Discuss: Snap into Action for the Climate

I recently read James Lovelock’s first book, “Gaia…” followed by “The Revenge of Gaia.” In the first he seemed to think that the earth would recover if left alone for 30 years; in the second he advocated for both nuclear energy and climate engineering solutions. Now he says it’s to late, that it’s going to take a 100k years for the earth to recover; given that context, this was a relatively ‘upbeat’ article! If the Gaia theory holds true, might the earth react with a snap of it’s own? Say, a super-volcano like the Yellowstone caldera explosion? On the other hand, if as Lovelock suggests, humans are the intelligence of Gaia, perhaps climate engineering is just another part of the natural system of balance?

A passionate piece, however, the author has not considered many of the very serious downsides of geoengineering (not just acid rain, but disrupted monsoons, leaving the oceans acidifying and then there are the political questions of who sets the thermostat), including the most pernicious of all: the ability to use it as a way out of understanding what has caused our mess and taking responsibility for it, that is, using the idea of geoengineering as a convenient excuse to avoid the much more important task of mitigation (and adaptation, which is now also necessary no matter how much mitigation we achieve).

Other issues: an “ice-free” arctic is a technical term usually meaning less than 20% of the baseline level, not zero. Sometimes, there is also confusion about whether it is this 20% mark that is being discussed, or an ice-free north pole, which is different again, and is quite possible with a much more modest decline in sea ice. The former (ice-free Arctic) occurring within the next decade is still something of an outlying view, though it is certainly true to say that the situation is much more dire than was realised even just a handful of years ago.

And as anyone who has followed Australian politics over the last eighteen months can attest, Rudd did not turn out to be a climate champion, nor has Australia entered a new political paradigm. It was something of a false dawn (though a slight improvement over the last government). Much like Obama, really.

I agree and disagree with a lot that is said in this article. I agree that America is in need of change. I agree that there is ways that we can reverse the climate and cool it down. I agree that we need to create ways to get better gas mileage. However, can we do all that? We most certainly can, but will we? I doubt it! I just don’t see “everyone” coming together as a whole and stopping  this. In order to find ways to create electricity and eliminate coal mining. In order to eliminate or create new ways to power vehicles besides gas. We must first find those employers jobs! If we don’t do that then the people will be in a world of hurt! Sure the world of climate change is bad, but you have to consider all of the lives that the coal and gas provide meal for, and puts a roof over their head. I agree with this article though, we have to change. If the number went from 2070 to 2013 that quick, just imagine what the next predictions will show? 2011??? Could it be? It’s very possible! Does this prediction mean anything? I don’t think so, I mean there is a prediction that world ends in 2012. So what does that mean? We may never live to see 2013. In order to overcome that we have to take a stand. We can’t blame this on other countries either, America is the leading polluting country, so we must first change!