many leading bodies of science and policy groups to ignore the dire implications of a living Earth, most specifically in relation to climate.
Lovelock was the first scientist to invent instrumentation that could accurately demonstrate the accumulation of CFCs in the atmosphere, leading to international action on the hole in the ozone layer. And his work on atmospheric, geological and ecological sciences led him to become the first researcher to link the fields, understanding that the earth’s life regulates the atmosphere, and that the earth’s atmosphere regulates life. How is this so? The original Daisyworld model created by Lovelock (although seemingly common sense to us now but revolutionary for its time) was a convincing demonstration,
Years of added complexity later, Daisyworld still stands up as an accurate model of reality and the most definitive link between climate and biology. Unlike the IPCC projections of a gradual climate change, trending towards warmer temperatures over a long period of time, is not in agreement with historical models of major changes to our planet’s climate. Massive leaps are common as demonstrated by several graphs in the book. Disturbingly, the coldest years are prior to the major warming years, giving a false sense of security. Anthony Watts, through his blog, provides quality commentary on scientific information that disputes the IPCC climate change models, however Anthony doubts that global warming is occurring. Lovelock shares similar skepticism but provides evidence that the IPCC models are not severe enough in their projections of the serious lifestyle changes we’ll need to make to mitigate a changing climate. Scientists have held up the progress of the world for a long time, with their Cartesian deterministic views, perhaps the eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress. Lovelock quotes Ogden Nash to demonstrate,
‘I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, “He never bungles!”
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
‘You mean,’he said, ‘a crocodile.’
Lovelock’s perspective is credible and valuable, disputing many claims of the environmental movement, leading me to question some of my own approaches. For one, Lovelock states that nuclear fission is our only hope to avoid poverty and CO2 accumulation. Unfortunately I think we’ve missed the boat on this because the US couldn’t build the political will to dedicate $700 billion dollars for a secure future. Why nuclear? A fission plant has no emissions, other than water vapor, while in operation. Nuclear waste fades away after 600 years. The yearly output of a 1,000MW station is enough to fill a medium sized car. Compared with the ash from coal that no one seems to think about, the CO2 emitted, or the manufacturing that goes into transporting a wind turbine/PV panel the entire process of nuclear fission energy is by far the cleanest. The issue of nuclear waste is no different than dealing with the issue of defunct PV panels or wind turbine components, only the nuclear waste is much lower in volume while needing greater attention and security. Lovelock goes on to give some excellent examples of how nuclear energy is mis-represented, with 27 people having lost their lives in the history of nuclear power accidents, at Chernobyl. Modern nuclear plants include passive control systems, in the event of a failure the plant would simply shut down.
How does the death toll measure up? On December 3rd, 1984 a pesticide plant accident in Bhopal, India instantly killed 3,800 when a cloud of methyl isocyanate gas leaked into the night air. (And many more in the following weeks.) Yes, nuclear energy isn’t perfect but it is as close to perfect as we can get.
Why not renewables? Lovelock argues that the focus on “green” energy is propagated by those seeking to drive new financial bubbles, continuing the manufacturing status quo, and doing little to actually mitigate climate impacts. We always idealize the wind turbine but forget that a combustion turbine has to be run on-site at a wind farm to keep the frequency of the turbines regulated for use on an electric grid. This simple fact has led some studies to conclude that wind farms are greater contributors to CO2 emissions than a coal plant, with wind farms emitting more than 840 pounds of CO2 per MWh vs 8.8 for nuclear power. Photovoltaics are better, but land requirements are devastating, 8 acres per megawatt. Whereas a few hundred acres can house a 2,500MW nuclear plant. We need that land for farming and for return to Gaia so that the earth can do what it does best, self regulate. Where I significantly diverge from Lovelock is through is views on farming. On p. 134 of the book he details how synthesized food may be our only hope. If it is count me out. Real food can’t be substituted for and the nutrient model of eating has been proven as flawed.
This book is full of interesting insights and pessimism (or realism?) on how screwed we are. The basis of Lovelock’s argument, and reason for writing the book, is that we’ve outgrown the Earth as a species. Humans must learn to view themselves as equals in the scheme of ecology, not as a domineering species. The massive population we now support is subsidized at the expense of slowly renewing resources like coal and oil and at the cost of a damaged biosphere. As we exceed Gaia’s limits, the climate will adjust to fix the problem. This doesn’t mean the end of humanity but a severe readjustment to population centers and population numbers. James Lovelock has convinced me of this through his analysis of Gaia theory applied to the Earth. Could we avoid massive global warming? Yes. An unexpected minimum of sunspots like we are currently experiencing (see the note below). Massive volcanic eruptions. Successful geoengineering efforts(although highly unlikely, as Lovelock states). These could all bring an end to global warming. But they are highly unlikely. Our only plan as a species should be to adapt and realize our intelligence as human beings. Only then can we ensure our duty to survive and to carry on the legacy of the Earth. The relentless critique of the “green movement” and of environmentalism, a field many credit Lovelock for starting, was cause enough for me to find this book valuable. But the scientific discussion within is of far greater importance as we enter a turbulent time in the existence of the human species. This is a challenging read for the climate change skeptics and the climate change evangelists alike.
Note/Rampant Speculation: The current sunspot minimum can’t be explained by scientists and has been primarily responsible for much of the cold rainy weather my home area this spring, as well as record snows/cold elsewhere. If this is the start of a new Maunder Minimum serious questions have to be asked about the link between solar system bodies. Do feedback loops exist between the Sun and the Earth? Amazingly convenient that as the global temperature trends upward the Sun suddenly makes things cooler. Perhaps we are all linked to much greater things than we currently understand.
1. Oxygen has not varied by more than 5% from 21% for the past 200 million years (confirmed through studying ice-core and sedimentary analysis)
2. Boreal and tropical forests are part of global climate regulation (generally accepted)
3. The biological transfer of selenium from the ocean to the land as dimethly selenide (confirmed through direct measurements)
4. Climate regulation through cloud albedo control linked to algal gas emissions (many tests indicate high probability, pollution interferes)
That’s a much better hit rate than string theory, an idea receiving magnitudes of greater funding. Unfortunately the decades of widespread skepticism has prevented many leading bodies of science and policy groups to ignore the dire implications of a living Earth, most specifically in relation to climate.
Lovelock was the first scientist to invent instrumentation that could accurately demonstrate the accumulation of CFCs in the atmosphere, leading to international action on the hole in the ozone layer. And his work on atmospheric, geological and ecological sciences led him to become the first researcher to link the fields, understanding that the earth’s life regulates the atmosphere, and that the earth’s atmosphere regulates life. How is this so? The original Daisyworld model created by Lovelock (although seemingly common sense to us now but revolutionary for its time) was a convincing demonstration,
Years of added complexity later, Daisyworld still stands up as an accurate model of reality and the most definitive link between climate and biology. Unlike the IPCC projections of a gradual climate change, trending towards warmer temperatures over a long period of time, is not in agreement with historical models of major changes to our planet’s climate. Massive leaps are common as demonstrated by several graphs in the book. Disturbingly, the coldest years are prior to the major warming years, giving a false sense of security. Anthony Watts, through his blog, provides quality commentary on scientific information that disputes the IPCC climate change models, however Anthony doubts that global warming is occurring. Lovelock shares similar skepticism but provides evidence that the IPCC models are not severe enough in their projections of the serious lifestyle changes we’ll need to make to mitigate a changing climate. Scientists have held up the progress of the world for a long time, with their Cartesian deterministic views, perhaps the eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress. Lovelock quotes Ogden Nash to demonstrate,
‘I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, “He never bungles!”
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
‘You mean,’he said, ‘a crocodile.’
Lovelock’s perspective is credible and valuable, disputing many claims of the environmental movement, leading me to question some of my own approaches. For one, Lovelock states that nuclear fission is our only hope to avoid poverty and CO2 accumulation. Unfortunately I think we’ve missed the boat on this because the US couldn’t build the political will to dedicate $700 billion dollars for a secure future. Why nuclear? A fission plant has no emissions, other than water vapor, while in operation. Nuclear waste fades away after 600 years. The yearly output of a 1,000MW station is enough to fill a medium sized car. Compared with the ash from coal that no one seems to think about, the CO2 emitted, or the manufacturing that goes into transporting a wind turbine/PV panel the entire process of nuclear fission energy is by far the cleanest. The issue of nuclear waste is no different than dealing with the issue of defunct PV panels or wind turbine components, only the nuclear waste is much lower in volume while needing greater attention and security. Lovelock goes on to give some excellent examples of how nuclear energy is mis-represented, with 27 people having lost their lives in the history of nuclear power accidents, at Chernobyl. Modern nuclear plants include passive control systems, in the event of a failure the plant would simply shut down.
How does the death toll measure up? On December 3rd, 1984 a pesticide plant accident in Bhopal, India instantly killed 3,800 when a cloud of methyl isocyanate gas leaked into the night air. (And many more in the following weeks.) Yes, nuclear energy isn’t perfect but it is as close to perfect as we can get.
Why not renewables? Lovelock argues that the focus on “green” energy is propagated by those seeking to drive new financial bubbles, continuing the manufacturing status quo, and doing little to actually mitigate climate impacts. We always idealize the wind turbine but forget that a combustion turbine has to be run on-site at a wind farm to keep the frequency of the turbines regulated for use on an electric grid. This simple fact has led some studies to conclude that wind farms are greater contributors to CO2 emissions than a coal plant, with wind farms emitting more than 840 pounds of CO2 per MWh vs 8.8 for nuclear power. Photovoltaics are better, but land requirements are devastating, 8 acres per megawatt. Whereas a few hundred acres can house a 2,500MW nuclear plant. We need that land for farming and for return to Gaia so that the earth can do what it does best, self regulate. Where I significantly diverge from Lovelock is through is views on farming. On p. 134 of the book he details how synthesized food may be our only hope. If it is count me out. Real food can’t be substituted for and the nutrient model of eating has been proven as flawed.
This book is full of interesting insights and pessimism (or realism?) on how screwed we are. The basis of Lovelock’s argument, and reason for writing the book, is that we’ve outgrown the Earth as a species. Humans must learn to view themselves as equals in the scheme of ecology, not as a domineering species. The massive population we now support is subsidized at the expense of slowly renewing resources like coal and oil and at the cost of a damaged biosphere. As we exceed Gaia’s limits, the climate will adjust to fix the problem. This doesn’t mean the end of humanity but a severe readjustment to population centers and population numbers. James Lovelock has convinced me of this through his analysis of Gaia theory applied to the Earth. Could we avoid massive global warming? Yes. An unexpected minimum of sunspots like we are currently experiencing (see the note below). Massive volcanic eruptions. Successful geoengineering efforts(although highly unlikely, as Lovelock states). These could all bring an end to global warming. But they are highly unlikely. Our only plan as a species should be to adapt and realize our intelligence as human beings. Only then can we ensure our duty to survive and to carry on the legacy of the Earth. The relentless critique of the “green movement” and of environmentalism, a field many credit Lovelock for starting, was cause enough for me to find this book valuable. But the scientific discussion within is of far greater importance as we enter a turbulent time in the existence of the human species. This is a challenging read for the climate change skeptics and the climate change evangelists alike.
Note/Rampant Speculation: The current sunspot minimum can’t be explained by scientists and has been primarily responsible for much of the cold rainy weather my home area this spring, as well as record snows/cold elsewhere. If this is the start of a new Maunder Minimum serious questions have to be asked about the link between solar system bodies. Do feedback loops exist between the Sun and the Earth? Amazingly convenient that as the global temperature trends upward the Sun suddenly makes things cooler. Perhaps we are all linked to much greater things than we currently understand.
October 20, 2017
Rating: 4½ out of 5
In one of the most striking images from the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore mounts a scissor lift to demonstrate the dizzying scale of the global warming trend. That scary chart showed, as no table of figures could, the sheer magnitude of the problem we face.
Awareness of climate change has increased since then, and “cap and trade”, “carbon footprint”, and even “carbon capture and sequestration” have entered the lawmaker’s lexicon. But the average citizen has most likely forgotten the frightening temperature forecast, and now has a vague notion that governments are beginning to do something—that while we may not be doing all we can (because the economy has to take priority, right?), “sustainable targets” have been set, and the nations of the world will (eventually) get around to meeting them.
It is an encouraging, even redemptive, vision: Humanity will abandon its intemperate ways, sober up, and—through ingenuity and perseverance—atone for its misdeeds.
James Lovelock is here to tell us it ain’t so, and we’d better get ready for the brutal truth. Writing in his nineties, in the twilight of a lifetime devoted to environmental science, Lovelock has the luxury of speaking frankly, with nothing to gain by spinning his research or sugarcoating the facts. In The Vanishing Face of Gaia he takes a hardheaded look at the evidence and delivers the verdict: Climate change is real, effectively irreversible, and likely to be catastrophic. The best we can probably hope for is to slow the rate of change and start preparing for life on a hotter Earth. The subtitle of his book is both apt and chilling: “A Final Warning”.
It is a book accessible to anyone. Lovelock writes with clarity and conviction, a vigorous prose style, and a useful reliance on analogies. Mixing personal observation, history, and a smattering of science, he explains how we got ourselves into this mess (innocently at first) and shows us where we’re very probably headed.
Malthus was right
Yes, our addiction to fossil fuels is a problem. But the real problem is that there are simply too many of us.
The claim is wholly unsubstantiated, but one can easily agree that 7 billion is far too many.
Impending disaster
The Earth’s climate is a complex, nonlinear system, explains Lovelock, and we should not be fooled by the current slow and steady rate of global warming:
And what can we do to avoid this fate? Lovelock’s answer is sobering: Not much. We suffer from a global tragedy of the commons, to which the only effective solution—a radical reduction in the global population—is unthinkable. Efforts to control climate change will help, but they will only delay the day of reckoning. And so far our efforts have been laughably ineffective. The world continues to engage in “business as usual”.
Lovelock convincingly argues that we should embrace nuclear power, as the only proven technology we have for generating massive quantities of electricity. Solar thermal, the cleanest energy source, also shows promise. But pinning our hopes on wind or solar voltaic energy is “absurd”. He is especially scornful of wind energy:
Beyond that, all we can do is ready the “lifeboats” (the habitable zones in Earth’s hotter climate) and decide who will be allowed refuge in them.
Gaia
Ironically, the weakest element of the book is the "Gaia hypothesis" for which Lovelock is best known. This cherished belief—essentially, that the Earth is a living organism that regulates itself—seems to me a needless distraction from Lovelock’s scientific arguments. But he is ardently wedded to the notion, and returns to it again and again (and again and again).
This is unfortunate, because Lovelock’s fixation detracts, rather than adds, to our understanding of climate change. Yes, the Earth is a complex interacting system. But it is an “organism” only if we redefine that word—and by such an expanded definition that the ocean, a forest, a town, and even my house are also “organisms”. It is a metaphor that Lovelock has taken to heart, and taken too far.
One might easily believe that it is Gaia, rather than humanity, who is foremost in his affections. At one point he likens humanity to a virus:
Goodbye, and Good Luck
Is it possible to dismiss Lovelock's ideas about Gaia and still accept his other arguments? It is. He presents a convincing case that the Earth will become a hotter, far less hospitable place. It is a gloomy outlook, in which perhaps only three causes for optimism can be glimpsed:
First, Lovelock might be wrong, and it will turn out that the Earth can continue to become incrementally warmer without a sudden “jump” to a greater heat.
Second, we might find a way not only to reduce carbon emissions, but to capture more carbon from the atmosphere than we are adding.
Finally (to grasp at straws), even if Lovelock’s direst predictions come true, life on Earth will continue. Humanity will survive, albeit in diminished numbers and after much suffering.
In his review of An Inconvenient Truth, Roger Ebert included the following heartfelt message:
In one of the most striking images from the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore mounts a scissor lift to demonstrate the dizzying scale of the global warming trend. That scary chart showed, as no table of figures could, the sheer magnitude of the problem we face.
Awareness of climate change has increased since then, and “cap and trade”, “carbon footprint”, and even “carbon capture and sequestration” have entered the lawmaker’s lexicon. But the average citizen has most likely forgotten the frightening temperature forecast, and now has a vague notion that governments are beginning to do something—that while we may not be doing all we can (because the economy has to take priority, right?), “sustainable targets” have been set, and the nations of the world will (eventually) get around to meeting them.
It is an encouraging, even redemptive, vision: Humanity will abandon its intemperate ways, sober up, and—through ingenuity and perseverance—atone for its misdeeds.
James Lovelock is here to tell us it ain’t so, and we’d better get ready for the brutal truth. Writing in his nineties, in the twilight of a lifetime devoted to environmental science, Lovelock has the luxury of speaking frankly, with nothing to gain by spinning his research or sugarcoating the facts. In The Vanishing Face of Gaia he takes a hardheaded look at the evidence and delivers the verdict: Climate change is real, effectively irreversible, and likely to be catastrophic. The best we can probably hope for is to slow the rate of change and start preparing for life on a hotter Earth. The subtitle of his book is both apt and chilling: “A Final Warning”.
It is a book accessible to anyone. Lovelock writes with clarity and conviction, a vigorous prose style, and a useful reliance on analogies. Mixing personal observation, history, and a smattering of science, he explains how we got ourselves into this mess (innocently at first) and shows us where we’re very probably headed.
Malthus was right
Yes, our addiction to fossil fuels is a problem. But the real problem is that there are simply too many of us.
If there were only 100 million of us on the Earth we could do almost anything we liked without harm. At 7 billion I doubt if anything sustainable is possible or will significantly reduce fossil-fuel combustion; by significantly I mean enough to halt global heating.Even if we were to abandon all activity apart from eating and breathing, it wouldn’t be enough:
did you know that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly 7 billion people on Earth, their pets, and their livestock are responsible for 23% of all greenhouse gas emissions?The right number of humans, he says, is around 100 million, and only if those humans live as gatherers (optimally, vegans) rather than hunters. “Were we hunters, carnivorous top predators, it is unlikely that even a fertile Earth could carry more than 10 million of us.”
The claim is wholly unsubstantiated, but one can easily agree that 7 billion is far too many.
Impending disaster
The Earth’s climate is a complex, nonlinear system, explains Lovelock, and we should not be fooled by the current slow and steady rate of global warming:
it is useful to compare the Earth with an iced drink. You will have noticed that the drink stays cold until the last of the ice melts, and so to some extent it is with the Earth. A great deal of the heat of global heating has gone into warming that huge lump of water, the ocean, and into melting ice.If he is right, we have a small window of time—a generation or two, maybe three—before the global climate reaches a tipping point and enters an irreversible “hot” phase. When that happens, vast regions of the Earth will become uninhabitable. The greatest harm will come
from prolonged and unremitting drought. According to the forecasts (IPCC report from Working Group II, 2007) many parts of the world will experience such a lack of water by 2030.
Saharan conditions will extend into southern Europe, as they are experienced in Australia and Africa. … When we look at projected future climates, we see that much of the continental areas will become barren because of drought. This will have appalling consequences for already overcrowded nations like China, India, and parts of Africa.It does not take a scientist to predict the consequences. “Climate refugees” will clamour to migrate to the world’s remaining safe havens: northern Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia, high mountainous regions, and some island nations such as Japan, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the British Isles.
Our gravest dangers are not from climate change itself, but indirectly from starvation, competition for space and resources, and war.Ready the lifeboats
And what can we do to avoid this fate? Lovelock’s answer is sobering: Not much. We suffer from a global tragedy of the commons, to which the only effective solution—a radical reduction in the global population—is unthinkable. Efforts to control climate change will help, but they will only delay the day of reckoning. And so far our efforts have been laughably ineffective. The world continues to engage in “business as usual”.
Lovelock convincingly argues that we should embrace nuclear power, as the only proven technology we have for generating massive quantities of electricity. Solar thermal, the cleanest energy source, also shows promise. But pinning our hopes on wind or solar voltaic energy is “absurd”. He is especially scornful of wind energy:
Europe’s massive use of wind as a supplement to baseload electricity will probably be remembered as one of the great follies of the 21st century.He also argues that we should prepare to use geoengineering to cool the planet—not because geoengineering techniques (such as releasing sulfuric acid into the atmosphere to block sunlight or seeding the oceans with iron filings to promote the growth of carbon-consuming algae) are without risk, but simply to buy time.
Beyond that, all we can do is ready the “lifeboats” (the habitable zones in Earth’s hotter climate) and decide who will be allowed refuge in them.
Gaia
Ironically, the weakest element of the book is the "Gaia hypothesis" for which Lovelock is best known. This cherished belief—essentially, that the Earth is a living organism that regulates itself—seems to me a needless distraction from Lovelock’s scientific arguments. But he is ardently wedded to the notion, and returns to it again and again (and again and again).
This is unfortunate, because Lovelock’s fixation detracts, rather than adds, to our understanding of climate change. Yes, the Earth is a complex interacting system. But it is an “organism” only if we redefine that word—and by such an expanded definition that the ocean, a forest, a town, and even my house are also “organisms”. It is a metaphor that Lovelock has taken to heart, and taken too far.
One might easily believe that it is Gaia, rather than humanity, who is foremost in his affections. At one point he likens humanity to a virus:
We became the Earth’s infection a long and uncertain time ago when we first used fire and tools purposefully. But it was not until about 200 years ago that the long incubation period ended and the Industrial Revolution began; then the infection of the Earth became irreversible.And he even has a name for this disease:
Individuals occasionally suffer a disease called polycythaemia, an overpopulation of red blood cells. By analogy, Gaia’s illness could be called polyanthroponemia, where humans overpopulate until they do more harm than good.At times, his fondness for Gaia leads him into outright kookiness:
Let us look ahead to the time when Gaia is a truly sentient planet through the merging with her of our descendants.
As a planetary intelligence we have already shown Gaia her face from space and let her see how truly beautiful she is compared with her dead siblings Mars and Venus.
… from our descendants could evolve the wiser species that could live even closer in Gaia and perhaps make her the first citizen of our galaxy.Ignore the Gaia hypothesis. The book is better without it.
Goodbye, and Good Luck
Is it possible to dismiss Lovelock's ideas about Gaia and still accept his other arguments? It is. He presents a convincing case that the Earth will become a hotter, far less hospitable place. It is a gloomy outlook, in which perhaps only three causes for optimism can be glimpsed:
First, Lovelock might be wrong, and it will turn out that the Earth can continue to become incrementally warmer without a sudden “jump” to a greater heat.
Second, we might find a way not only to reduce carbon emissions, but to capture more carbon from the atmosphere than we are adding.
Finally (to grasp at straws), even if Lovelock’s direst predictions come true, life on Earth will continue. Humanity will survive, albeit in diminished numbers and after much suffering.
In his review of An Inconvenient Truth, Roger Ebert included the following heartfelt message:
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.The Vanishing Face of Gaia deserves similar respect. You owe it to yourself to read this book, or a book like it. When the world gets hotter, you won’t be able to say you weren’t warned.
March 17, 2021
The author talks for a third of the book about how the world is unpredictable and surprising; how all models predicted by climate scientists have been wrong or under predictions of steady temperature increase. Then *shock* he goes on to proudly announce that his model, his baby "The one unifying model of Gaia (where the earth has its own physiological response to climate change)" is accurate (which, by the way, was only ever published (after a strong of peer review rejections) in Nature because he was pals with one of the top wigs). Then swings back again to say that “all models are wrong and it is impossible to apply any sort of model to the Earth."
He says that we “have to use data and measurements” even though he claimed at the beginning of the book that data and measurements are incorrectly used. Seems to be using the rhetoric of “the truth of science” to win the reader’s heart without actually saying anything. I suspect his presentation of the Earth as a "living breathing thing" is done for the same reasons.
Edit: perhaps he was referring mostly to “predictive modelling” which has been shown to be wrong when compared to the changes that have been observed. But then what alternative predictions does he suggest?
The whole book was him espewing his dear baby Gaia Theory Model, which he never actually really explained by the way. I'm still not really sure what he means by Gaia theory, which was ostensibly the whole point of him writing this book. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFICS?! WHAT EXACTLY IS ALIVE?!
He finished by going on a very long religious tangent, where again, I wasn't sure if he was criticising the religious ferocity of some Climate activists, or else proposing his own Green Climate Religion. I was left very confused and disturbed.
Most important points (because they stayed with me all through reading this book)
I was strongly in support of his strong support of Nuclear Power being the only true green and clean and all-round amazing energy. But I knew that it was “The greenest, cheapest, and most secure source of renewable energy” before picking his book up. He talked about the amount of CO2 and land which is produced by "Green" Energies and the pittance of energy that they provide. As well as their unreliableness (see later point re Russia).
HOW-bloody-EVER. He was so determined to convince his readers of the safety of Nuclear Power (which, as I have pointed out, I was already convinced by) by trying to play down and dismiss the Chernobyl Disaster. He claimed that "only 75 lives were lost" and that we only ever knew about it/thought it dangerous because "the wind blew to the West and not the East." This was foolish. The Chernobyl accident was wildly dangerous and deadly, and its effects likely being felt today as nuclear mutagenic material sweeps through rivers and animals and food-chains. It only would have ever happened in Soviet Russia, which is why we should totally confident in NE. But to claim that it was not damaging... Lockwood must really be a bit of an idiot.
There were also touching descriptions of his frugal lifestyle, driving around in his Honda jazz and his “hopes of building a snake and potato farm”.
Also this:
I’m a doctor and am pretty sure this is not a thing. Especially as it didn’t sound as if he basically fell from standing AND his kidney just sort of… quietly whimpered and died?
Some good/interesting/ambivalent/brain dump points:
* Interestingly scathing about the biofuel industry. If we will have no land left for humans to live or for agriculture, this eco “biofuel” will be more dangerous for the survival of humanity than anything else.
* He does seem to describe this strange sudden dystopian event when the people of the world will suddenly have to flee their countries and decide which new place to lead to. He thinks that this will be difficult for governmental politics to overcome, but I somehow don’t share his scepticism.
* Once the ice caps melt (whatever the cause) there will be a sudden exponential rise in temperature as their heat storage/cooling capacity is suddenly lost. Normally the white icecaps reflect heat back to space and are a protective mechanism.
* Completely agree (am in consensus) with his opinion that scientists should not be able to “reach a consensus”
* Sea level rise is a much better measure of global temperature increase because it is a proxy of the amount of heat the earth has absorbed. “Global temperature fluctuates” (did he say why?). But sea levels are based on two things: the melting of the icecaps (although not very much) and the expansion of the ocean due to heat
* The Bhopal pesticide gas accident in India killed over 2,000 people overnight as the cloud of methyl isocyanate seeped through the town in 1984
* Posits that one of the reasons that litvinyeko was poisoned using (obviously traceable) polonium was to keep the west scared of nuclear substances and to keep us reliant on them for supply of energy/gas/nuclear. I think this theory might well have some truth to it.
* He is unashamedly scathing about so-called green energy and asked the reader to imagine what London would be like if it were left without electricity for a week. If we relied wholly on green energy and then for some reason were unable to get gas from the mainland (Russian controlled) Then London would turn into a can of starving refugees stop even the sewers and the petrol pumps rely on electricity stop
* Puts most of his faith into geo-engineering. I have been too lazy while reading this book to look up any of his suggestions, or whether technology has moved on since. Either we could trap CO2, or prevent the earth from heating up. I was amazed to discover that after certain volcanic eruptions the earth became notably cooler, so one proposition is to release sulphur dioxide into the Earth’s stratosphere to emulate this.
* Interestingly, in support of his Gaia theory, he describes times when “massive geological accidents” caused huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere more than is being done today - “The largest producer the CO2 is the Earth, not people” - why could this not happen again and diminish the importance of human additions.
* He notes that green intentions have been politicised and commercialised with their incorporation into the socialist and left and pacifist movements.
* The fact also remains that many government subsidies have been incorrectly directed.
* Running your own watermill and planting all your own trees probably aren’t actually any good for the environment and economically unviable (At least without government subsidies). It’s like “intersectionality” but with plants and weapons.
This book was written in 2009. If we're all dead and fleeing to other countries by 2030 then perhaps then, I'll admit he was a prophet.
He says that we “have to use data and measurements” even though he claimed at the beginning of the book that data and measurements are incorrectly used. Seems to be using the rhetoric of “the truth of science” to win the reader’s heart without actually saying anything. I suspect his presentation of the Earth as a "living breathing thing" is done for the same reasons.
"“American scientists: They were wrong because they used measurements”
“I Cannot ignore the large differences between their (the IPCC) predictions, and what is observed”
Edit: perhaps he was referring mostly to “predictive modelling” which has been shown to be wrong when compared to the changes that have been observed. But then what alternative predictions does he suggest?
The whole book was him espewing his dear baby Gaia Theory Model, which he never actually really explained by the way. I'm still not really sure what he means by Gaia theory, which was ostensibly the whole point of him writing this book. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFICS?! WHAT EXACTLY IS ALIVE?!
He finished by going on a very long religious tangent, where again, I wasn't sure if he was criticising the religious ferocity of some Climate activists, or else proposing his own Green Climate Religion. I was left very confused and disturbed.
Most important points (because they stayed with me all through reading this book)
I was strongly in support of his strong support of Nuclear Power being the only true green and clean and all-round amazing energy. But I knew that it was “The greenest, cheapest, and most secure source of renewable energy” before picking his book up. He talked about the amount of CO2 and land which is produced by "Green" Energies and the pittance of energy that they provide. As well as their unreliableness (see later point re Russia).
HOW-bloody-EVER. He was so determined to convince his readers of the safety of Nuclear Power (which, as I have pointed out, I was already convinced by) by trying to play down and dismiss the Chernobyl Disaster. He claimed that "only 75 lives were lost" and that we only ever knew about it/thought it dangerous because "the wind blew to the West and not the East." This was foolish. The Chernobyl accident was wildly dangerous and deadly, and its effects likely being felt today as nuclear mutagenic material sweeps through rivers and animals and food-chains. It only would have ever happened in Soviet Russia, which is why we should totally confident in NE. But to claim that it was not damaging... Lockwood must really be a bit of an idiot.
There were also touching descriptions of his frugal lifestyle, driving around in his Honda jazz and his “hopes of building a snake and potato farm”.
Also this:
“Several years later I found that I had crashed my left kidney and rendered it dysfunctional”
I’m a doctor and am pretty sure this is not a thing. Especially as it didn’t sound as if he basically fell from standing AND his kidney just sort of… quietly whimpered and died?
Some good/interesting/ambivalent/brain dump points:
* Interestingly scathing about the biofuel industry. If we will have no land left for humans to live or for agriculture, this eco “biofuel” will be more dangerous for the survival of humanity than anything else.
* He does seem to describe this strange sudden dystopian event when the people of the world will suddenly have to flee their countries and decide which new place to lead to. He thinks that this will be difficult for governmental politics to overcome, but I somehow don’t share his scepticism.
* Once the ice caps melt (whatever the cause) there will be a sudden exponential rise in temperature as their heat storage/cooling capacity is suddenly lost. Normally the white icecaps reflect heat back to space and are a protective mechanism.
* Completely agree (am in consensus) with his opinion that scientists should not be able to “reach a consensus”
* Sea level rise is a much better measure of global temperature increase because it is a proxy of the amount of heat the earth has absorbed. “Global temperature fluctuates” (did he say why?). But sea levels are based on two things: the melting of the icecaps (although not very much) and the expansion of the ocean due to heat
* The Bhopal pesticide gas accident in India killed over 2,000 people overnight as the cloud of methyl isocyanate seeped through the town in 1984
* Posits that one of the reasons that litvinyeko was poisoned using (obviously traceable) polonium was to keep the west scared of nuclear substances and to keep us reliant on them for supply of energy/gas/nuclear. I think this theory might well have some truth to it.
* He is unashamedly scathing about so-called green energy and asked the reader to imagine what London would be like if it were left without electricity for a week. If we relied wholly on green energy and then for some reason were unable to get gas from the mainland (Russian controlled) Then London would turn into a can of starving refugees stop even the sewers and the petrol pumps rely on electricity stop
* Puts most of his faith into geo-engineering. I have been too lazy while reading this book to look up any of his suggestions, or whether technology has moved on since. Either we could trap CO2, or prevent the earth from heating up. I was amazed to discover that after certain volcanic eruptions the earth became notably cooler, so one proposition is to release sulphur dioxide into the Earth’s stratosphere to emulate this.
* Interestingly, in support of his Gaia theory, he describes times when “massive geological accidents” caused huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere more than is being done today - “The largest producer the CO2 is the Earth, not people” - why could this not happen again and diminish the importance of human additions.
* He notes that green intentions have been politicised and commercialised with their incorporation into the socialist and left and pacifist movements.
* The fact also remains that many government subsidies have been incorrectly directed.
* Running your own watermill and planting all your own trees probably aren’t actually any good for the environment and economically unviable (At least without government subsidies). It’s like “intersectionality” but with plants and weapons.
This book was written in 2009. If we're all dead and fleeing to other countries by 2030 then perhaps then, I'll admit he was a prophet.
June 14, 2021
In general, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The author and I share similar views on the need for a massive investment in nuclear power as a viable alternative to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels (until such time as tidal and solar energy become as powerful and efficient). He and I also share the viewpoint that it is already too late to undo what we've done - and the full effects of our impact are still to come. Even if we end everything right now, today, we will still see a ramp up in warming and change based on what we've already done. We are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years from reversing our impact, let along erasing it. To this end, I loved this book.
The concept of Gaia, I'm still on the fence about. Yes, I agree that life on Earth is self-regulating, interconnected, and ultimately dependent upon one another...and yes, I believe that one must take life's impacts onto the environment into account when looking to model the past and/or the future...but I'm hesitant to label it "Gaia." As a secular person, ascribing any type of "spirit" or "consciousness" to the Earth itself rubs me the wrong way. I completely understand what he is saying, but I'm not going to call the Earth "her" or believe that the Earth itself is, in any way, responsible for the path life takes. That this book is about life being self-regulating, but then giving that regulation to an "Earth Spirit" seems disingenuous.
Lastly, I'm a bit upset that in his conclusion, the author has to go on to attack Marxism, and repeating the falsehood that Marxism itself it responsible for the deaths of millions of people. What the hell does that have to do with the topic of this book? And, more to the point, he then goes on to extoll the virtues of Christianity and Catholicism as wonderful institutions that do nothing but help. I mean...are you listening to yourself? He also goes on and on and on about the evils of profit-seeking and how almost all moves to "green" the economy are only based on seizing upon current government subsidies and are driven by profit, profit, profit, without a care for the consequence, but ends with the idea that capitalism will ultimately be the cure. WHAT?!?! How can you not see this?!?!? I'm just...I mean...I don't...whatever...
The concept of Gaia, I'm still on the fence about. Yes, I agree that life on Earth is self-regulating, interconnected, and ultimately dependent upon one another...and yes, I believe that one must take life's impacts onto the environment into account when looking to model the past and/or the future...but I'm hesitant to label it "Gaia." As a secular person, ascribing any type of "spirit" or "consciousness" to the Earth itself rubs me the wrong way. I completely understand what he is saying, but I'm not going to call the Earth "her" or believe that the Earth itself is, in any way, responsible for the path life takes. That this book is about life being self-regulating, but then giving that regulation to an "Earth Spirit" seems disingenuous.
Lastly, I'm a bit upset that in his conclusion, the author has to go on to attack Marxism, and repeating the falsehood that Marxism itself it responsible for the deaths of millions of people. What the hell does that have to do with the topic of this book? And, more to the point, he then goes on to extoll the virtues of Christianity and Catholicism as wonderful institutions that do nothing but help. I mean...are you listening to yourself? He also goes on and on and on about the evils of profit-seeking and how almost all moves to "green" the economy are only based on seizing upon current government subsidies and are driven by profit, profit, profit, without a care for the consequence, but ends with the idea that capitalism will ultimately be the cure. WHAT?!?! How can you not see this?!?!? I'm just...I mean...I don't...whatever...
January 19, 2010
Lovelock convinced me that a holistic approach towards earth science is preferable to the narrow, reductive views held by many of the established scientists who rely on models that only account for factors within their areas of study. I was also somewhat skeptical about the net benefits of such "green" energy sources like biofuels, wind power, and solar cells before reading this book, but Lovelock pushed me firmly into the enemy camp. Too many bandwagon enthusiasts fail to calculate the overall effects of these huge industrial initiatives. When you add the manufacturing, transportation, land use, and other negative factors involved, they have an overall negative impact on the environment and global warming. His contrarian viewpoints on nuclear power also might be worth further study. And the more I read about global warming and overpopulation, the more convinced I am that geoengineering is the only hope, although a slim one, for civilization to avoid a huge collapse within the next century or so. However, I think Lovelock could have written a more concise and clear argument. The last couple of chapters especially were so messy and full of meandering personal anecdotes that I'm still not sure exactly what he was advocating. He may be promoting a scary totalitarian future in which governments in favorable climatic regions like the British Isles, Canada, and New Zealand reject democracy and impose mandatory nuclear energy, high-density living, land use control, birth control, genetically engineered foods grown in vats, and a merit/fitness system for admitting a small fraction of the billions of draught and famine refugees that will clamoring to escape to their oases. But it's hard to say because he doesn't clearly describe his solution. Maybe he was afraid of the backlash if he was too direct.
July 14, 2012
This is the first book by Lovelock that I've read. I enjoyed it and was maddened by it in equal measure- Lovelock has a wonderfully clear vision of what is and is not possible to accomplish vis-a-vis climate change, with an admirable focus on adaptation as opposed to remediation, but I suppose his shrugging pragmatism rubs me a bit the wrong way. He does a great job here of tearing apart the "green" ideology that has been foisted on highly consumerized societies in the hopes of making their orthorexic guilt stimulate further orgies of commodity purchase. His voice is just what you would expect from someone who essentially started a branch of science, then another branch of science, and was shunned by academies for decades before his ideas began to gain broader popular and professional traction, but, surprisingly, with nary a hint of I-told-you-so.
March 17, 2016
+:
+ Síkra száll az atomenergia démonizálása ellen, yaaaaay!
+ "Bolygómérnöki" ötletek a klímaváltozás megállítására, a kvótarendszer meg a nagyonzöld szélturbinák helyett.
+ Alapvető jó szándék.
-:
- Nekem ez az egész Gaia-hipotézis sántít. Mivel nem vagyok szakértő, csak intuitív alapon sántít, de akkor is.
- Lovelock csapongó, naiv sztorizgatásai.
- Nagy-Britannia, mint a világ közepe és a klímamenekültek mentsvára, amit majd megkímél a klímaváltozás. Aha.
+ Síkra száll az atomenergia démonizálása ellen, yaaaaay!
+ "Bolygómérnöki" ötletek a klímaváltozás megállítására, a kvótarendszer meg a nagyonzöld szélturbinák helyett.
+ Alapvető jó szándék.
-:
- Nekem ez az egész Gaia-hipotézis sántít. Mivel nem vagyok szakértő, csak intuitív alapon sántít, de akkor is.
- Lovelock csapongó, naiv sztorizgatásai.
- Nagy-Britannia, mint a világ közepe és a klímamenekültek mentsvára, amit majd megkímél a klímaváltozás. Aha.
March 25, 2021
Foi uma boa leitura, incomodativa confesso, mas em termos de alarmismo (no se sentido, de tocar o alarme nos incautos) para mim o livro de David Wallace-Wells, é bem mais consistente e abrangente.
Mas voltemos ao Gaia, em muitos pontos achei repetitivo, e isso me incomodou. O autor tem uma espécie de obsessão com a energia nuclear, que parece ser a única solução para tudo e de todo o caos reinante. Mas não considera os efeitos nefastos da poluição, do lixo, por exemplo...
Não me arrependo da leitura que fiz, mas certamente não é o livro que pensaria em utilizar para refletir sobre o tema.
Opinião puramente leiga e pessoal.
24.03.2021
Mas voltemos ao Gaia, em muitos pontos achei repetitivo, e isso me incomodou. O autor tem uma espécie de obsessão com a energia nuclear, que parece ser a única solução para tudo e de todo o caos reinante. Mas não considera os efeitos nefastos da poluição, do lixo, por exemplo...
Não me arrependo da leitura que fiz, mas certamente não é o livro que pensaria em utilizar para refletir sobre o tema.
Opinião puramente leiga e pessoal.
24.03.2021
April 2, 2017
The book is 80% narrative about the author's life and 20% science. If it were the other way around I would have given it five stars.
May 5, 2023
Sadly, this book has not aged well. Serves me right for not reading a slew of books published in 2009 at an earlier time. Here we are, fourteen years later, and most of Lovelock's warnings are either too late, or laughably low key compared with our reality.
I also found some of his key issues of the time, particularly how to contain the population of 7 billion in megacities powered by nuclear plants, at odds with other statements about land use. Maybe I misinterpreted his words. Wouldnt it have been nice to keep the population below seven billion. And as for the CO2 ppm... It made me wish for the naivety of 2008.
And don't get me started on melting polar ice. He's probably glad he got out before it really falls apart.
This is a good book for historians of climate change and the inactivity of global leaders pandering to the fossil fuel companies and other rich folk.
If you want something more practical, or hopeful, go for David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future.
I also found some of his key issues of the time, particularly how to contain the population of 7 billion in megacities powered by nuclear plants, at odds with other statements about land use. Maybe I misinterpreted his words. Wouldnt it have been nice to keep the population below seven billion. And as for the CO2 ppm... It made me wish for the naivety of 2008.
And don't get me started on melting polar ice. He's probably glad he got out before it really falls apart.
This is a good book for historians of climate change and the inactivity of global leaders pandering to the fossil fuel companies and other rich folk.
If you want something more practical, or hopeful, go for David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future.
January 7, 2014
I give you Lovelock's unflinching and horrifying assessment of the climate crisis, and his closing image in his final chapter of his last book--his final warning that the planet we dwell upon will heat up far faster than most have imagined--with only a few inhabitable oases left to offer any form of refuge to what few survivors will remain:
"Sometime later in this century the survivors may reach a small harbor and dismount from their camels. Moored there they may see a small wooden ship scratching its side as it moves with the ocean's gentle swell against the rough harbor wall. A steady, cooler breeze promises a fair start for the next hazardous part of the journey northwards. The captain says nothing as the survivors board the vessel, but he knows that the near-unbearable rigor of the desert has selected them, the strong in mind and body, whose fitness pays the price of the voyage."
Merged review:
I give you Lovelock's unflinching and horrifying assessment of the climate crisis, and his closing image in his final chapter of his last book--his final warning that the planet we dwell upon will heat up far faster than most have imagined--with only a few inhabitable oases left to offer any form of refuge to what few survivors will remain:
"Sometime later in this century the survivors may reach a small harbor and dismount from their camels. Moored there they may see a small wooden ship scratching its side as it moves with the ocean's gentle swell against the rough harbor wall. A steady, cooler breeze promises a fair start for the next hazardous part of the journey northwards. The captain says nothing as the survivors board the vessel, but he knows that the near-unbearable rigor of the desert has selected them, the strong in mind and body, whose fitness pays the price of the voyage."
"Sometime later in this century the survivors may reach a small harbor and dismount from their camels. Moored there they may see a small wooden ship scratching its side as it moves with the ocean's gentle swell against the rough harbor wall. A steady, cooler breeze promises a fair start for the next hazardous part of the journey northwards. The captain says nothing as the survivors board the vessel, but he knows that the near-unbearable rigor of the desert has selected them, the strong in mind and body, whose fitness pays the price of the voyage."
Merged review:
I give you Lovelock's unflinching and horrifying assessment of the climate crisis, and his closing image in his final chapter of his last book--his final warning that the planet we dwell upon will heat up far faster than most have imagined--with only a few inhabitable oases left to offer any form of refuge to what few survivors will remain:
"Sometime later in this century the survivors may reach a small harbor and dismount from their camels. Moored there they may see a small wooden ship scratching its side as it moves with the ocean's gentle swell against the rough harbor wall. A steady, cooler breeze promises a fair start for the next hazardous part of the journey northwards. The captain says nothing as the survivors board the vessel, but he knows that the near-unbearable rigor of the desert has selected them, the strong in mind and body, whose fitness pays the price of the voyage."
April 2, 2014
"إننا مثل مخمور يقود دبابة حطمنا بالمصادفة عالمنا "
يقوم العالم جيمس لفلوك و بعد سنوات عمره الطويلة بتوجيه صرخة نداء أخيرة لسكان هذه المعمورة ,كنبي وحيد بين جموع الإنكار نجده يدعو الجميع للبدء ببناء سفينة النجاة قبل حدوث إنتقام غايا
لا مجال للتراجع أو العودة فالأرض قد استنزفت ووصلت إلى مرحلة الشيخوخة و قد ضاقت ذرعاً بمرضها العضال المسمى الجنس البشري ,لذا فإنها كعادتها و من أجل الحفاظ على بقائها قامت بإعادة برمجة نظامها الذاتي بتغذية راجعة إيجابية تعمل على توفير ظروف صعبة لعيش بني البشر لكنها تضمن إستمرار الكوكب الأزرق الحزين.
ليست المقدمة أعلاه توطئة لكتاب في الخيال العلمي بل هي ملخص لبعض ما تختزله نظرية غايا
نظرية غايا ورغم المحاربة الشديدة التي واجهتها من قبل كهنة العلم شقت طريقها للنور أخيراً لتحمل بين طياتها تحذير للجنس البشري بقرب فنائه و لكن في الوقت نفسه تقدم الحلول التي تضمن البقاء و لو لفئة قليلة ممن وعت الخطر الشديد و الحقيقي الذي يهدد الكرة الأرضية ككل ,هي نظرية علمية مغايرة و ذات طرح جديد لا تحارب غيرها من النظريات العلمية لكن تقوم بدمجها تحت نظام أوحد تفاعلي
إن "غايا" ستتيح للقاريء ملاحظة وإدراك زيف بعض المسميات البراقة التي يدعو اليها منتسبو (أرضنا الخضراء) وضعف إدعاء البعض بأن الطاقة المتجددة بوضعها الحالي هي الحل لنظام بيئي منقذ للأرض,كماأنها ستدهشك بتفنيد مزاعم البعض التي تدعو إلى الإستغناء عن الطاقة النووية لخطرها على الجنس البشري
أنصح الجميع بقراءة هذا الكتاب لما يحتويه من معلومات جديدة علمية واقعية ستغير الكثير من وجهات نظرك بخصوص أُمنا الأرض و كيفية الحفاظ عليها.
يقوم العالم جيمس لفلوك و بعد سنوات عمره الطويلة بتوجيه صرخة نداء أخيرة لسكان هذه المعمورة ,كنبي وحيد بين جموع الإنكار نجده يدعو الجميع للبدء ببناء سفينة النجاة قبل حدوث إنتقام غايا
لا مجال للتراجع أو العودة فالأرض قد استنزفت ووصلت إلى مرحلة الشيخوخة و قد ضاقت ذرعاً بمرضها العضال المسمى الجنس البشري ,لذا فإنها كعادتها و من أجل الحفاظ على بقائها قامت بإعادة برمجة نظامها الذاتي بتغذية راجعة إيجابية تعمل على توفير ظروف صعبة لعيش بني البشر لكنها تضمن إستمرار الكوكب الأزرق الحزين.
ليست المقدمة أعلاه توطئة لكتاب في الخيال العلمي بل هي ملخص لبعض ما تختزله نظرية غايا
نظرية غايا ورغم المحاربة الشديدة التي واجهتها من قبل كهنة العلم شقت طريقها للنور أخيراً لتحمل بين طياتها تحذير للجنس البشري بقرب فنائه و لكن في الوقت نفسه تقدم الحلول التي تضمن البقاء و لو لفئة قليلة ممن وعت الخطر الشديد و الحقيقي الذي يهدد الكرة الأرضية ككل ,هي نظرية علمية مغايرة و ذات طرح جديد لا تحارب غيرها من النظريات العلمية لكن تقوم بدمجها تحت نظام أوحد تفاعلي
إن "غايا" ستتيح للقاريء ملاحظة وإدراك زيف بعض المسميات البراقة التي يدعو اليها منتسبو (أرضنا الخضراء) وضعف إدعاء البعض بأن الطاقة المتجددة بوضعها الحالي هي الحل لنظام بيئي منقذ للأرض,كماأنها ستدهشك بتفنيد مزاعم البعض التي تدعو إلى الإستغناء عن الطاقة النووية لخطرها على الجنس البشري
أنصح الجميع بقراءة هذا الكتاب لما يحتويه من معلومات جديدة علمية واقعية ستغير الكثير من وجهات نظرك بخصوص أُمنا الأرض و كيفية الحفاظ عليها.
February 22, 2011
Now in his 90's, is this to be the final book of his Gaia series? 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia-A Final Warning', published in 2009, is as stark as the title suggests. Just last Saturday, I was doing my Greenpeace activist duty, and putting stickers on tins of tuna in local supermarkets. Even under the noses of staff members and customers, as we stuck Greenpeace labels declaring 'This product kills more than tuna', we were completely ignored. Maybe the staff and customers of Asda and Morrisons have all read Professor Lovelock's books and know that all this 'new age' green action stuff is just completely futile, and far too late to prevent the inevitable collapse of life as we know it.
Lovelock batters everyone from our 'business as usual' governments, the IPCC, the green agenda, the scientific community etc. Who all fail to see that Gaia is already rapidly moving towards its apocalyptic state of global warming.
Too many human beans on this consumer materialist ship that is listing over to port. Maybe, if we man the davits NOW, some communities can survive in lifeboat states, but most are to go down with the ship. Women and children first? No chance. I'm sure that any lifeboat will be fully manned by the captain and his scrambled egg attired cronies of the officer class.
Och we're all doomed Captain Mainwaring!
Lovelock batters everyone from our 'business as usual' governments, the IPCC, the green agenda, the scientific community etc. Who all fail to see that Gaia is already rapidly moving towards its apocalyptic state of global warming.
Too many human beans on this consumer materialist ship that is listing over to port. Maybe, if we man the davits NOW, some communities can survive in lifeboat states, but most are to go down with the ship. Women and children first? No chance. I'm sure that any lifeboat will be fully manned by the captain and his scrambled egg attired cronies of the officer class.
Och we're all doomed Captain Mainwaring!
August 5, 2022
After reading this I am still not convinced that talking about Earth as Gaia, the living planet is a very good idea. It just reminds me of Ego the planet created by Lee and Ditko. So one can see Earth as somehow regulates and encourages conditions for Life, if I understood correctly. And according to Lovelock it is a theory because it successfully made predictions. Would make a nice chapter in a book on good and bad scientific metaphors. Okay.
So, Earth will survive climate change, but civilization will not. At least not globally. Luckily the British Isles, Scandinavia and a few other places will carry on. And they will even allow some migrants. The others get killed at the border? Lovelock does not tell us, but it would be interesting to learn what he thinks.
It is a pleasure to read a book by a 90 year old guy who obviously still knows what he is talking about. Maybe he is even right for example in saying that it is ridiculous to have abandoned nuclear energy.
So, Earth will survive climate change, but civilization will not. At least not globally. Luckily the British Isles, Scandinavia and a few other places will carry on. And they will even allow some migrants. The others get killed at the border? Lovelock does not tell us, but it would be interesting to learn what he thinks.
It is a pleasure to read a book by a 90 year old guy who obviously still knows what he is talking about. Maybe he is even right for example in saying that it is ridiculous to have abandoned nuclear energy.
Read
April 12, 2014This no option to "pause" your reading which is annoying.
Have put this aside as Lovelock has a new book out soon, where he essentially goes back on much of what he says here and in his previous book.
The message here is, essentially, WE ARE FUCKED, the climate change we have set in motion is already irreversible and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It will lead to a drastic reduction of life on Earth, including humans, who will be extremely lucky sustain a population of a billion and that is very unlikely. His timescale here for this to really kick in is approximately 20 years, the book published in 2009.
As I understand it he still thinks this scenario may be the case but it might take hundreds of years, in which case there may be much we can do to, if not avert it, at least minimise it.
Have put this aside as Lovelock has a new book out soon, where he essentially goes back on much of what he says here and in his previous book.
The message here is, essentially, WE ARE FUCKED, the climate change we have set in motion is already irreversible and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It will lead to a drastic reduction of life on Earth, including humans, who will be extremely lucky sustain a population of a billion and that is very unlikely. His timescale here for this to really kick in is approximately 20 years, the book published in 2009.
As I understand it he still thinks this scenario may be the case but it might take hundreds of years, in which case there may be much we can do to, if not avert it, at least minimise it.
May 12, 2015
Whether you have read Lovelock's previous books about Gaia or not, this one is essential for understanding what may be happening to our planet right now. Gaia is the name for the theory that the earth is a living being in and of itself and does what it needs to in order to survive. It is a living self-regulating super-organism. Because humans have proliferated beyond the capacity of the planet to sustain itself, a correction is happening now. The question is: Will we be able to stop it, or will we be able to adapt to what is coming? The scary part is that these corrections in past eras have built up and then changed the surface of the earth suddenly, almost without warning. Will humans survive? That is the question, and Lovelock gives us some ideas as to what we must do to save our species.
March 12, 2012
This book disturbed me more than any I've read I think. It offers a terribly bleak prospect for our future. Lovelock's grim insight that we individually and collectively will do nothing in time to prevent or even reduce this fate is almost too much to bear. The writing itself offers a series of insights into the nature and purpose of life on Earth. Essentially, each living being past, present and future contribute to maintaining, changing and participating in the collective life of the planet. Our very atmosphere, soil and bodily composition has been created by life. Unfortunately humans, 'tribal carnivores,' tend to use up resources far too fast and will likely tip the feedback processes towards a biosphere hostile to our continued survival in large numbers.
June 17, 2013
كتاب قرأته مترجم إلى العربية ضمن سلسلة عالم المعرفة عدد مايو 2012
يبدو أن الكاتب فريد من نوعه في الكثير من الأشياء.
فأفكاره اللتي ينادي بها ليس منتشرة بقوة , على الرغم من ذالك فهو لا ييأس من محاولة اقناع الجميع ان نهاية الكوكب أمر حتمي بل هو أقرب مم يتوقع الجميع.
يتناول الكتاب ضمن ما يفوق 200 صفحة موضوع الاحتباس الحراري بطريقة جذابة جدا
الكتاب رائع و مكتوب بأسلوب سلس .
أنصح الجميع بقرائته
متوفر مجانا على موقع عالم المعرفة و في المكتبات بثمن بخس جدا لا يتجاوز الدولار
يبدو أن الكاتب فريد من نوعه في الكثير من الأشياء.
فأفكاره اللتي ينادي بها ليس منتشرة بقوة , على الرغم من ذالك فهو لا ييأس من محاولة اقناع الجميع ان نهاية الكوكب أمر حتمي بل هو أقرب مم يتوقع الجميع.
يتناول الكتاب ضمن ما يفوق 200 صفحة موضوع الاحتباس الحراري بطريقة جذابة جدا
الكتاب رائع و مكتوب بأسلوب سلس .
أنصح الجميع بقرائته
متوفر مجانا على موقع عالم المعرفة و في المكتبات بثمن بخس جدا لا يتجاوز الدولار
August 13, 2017
James Lovelock è uno scienziato a 360°, padre della teoria di Gaia che tanto ha condizionato il pensiero ecologico negli ultimi decenni. Dopo aver passato l'intera vita a studiare i meccanismi geofisiologici che permettono al sistema terra di autoregolarsi, negli ultimi anni ha scritto diversi libri di denuncia che mettono in luce i pericoli che gravano sull'umanità intera. L'attività antropica sul nostro pianeta si è trasformata in una vera e propria forza globale in grado di alterare i cicli biogeochimici e il clima. La macchina climatica si è messa in moto con effetti visibili in diversi ecosistemi. Secondo Lovelock il nostro pianeta sta variando in uno stato meno favorevole per la nostra sopravvivenza, soprattutto per la sopravvivenza delle società umane come noi le conosciamo. Il cambiamento climatico ha avuto una rapida accelerata negli ultimi anni, molto superiore ai modelli previsionali elaborati dall'IPCC. In un pianeta più caldo di 4°C rispetto ad ora (previsione per la fine del secolo in corso) la terra potrebbe dare sostentamento ad una popolazione mondiale non superiore a 100 milioni; un dato parecchio allarmante considerando il fatto che ora siamo in circa 7 miliardi! Il problema ecologico principale è la crescita incontrollata della popolazione umana. Lovelock conia addirittura il termine “poliantroponemia” per definire la malattia di Gaia, ovvero l’aumento anomalo e relativamente improvviso, se consideriamo il tempo geologico, degli esseri umani. In questo quadro parecchio preoccupante sappiamo che l’impatto del cambiamento climatico non avverrà in maniera eguale sul nostro pianeta; alcune aree saranno certamente più colpite rispetto ad altre. Tra due o tre decenni le superfici di territorio in cui sarà possibile abitare saranno quelle nelle regioni settentrionali del nostro pianeta, quelle che l’autore chiama “zattere di salvataggio” Che fare allora? Lovelock, partendo dal punto fermo che il cambiamento in atto sarà inevitabile, dedica diversi capitoli analizzando le varie possibili soluzioni energetiche e tecnologiche per cercare di adattarsi e sopravvivere. E' cosa nota ormai che Lovelock consideri l'energia nucleare la sola soluzione ipotizzabile per "mantenere accese le luci della civiltà" nel prossimo futuro. Le fonti rinnovabili possono certamente aiutare a colmare la fame di energia dell'uomo ma sicuramente non possono essere l'unica soluzione attuabile su larga scala. Una possibile soluzione per frenare il cambiamento climatico potrebbe essere l’impiego della geoingegneria (l’autore dedica un intero capitolo sull’argomento) come ad esempio l’immissione nella stratosfera di aerosol di goccioline di acido solforico, l’utilizzo di “parasoli” in orbita geostazionaria, il sequestro del biossido di carbonio, la fertilizzazione degli oceani con il ferro per favorire la crescita algale e quindi il sequestro della CO2, ecc. Secondo Lovelock il tempo è scaduto, ora dobbiamo utilizzare tutto il nostro intelletto per cercare di adattarci al cambiamento per sopravvivere. Non c’è altra soluzione che guardare in faccia la realtà e affrontarla. Purtroppo però come ha affermato Bertrand Russel “L’uomo medio affronterebbe più volentieri la morte o la tortura piuttosto che pensare”
December 28, 2017
Gaia - Alerta Final por James Lovelock - Renomado cientista, inventor de vários instrumentos científicos como o medidor de CFCs (clorofluorcarbonetos) presentes na atmosfera, além de várias publicações científicas, sendo o autor da teoria de Gaia. Neste livro ele expõe suas teorias e quais foram suas motivações para publicação desta obra, aqui ele faz críticas ao IPCC (Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas) que é um é um órgão científico responsável pela sintetização e divulgação de conhecimentos relacionados ao aquecimento global, e a divulgação de pesquisas relacionadas às mudanças climáticas chamou verdadeiramente sua atenção sobre o consenso relacionado ao clima do futuro, baseados em modelos climáticos incompletos, nada confiáveis se comparados às previsões com os dados reais apurados, onde políticas públicas são planejadas a amenizar mudanças do clima, o próprio autor relata: "Se não conseguimos prever o que já aconteceu, como podemos ter confiança nas previsões para daqui a quarenta ou noventa anos?". Para dar ênfase em suas objeções traz gráficos que mostram as discrepâncias levantadas ao que realmente aconteceu ao nosso planeta, ou seja, previsões incompatíveis em relação às observações reais obtidas, e como a história da terra evidencia que as mudanças não são sutis como as previsões do IPCC, sendo mais prováveis mudanças súbitas, e lembra a importância das observações no mundo real e não apenas argumentações em modelos teóricos. Não há dúvida sobre o grande jogo de interesses em previsões que sejam mais aceitáveis aos interesses governamentais e as atividades humanas que potencializam o aquecimento global. O autor levanta várias questões que chamam bastante atenção, sendo evidente que a evolução da população humana ao longo dos tempos tem relação com as diversas consequências negativas ao planeta terra, o excesso de pessoas com seus animais de estimação e gado exaurem os recursos naturais com uma velocidade acima do que o próprio sistema consegue se regenerar, "os seres humanos do século XX tornaram-se quase um organismo patológico planetário" e na teoria de Gaia o planeta Terra é um grande ser vivo capaz de se autorregular, mudando para um estado bem menos favorável a nós seres vivos e outros animais para regular seu pleno funcionamento, nossa tentativa de salvar o planeta como o conhecemos já passou há muito tempo, ou seja, é um assunto extenso com vários pontos e advertências importantes que devem ser consideradas, não concordo com tudo que li, mas são discussões que valem a pena. Realmente um livro que levanta uma serie de reflexões sobre como vemos e interagimos com o planeta que habitamos.
June 30, 2023
يتناول هذا الكتاب موضوع التغير المناخي، وهو الموضوع الأول عالميا، بطريقة مختلفة وطريفة، فكاتبه هو صاحب نظرية غايا (الأرض في الأساطير اليونانية) التي ترى الأرض كنظام يتحكم في نفسه ذاتيا، يتألف من مجموع الأحياء والصخور السطحية والمحيطات والغلاف الجوي المرتبطة بقوة بعضها مع البعض كنظام يتطور باستمرار. ترى هذه النظرية أن لهذا النظام هدفا وهو التحكم في الظروف على سطح الأرض، بحيث تشكل دوما البيئة المناسبة لاستمرار الحياة. وهو يرى أن وجه الأرض أو ملامحها من غابات وقبعات جليدية وأحياء تتلاشى بسبب الاحترار العالمي.
يختلف المؤلف مع المنظمة الحكومية لتغير المناخ (IPCC) في أن قراراتها تراعي التوافق بين الدول المشاركة كلها على حساب الحقيقة العلمية، وبالتالي فإن سيناريوهاتها حول التغيير المناخي وآثاره جاءت أدنى مما هو في الواقع. كما يناقش المؤلف موضوع الحد من إصدار غازات الدفيئة والتحول إلى مصادر بديلة للوقود الأحفوري. وهو يخالف من يقول بالاعتماد على الطاقات المتجددة، كالطاقة الشمسية وطاقة الرياح، ويدعم استخدام الطاقة النووية لأنها توفر البديل اللازم بالسرعة المطلوبة لإنقاذ الأرض من الاحتباس الحراري.
هذه الآراء والأفكار مثيرة للجدل، كما هي حال موضوع الاحتباس الحراري نفسه، ولكن مما لا يقبل الشك أن هذا الموضوع يهمنا جميعا لأنه يتعلق بمصيرنا على وجه هذا الكوكب.
الكاتب هو عالم بيئة مستقل؛ وأحد أشهر علماء الايكولوجيا في بريطانيا؛ وصاحب فرضية غايا المثيرة للجدل، والتي تقول بأن الأرض هي منظومة بيئية واعية ذاتية النظم conscious self-regulating system.
بعد حصوله على درجة الدكتوراه في الطب، بدأ لوفلوك مسيرته في إجراء تجارب للحفظ بالتبريد على القوارض، بما في ذلك ذوبان العينات المجمدة بنجاح. كانت أساليبه مؤثرة في نظريات حفظ الخلايا الحية بالتبريد (حفظ cryopres للبشر). اخترع كاشف التقاط الإلكترون، وباستخدامه، أصبح أول من قام باكتشاف الوجود الواسع لمركبات الكربون الكلورية فلورية في الغلاف الجوي. أثناء تصميم الأدوات العلمية لناسا، طور فرضية غايا.
وضع لوفلوك فرضية غايا لأول مرة خلال فترة الستينيات كنتيجة لعمل ناسا المهتم بالكشف عن الحياة على المريخ، وتقترح فرضية غايا أن الأجزاء الحية وغير الحية من الأرض تشكل نظامًا تفاعليًا معقدًا يمكن التفكير فيه باعتباره كائن واحد. سميت على اسم الإلهة اليونانية غايا بناءً على اقتراح الروائي ويليام جولدينج، تفترض الفرضية أن المحيط الحيوي له تأثير تنظيمي على بيئة الأرض التي تعمل على الحفاظ على الحياة.
في حين أن هذه الفرضية قد تم قبولها بسهولة من قبل الكثيرين في المجتمع البيئي، إلا أنها لم تكن مقبولة على نطاق واسع داخل المجتمع العلمي ككل. من بين أبرز منتقديها علماء الأحياء التطوريون ريتشارد دوكينز وفورد دوليتل وستيفن جاي جولد، وهو تقارب في الرأي بين الثلاثي الذي تتباين آراءه حول المسائل العلمية الأخرى في كثير من الأحيان. لقد تساءل هؤلاء (وغيرهم) من النقاد حول كيف يمكن للانتقاء الطبيعي الذي يعمل على الكائنات الحية أن يؤدي إلى تطور التوازن على نطاق الكواكب.
يختلف المؤلف مع المنظمة الحكومية لتغير المناخ (IPCC) في أن قراراتها تراعي التوافق بين الدول المشاركة كلها على حساب الحقيقة العلمية، وبالتالي فإن سيناريوهاتها حول التغيير المناخي وآثاره جاءت أدنى مما هو في الواقع. كما يناقش المؤلف موضوع الحد من إصدار غازات الدفيئة والتحول إلى مصادر بديلة للوقود الأحفوري. وهو يخالف من يقول بالاعتماد على الطاقات المتجددة، كالطاقة الشمسية وطاقة الرياح، ويدعم استخدام الطاقة النووية لأنها توفر البديل اللازم بالسرعة المطلوبة لإنقاذ الأرض من الاحتباس الحراري.
هذه الآراء والأفكار مثيرة للجدل، كما هي حال موضوع الاحتباس الحراري نفسه، ولكن مما لا يقبل الشك أن هذا الموضوع يهمنا جميعا لأنه يتعلق بمصيرنا على وجه هذا الكوكب.
الكاتب هو عالم بيئة مستقل؛ وأحد أشهر علماء الايكولوجيا في بريطانيا؛ وصاحب فرضية غايا المثيرة للجدل، والتي تقول بأن الأرض هي منظومة بيئية واعية ذاتية النظم conscious self-regulating system.
بعد حصوله على درجة الدكتوراه في الطب، بدأ لوفلوك مسيرته في إجراء تجارب للحفظ بالتبريد على القوارض، بما في ذلك ذوبان العينات المجمدة بنجاح. كانت أساليبه مؤثرة في نظريات حفظ الخلايا الحية بالتبريد (حفظ cryopres للبشر). اخترع كاشف التقاط الإلكترون، وباستخدامه، أصبح أول من قام باكتشاف الوجود الواسع لمركبات الكربون الكلورية فلورية في الغلاف الجوي. أثناء تصميم الأدوات العلمية لناسا، طور فرضية غايا.
وضع لوفلوك فرضية غايا لأول مرة خلال فترة الستينيات كنتيجة لعمل ناسا المهتم بالكشف عن الحياة على المريخ، وتقترح فرضية غايا أن الأجزاء الحية وغير الحية من الأرض تشكل نظامًا تفاعليًا معقدًا يمكن التفكير فيه باعتباره كائن واحد. سميت على اسم الإلهة اليونانية غايا بناءً على اقتراح الروائي ويليام جولدينج، تفترض الفرضية أن المحيط الحيوي له تأثير تنظيمي على بيئة الأرض التي تعمل على الحفاظ على الحياة.
في حين أن هذه الفرضية قد تم قبولها بسهولة من قبل الكثيرين في المجتمع البيئي، إلا أنها لم تكن مقبولة على نطاق واسع داخل المجتمع العلمي ككل. من بين أبرز منتقديها علماء الأحياء التطوريون ريتشارد دوكينز وفورد دوليتل وستيفن جاي جولد، وهو تقارب في الرأي بين الثلاثي الذي تتباين آراءه حول المسائل العلمية الأخرى في كثير من الأحيان. لقد تساءل هؤلاء (وغيرهم) من النقاد حول كيف يمكن للانتقاء الطبيعي الذي يعمل على الكائنات الحية أن يؤدي إلى تطور التوازن على نطاق الكواكب.
October 19, 2017
Some great ideas but let down by repetition, meanderings into other subjects, attacks on environmentalists, support for nuclear energy and too pessimistic doomsday scenarios.
Gaia as a theory of a self regulating living planet that will survive regardless of what happens to the humans is something I feel makes sense. The fact that the human population is now 7 billion, and together with our farm animals, is the primary cause of 60% of CO2 emissions is a sobering fact. Attempting to reduce the other 40% of emissions by green technologies is indeed probably doomed to failure. Locklock's insistence on the benefits of nuclear energy seem to be counter to his other arguments. This firstly because there is this 60% of CO2 that is not being addressed, and secondly because it is already too late as the buildup of CO2 to date is now irreversible. He cleverly points to the fact that it is the actual pollution in the atmosphere reflecting the sun's heat that is protecting us from the global warming that has already taken place and evidenced by rising sea levels and melting ice caps.
What left an unpleasant feeling about this book was his keenness to set up an island fortress in the UK for the survivors of the coming catastrophe- and already thinking of how to keep out the inevitable refugees from the rest of the world. It would have been a better book if he had stuck to the science, and the theory of Gaia, and not delved into sociological political fantasies regarding survival of certain elements of humankind.
Gaia as a theory of a self regulating living planet that will survive regardless of what happens to the humans is something I feel makes sense. The fact that the human population is now 7 billion, and together with our farm animals, is the primary cause of 60% of CO2 emissions is a sobering fact. Attempting to reduce the other 40% of emissions by green technologies is indeed probably doomed to failure. Locklock's insistence on the benefits of nuclear energy seem to be counter to his other arguments. This firstly because there is this 60% of CO2 that is not being addressed, and secondly because it is already too late as the buildup of CO2 to date is now irreversible. He cleverly points to the fact that it is the actual pollution in the atmosphere reflecting the sun's heat that is protecting us from the global warming that has already taken place and evidenced by rising sea levels and melting ice caps.
What left an unpleasant feeling about this book was his keenness to set up an island fortress in the UK for the survivors of the coming catastrophe- and already thinking of how to keep out the inevitable refugees from the rest of the world. It would have been a better book if he had stuck to the science, and the theory of Gaia, and not delved into sociological political fantasies regarding survival of certain elements of humankind.
May 18, 2017
Non mi ha soddisfatta come il primo libro scritto da Lovelock (Gaia). Le sue affermazioni sulle conseguenze e le cause del surriscaldamento terrestre erano già state sviluppate nel primo testo. Questo ultimo libro é un po' una ripetizione. Gli argomenti nuovi riguardano le sue opinioni personali su come la Gran Bretagna può affrontare questa modificazione globale. Secondo l'autore occorre usufruire delle centrali atomiche come fonte energetica, e ne spiega i motivi. Quanto alle cause che ci hanno portato al surriscaldamento terrestre, egli non incolpa tanto le industrie e i combustibili fossili, quanto la PRESENZA stessa di sette miliardi di persone e dei loro animali che emettono anidride carbonica. Chiaramente a questo non c'è rimedio. Noi contribuiamo, con la nostra respirazione, ad apportare il 23 per cento di biossido di carbonio in atmosfera. Egli afferma che Gaia ( la biosfera ) sta già apportando le necessarie modifiche per mantenere l'omeostasi necessaria alla vita nel pianeta Terra ( lo sta facendo da 3,5 miliardi di anni ). Ma il suo scopo è la sopravvivenza di tutto il pianeta, non di una sola specie, quale potrebbe essere quella umana. Tuttavia anche l' uomo, come specie,ha sempre saputo adattarsi. Si presuppone che, usando l'intelligenza, continui a farlo.
March 14, 2019
Lovelock does not mince around with painting a pretty future. Earth might pull out of the death spiral we are currently making in our own "business as usual" consumptive, pollutive ways, but it will need to be a far more drastic response on a global scale. And even then, it will not be life as we know it now. Major shifts of behavior, eating choices, and particularly our choices for energy creation are all needed, and now. Lovelock is a scientist who feels wind, solar, wave & hydro are not efficient nor adequate for future needs and goes through chapters addressing these. He makes a strong case for nuclear and rails at the sensationalization of past nuclear accidents and the dangers this energy poses. A bit of the sciency stuff went over my head, but the message is clear and he is an expert and public speaker and author on this subject. Gaia, the idea that the Earth is alive and given a chance, heals itself is an idea I fell in love with in the 70s. It's good to hear it brought into discussion again, though the overall tone of this book of warning is frightening. (as it should be)
May 29, 2022
This book by James Lovelock is a classic. Other reviewers have said that he takes you on a roller-coaster ride and they are correct.
The book is a timely warning of what we must do, to save the earth. We are losing time. Nay, we are out of time. Some who have read "The Revenge of Gaia" may find some parts repetitive, but this is good.
James Lovelock urges us to look at 'the earth' as an 'integrated system' - the earth Goddess, Gaia. This is the only way we can approach the world we live in.
It is impossible to address one part and not the rest. In the last few chapters, he takes us on a personal story, and this ties everything together neatly.
He addressed the topic of life on Venus and Mars and exploded the myths some billionaires are building. His critique of "Silent Spring" is balanced, and I like the chapter on energy and food.
There is one point he made, and I jumped with joy when he did: we have too many people.
The writing style is clear, simple and engaging. There is enough food for thought. I hope we act.
The book is a timely warning of what we must do, to save the earth. We are losing time. Nay, we are out of time. Some who have read "The Revenge of Gaia" may find some parts repetitive, but this is good.
James Lovelock urges us to look at 'the earth' as an 'integrated system' - the earth Goddess, Gaia. This is the only way we can approach the world we live in.
It is impossible to address one part and not the rest. In the last few chapters, he takes us on a personal story, and this ties everything together neatly.
He addressed the topic of life on Venus and Mars and exploded the myths some billionaires are building. His critique of "Silent Spring" is balanced, and I like the chapter on energy and food.
There is one point he made, and I jumped with joy when he did: we have too many people.
The writing style is clear, simple and engaging. There is enough food for thought. I hope we act.
January 10, 2025
2.5
Se estávamos condenados em 2008, que dirá hoje.
A leitura pouco alentadora (e necessária) de futuro se perde um pouco pra mim no meio de uma batalha de ego científica contra "os verdes", "os marxistas", e os piores de todos: os "marxistas verdes".
Sabendo se guiar no meio dessa descartável defesa da honra teórica do autor, o livro é uma boa leitura.
"Nossa civilização industrial contemporânea está irremediavelmente desajustada para sobreviver em um planeta superpopuloso e com poucos recursos, iludida pelo pensamento de que as invenções brilhantes e progressos nos darão a calçadeira que nos ajustará ao nosso nicho imaginário. Acho que seria melhor se aceitássemos e entendessêmos quão baixas são as chances de nossa sobrevivência pessoal, mas me enche de esperança o fato de nossa espécie ser extremamente tenaz, ter sobrevivdo a sete grandes catástrofes climáticas nos últimos milhões de anos e de ser improvável que sejamos exintots na próxima catástrofe climática."
Se estávamos condenados em 2008, que dirá hoje.
A leitura pouco alentadora (e necessária) de futuro se perde um pouco pra mim no meio de uma batalha de ego científica contra "os verdes", "os marxistas", e os piores de todos: os "marxistas verdes".
Sabendo se guiar no meio dessa descartável defesa da honra teórica do autor, o livro é uma boa leitura.
"Nossa civilização industrial contemporânea está irremediavelmente desajustada para sobreviver em um planeta superpopuloso e com poucos recursos, iludida pelo pensamento de que as invenções brilhantes e progressos nos darão a calçadeira que nos ajustará ao nosso nicho imaginário. Acho que seria melhor se aceitássemos e entendessêmos quão baixas são as chances de nossa sobrevivência pessoal, mas me enche de esperança o fato de nossa espécie ser extremamente tenaz, ter sobrevivdo a sete grandes catástrofes climáticas nos últimos milhões de anos e de ser improvável que sejamos exintots na próxima catástrofe climática."
September 21, 2025
Doom. That’s the future this book envisions for humanity. Lovelock understands that to prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable, we would have to put the Earth before ourselves, our greed, our gluttony, our need for heirs, etc. The Earth is not simply a rock that life emerged on; It’s a living entity. Like any living creature, its immune system will eradicate us and a small number of humans may survive to hopefully lead our species towards a more sustainable society.
There is plenty to learn about global warming, energy production, energy efficiency, and environmentalist futility. We are doomed. Overpopulation can only be solved with death. Gaia will live and welcome the remnants of our race with open arms.
There is plenty to learn about global warming, energy production, energy efficiency, and environmentalist futility. We are doomed. Overpopulation can only be solved with death. Gaia will live and welcome the remnants of our race with open arms.
April 8, 2020
A must read for every adolescent - and their parents. Well written, clear manifest on how we humans are to the earth as the flora and fauna in our intestines to our bodies. We are part and parcel of Gaia. We have caused climate change, but in effect that is integral part to Gaia’s evolution. Let’s leave religious pity behind and clear our minds to work out actionable solutions to keep our planet as habitable as we need to survive. Among which, pressingly, the instant replacement of burning fossil fuels for energy with nuclear power - and not so much the likely falsely green adverted renewable energy from wind turbines and solar panels...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews