Greens vs Gaia
The Gaia Hypothesis is one of those ideas that has been shamelessly abused. Now the man who developed it is delivering a smackdown on those people who, until now, have revered him.
The basic idea is that the biosphere does not exist on an Earth that happens to be hospitable to life, but that it is part of the system that ensures that hospitable environment in the first place. The idea was first proposed by the British scientist Sir James Lovelock. He suggested many specific examples of the feedback loops that included both geological and biological components:
The volcanoes make the CO2 enter the atmosphere, CO2 participates in limestone weathering, itself accelerated by temperature and soil life, the dissolved CO2 is then used by the algae and released on the ocean floor. CO2 excess can be compensated by an increase of coccolithophoride life, increasing the amount of CO2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorides increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitations which are necessary for terrestrial plants. For Lovelock, coccolithophorides are one stage in a regulatory feedback loop. Lately the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing.
Scientists generally accept that there are feedback mechanisms that incorporate biological components. The Gaia hypothesis has been criticized for extending beyond specific examples. The notion that the biosphere as a totality could be considered a single living organism, or more accurately, the planet itself (hence the name "Gaia" which refers to the Greek "earth mother" goddess) is pointed to as an unjustified extension, unsupported by the evidence.
Nevertheless, the idea has been taken up with great enthusiasm by the environmentalist movement. They even have a name -- the Gaians:
Disciples of 21st-century Gaia believe that all living things on earth are interconnected (except man) and that to damage or destroy even the tiniest insect is the equivalent of wiping out an entire ecological system. In layman understanding: Don't swat that fly hovering around the pablum you're feeding the baby.
Former Vice President Al Gore could be the most recognized disciple of Gaia.
So what do they think of Sir James Lovelock? Right now, they're pretty peeved:
The British biologist James Lovelock is one the most revered gurus of the environmentalist movement. Nevertheless, he caused uproar when he spoke out last year to encourage greens to adopt nuclear energy as the most practical option for powering our societies without adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In his new book, The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate in Crisis and the Fate of Humanity
, he lays out his argument for nuclear power in more detail, as well as providing a biting insider's critique of the Green movement he has done so much to inspire, arguing "they must drop their wrong-headed objection to nuclear energy".
Whatever criticisms have been leveled at Lovelock, it must be said that he seems to still think like a scientist, and that means recognizing the truth in the data, regardless of what it might mean to your preconceptions:
Lovelock cites data that radiation from the Chernobyl reactor accident in Ukraine in 1986 killed, according to the latest World Health Organization survey, 75 people, almost all either operating the plant at the time or rescue workers at the scene. The zone around the plant, evacuated 20 years ago, has now become a thriving nature reserve. Similarly for the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the number of deaths resulting seems to have been zero. A breach in a dam could, by contrast, easily kill tens of thousands downstream, or perhaps half a million in the case of the giant Three Gorges project in central China. Lovelock points to research from the Paul Scherrer Institute, a Swiss government research laboratory, showing that nuclear power has been responsible for a tiny fraction of the fatalities, a fortieth, of renewable hydroelectric power.
Lovelock is highly critical of "cosmic-scale exaggeration" and "distortions of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy", which he holds responsible environmental activists and a credulous media too ready to accept their bona fides.
But he sticks it to the wealthy and affluent environmentalists as being unrealistic and uncaring:
Of course, Lovelock's more radical followers would probably welcome the reduction in the population:Lovelock is critical of environmentalism more generally, referring to it as a movement of "affluent radicals in the first world" and points out ill-conceived solutions such as the banning of the pesticide DDT, which condemned millions in poor tropical countries to fatal mosquito-borne malaria.
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Mother Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons. Good health will be restored to the Earth's ecology... to the "life form" known by many as Gaia.
I have to think that whatever Lovelock's shortcomings, he never wished for his ideas to be used for this.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Gaia Hypothesis Al Gore Sir James Lovelock Chernobyl Ukraine Three Mile Island Three Gorges Paul Scherrer Institute DDT
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Cooking up stuff like this is bound to get an obscure "scientist" the underserved attention that he so obviously craves....
Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at February 28, 2006 01:49 PM
Everything that occurs in this space-time is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist...so what are they complaining about?
:D
Posted by: David Lockwood at February 28, 2006 02:36 PM
Gotta love these Greens. The get all excited about "global warming", they want to spend billions on useless pollution targets, but when someone proposes a practical solution to CO2 emissions... They get all excited... Like someone is threatening to put them out of business or something...
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 02:38 PM
While Lockwood's comment made me crack a grin, I would encourage him, Curtis and Raymond Hietapakka avoid making the same mistakes as the Greens: The the comments posted thus far over simplify the issues and dismiss the very serious, and at time valid, concerns of the environmentalists. Isn't that the problem being underscored with the greens? They oversimplified the theory and dismissed the parts they didn't like.
Posted by: Joseph at February 28, 2006 02:56 PM
I've always chuckled at the basic Green/Gaian notion that mankind is somehow not part of Nature.
The idea that we are somehow completely separate from the remainder of the earth's living creatures, and not simply an advanced form of mammal, implies that we did not evolve from an earlier form of primate along with the monkeys and other apes. Instead, it implies that we must be here by virtue of Divine intervention - God snapped His fingers and shazam! - there we were.
And that would make the Greens the ultimate Creationists, would it not?
Might be interesting to see their reaction to this argument ....
Posted by: Doug at February 28, 2006 03:14 PM
I agree with Joseph.
I wonder if Lovelock has had any contact with people who were touched by the fallout of the 1986 Chornobyl reactor blast.
Perhaps the lingering health problems of such people are considered just "coincidental" and as such not worthy of consideration by such esteemed institutions as the World Health Organization.
It's not likely Lovelock will convince people who give eyewitness accounts like this: http://www.antigonishreview.com/bi-122/122-dubisskiy.html
Posted by: Scythian Princess at February 28, 2006 03:20 PM
"...and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution)......
You gotta belieeeeeeve in evolution, or you're just gonna spend eternity wallowing in the primordial ooze.
Oh, wait, we already passed that stage long before developing a belief system, a hind brain, or even a multicellular existence.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Dagny Taggart at February 28, 2006 03:23 PM
One thing that nobody ever points out is that burning carbons also consumes oxygen...I worry more about the oxygen depletion than I worry about global warming. Here in smog alley (Montreal QC), the air is getting un-breathable during the summer months...so I say more nuclear for the US and turn off those coal-fired electrical plants in Kentucky and OH.
Oh, and I agree that humans are part of nature and eco-zealots speak as if we're alien invaders.
Joseph: my previous was a good first volley though :)
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at February 28, 2006 05:11 PM
Interesting stuff. I'm willing to keep an open mind on nuclear energy, although I suspect that the indirect death toll from Chernobyl was higher than 75, just as they were from atmospheric testing a few decades ago. Radioactive strontium 90 and cesium 137 are released into the atmosphere, and had their international effects.
But I'm genuinely amazed that Lovelock is peddling that hoary old DDT-ban-caused-more-malaria myth. For anyone interested in what actually happened, here's a good account:
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm
Overall, I think the Gaia hypothesis has merit. The planet as a whole is a self-correcting system. It's good science: Lovelock was able to predict the sulphur cycle with his model, for example.
I've read my Lovelock, and no way does he claim that human beings are separate from nature, which would be an absurd contradiction of the Gaia hypothesis. For a quick overview, I recommend Healing Gaia : practical medicine for the planet New York: Harmony Books, 1991. .
If some environmentalists get him wrong, that's no surprise. Unless STeve is asserting that all environmentalists have misunderstood the eminently readable Lovelock, I don't know what his point is.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 28, 2006 05:23 PM
I worry more about the oxygen depletion than I worry about global warming.
There are a whole list of things I worry about ahead of global warming. Oxygen depletion isnt even on the list, nor should it be on yours. Oxygen is a renewable resource. As oxygen gets 'used' in the process of burning (well anything really) there are other chemical reactions ongoing to replenish the oxygen back into the atmosphere.
Free oxygen (oxygen not combined with other elements to produce an oxide, a gas or water) is very rare in nature. If you look around the solar system there is no other planet that has a huge atmosphere with abundant oxygen. (the dominant element in the earth's atmosphere is actually nitrogen)
Its simply impossible for all the oxygen in the atmosphere to be consumed.
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 05:25 PM
By coincidence, I just this moment received a paper for feedback that deals, in part, with Lovelock's most recent book. Steve, to call this a "smackdown" of the environmental movement appears to be a gross and tendentious misreading of the book. For example, Lovelock is convinced that global warming will have catastrophic consequences in this century.
You gave the impression that he had renounced his views and denounced his followers. Neither is remotely true. If he aims a few scientific barbs at the excesses of some, so what? In the main, he maintains and extends the Gaia hypothesis.
Again, I'm bemused by his position on the DDT "ban," and, while I take his point about the relative dangers of nuclear vs. CO2, I think that he underestimates the consequences of the uncontrolled use of nuclear energy and the deaths that have already occurred. But, in the context of the Gaia hypothesis itself, these are mere quibbles.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 28, 2006 05:42 PM
Have you ever seen the Penn & Teller TV show called "Bull sh.it"?
In one episode, they goto a Earth Day protest, and get everyone to sign a petition banning Hydrozine.... (aka hydrogen oxide, aka water) and got enthusiastic endorsements from everyone present; actually pretty funny. These "Greenies" try to pass themselves off as scientifically literate, informed and educated people. Who are in reality nothing of the kind.
I like nuclear energy, I think we should use much much more of it. To be honest, I see CO2 as plant food, and not a danger to civilization. Leaving aside the greenhouse gas myth, there are several good reasons to use nuclear energy.
1) leave more natural gas coal and oil for consumer use and export. (as nuclear power plants would displace the dirty coal, oil and eventually some natural gas electrical plants)
2) There is tremendous damage to the environment caused by hydro-electric projects. Huge areas of land are flooded in order to develop the reservoir for the dam project. I have nothing against hydro-electric projects in general, but there are some specific cases, that I object too.
3) nuclear energy is a technology intensive industry, having an active nuclear power industry would have tremendous spin off in the R&D of computer controls, and industrial controls. Technology that could be applied to other industerial processes.
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 06:49 PM
I don't know Curtis...I don't think it's impossible for us to deplete the oxygen levels...we've only seen the beginning of China's industrialization not to mention India, Malaysia etc. 80+ million barrels/day...how much oxygen does it take to burn that?
All complex systems have a tipping point.
We need to get that Helium-3 production going on the moon...that sounds promising.
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at February 28, 2006 09:29 PM
I don't know Curtis...I don't think it's impossible to deplete the oxygen levels. We've only seen the beginning of industrialization of countries like China. 80+ million barrels per day and increasing...how much oxygen does it take to burn 80 million barrels?
We need to get that Helium-3 production going on the moon...that sounds promising.
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at February 28, 2006 09:32 PM
Oops...it DID go through :)
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at February 28, 2006 09:34 PM
If you want to read an article on Lovelock's latest book and comments, check it out here:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/011606EA.shtml
Pretty grim stuff.
And I'm not sure why people on this board believe that Greens or enviornmentalists believe they are seperate from nature. I know lots of Greens and never once have I heard them utter such foolishness. Can someone please explain to me how people here, other than Dr. Dawg, came to that conclusion?
And as for nuclear power, my biggest complaint has always been not with the planst themselves, but with uranium. In Saskatchewan, we have abandoned uranium mines leaking toxic materials into the water. And we have no idea of how to store the spent rods once we are done with them. Until we figure that out, why do we continue to dig the stuff up?
Posted by: Peter D at February 28, 2006 09:56 PM
...reminds me of that Twilight Zone movie where a guy had to keep finding stuff to build this tree to keep balance in the world. A young guy stumbles upon it, and a small tiny ocean nation is wiped out by a tsunamie or something.
Tinkle tinkle.
Crap there goes Karigplakinstan...
Posted by: tomax at March 1, 2006 12:54 AM
Curtis, agreed except all of #3 on nuclear bringing R&D. One little "ooops" and we got more wastage per acre than all the hydroplants put together. Hint: 3 Mile Island is still hot.
Peter D, yeah, it is a provincial, if not national disgrace what is happening up north. So much for escaping civilization to "fresh air and clean water"...
But you can bet your booties someone is getting kickbacks on the Kyoto mess.
Posted by: tomax at March 1, 2006 01:00 AM
I thought spent rods from Candus could be broken up, purified and used for fuel in Rickover reactors (the type of reactor the US Navy uses in its ships). So why would we bother to store spent Candu rods? Use them.
The thing is, there are a lot of possibilities for us. Wind ... they're building a wind farm not 15 km from here. Pictureque in a way.
We're a smart country. We should talk it out and do what we can. It seems silly to keep on doing things the old way.
Posted by: jw at March 1, 2006 04:43 AM
Steve...
I find this the silliest and most amusing discussion so far.
It makes me think of Tom Cruise and Scientologists...wacky notions personified.
Small wonder planet earth is overpopulated with insane inbreeds that are rapidly depleting its nourishments. I'm more worried about depleting sanity than the oxygen supply which is abundant (oceans and lakes are full of it).
Posted by: Liberal Ron at March 1, 2006 10:15 AM
Why use Uranium for future nuclear power? Why not use Thorium/uranium/plutoniom -oxide tri-medal rods?
do a little google on thorium its very interesting stuff.
Posted by: Curtis at March 1, 2006 07:01 PM
..nuclear energy is a technology intensive industry, having an active nuclear power industry would have tremendous spin off in the R&D of computer controls, and industrial controls...
Here's the current cost of those spinoffs: New Energy Probe study finds AECL subsidies account for 12% of national debt.
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=14554
Posted by: JM at March 2, 2006 06:11 AM
 
|
|
