Some like it hot. According to environmentalist James Lovelock, we will be more hot between now and the end of the century. "We're so far down the road to the hottest we have since we were 55 million years ago," Dr. Lovelock, who is also a leading atmospheric scientist, said in an interview taped floor interview last week, "the than many of us look at it, it is not much difference, what makes someone. "With stronger comments, which he consideredEngland's Independent newspaper, this past January, Lovelock warned: "The earth is the point of a morbid fever that as long as 100,000 years ago, can catch." And we were worrying others about an ice age?
Skeptics might wonder whether his 1200-word essay was only book advertising hype. Lovelock's biting our-world-is-doomed article was about two weeks before Penguin Books (UK) began to be published with the sale last work, The Revenge of Gaia, in the bookshops in the British Isles. He did not givecommented in his paper: "This is the most difficult article that I wrote." During an interview, Dr. Lovelock, during our transatlantic phone conversation, it sounded sad, the octogenarian and his prediction, but still optimistic, despite his ruthless assessment of what lay ahead for the rest of this century. "I see the crunch coming as an opportunity to improve ourselves in a way. Who knows? One can have a better chance if he starts again."
Only about one billion peopleSURVIVAL
What does he mean by again? "Until the end of this century there is a high probability that the majority of our species to be eliminated on the planet," Lovelock, the soft-spoken in earnest. "It may be something in it, plus or minus, in the order of a billion left." There is little hope, we asked. "I do not see that our present civilization hacking it," he complained in his response. But, but, what if? "Enormous changes must be made," he said. "Society is much too slow in cuttingback. "He insisted that these changes should have begun, at least 50 years. Later he added, in retrospect:" If Europe and the U.S. tried to ensure a good and containment of 30 percent, it is not really help much. I do not think the audience wants to do it. "
The Lovelock's prognosis, he provides will be forced at the end of this century, the last few people, the remnants of civilization in the Arctic again. It is not so cold up there thinking until then, as you may. Hetold us: "Within 25 years, most of the global ice have disappeared in the Arctic. You will be able to take a sailboat to the North Pole." How long before we start to feel these changes? "In my own modeling, I believe, rather it is an unknown number of years," said Lovelock. "It is five years or it may, at 30 years." He offered a picture, think "of it as a rope or string. Global warming may lie ahead in a straight line or curve a little loose as the IPCC seemsProject. "
Lovelock summarized why his prognosis is terrible and probably irreversible "Everybody forgets the greatest damage we have done on earth, not so much the emissions of greenhouse gases, but by the natural resistance of the farmland ecosystem. The fact that we have the planet disables the ability to regulate itself. "Lovelock benefit not paint a picture of what Earth might look like several decades from now on. He wrote in the Independent, in January, "Much of thetropical land mass is depleted bush and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation, in addition to those 40 percent of the earth's surface, we have to feed ourselves. "With his book and in various articles, Lovelock has repeatedly blasted environmentalists lose, Earth future through campaigns to promote renewable energy.
That is when we talk about environmentalists, especially the idealists who claim began to help preserve the earth. So we asked thisleading environmental scientists, what was really wrong environmental movement today. Bitterness entered his voice, when Lovelock said: "It is mainly the urban population, almost nothing about the country together and know even less about the ecosystem." He scoffed, "Their solutions are basically urban-political. They continue to solutions, is composed run their cars on bio-fuels. This is one of the wildest ideas of the game." Lovelock cuts no slack for the proponents ofCause of biofuels. He writes in The Revenge of Gaia: "It would burn us every year about two to three gigatons of carbon as a bio-fuel (a gigatons of one billion tons). Compare this amount with our annual food consumption of half a ton gigatonne … We would need an area of several earth, only to grow fuel. "
Does he think environmentalists are destroying the environment? "I'm afraid I do," he said gloomily. Because we know that there remain several environment –Groups, the nuclear power as a much needed solution to the energy mix of the earth refuse to embrace, we asked what he would say about them. "They are very stupid," he added quickly as she shot back. After a pause he added: "They live in a dream world." As the father figure he is, Lovelock is disappointed but tries to remain buoyant. He wrote in his recent book, "My feelings about the modern environment are parallel to those who could pass through the mind of a head-mistressa school in the city or the colonel of a newly formed regiment, dissolute, and naturally disobedient young men: how the hell these recalcitrant charges can be disciplined and put in place? "
Lovelock WANT THE WORLD TO GO NUCLEAR NOW
The headline of a recent editorial in a Boston newspaper asked: "Are Pro Nuclear men of the New Green?" We have been discussing. "It is a bit of an old concept, really," he grinned. "Nuclear for more than 40 years at least. I think in someCountries like the UK you can find some groups are looking more to nuclear power. "
Make no mistake in thinking James Lovelock is anything but Pro Nuclear. His quote adorns the top of the first page of the website of the World Nuclear Association: "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear energy, if we get to civilization." Rightly so, the Association refers to its supporters as "outstanding world leader in the development of environmental awareness." In hisBook Lovelock writes: "There is no other alternative than nuclear fission, and fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy will be a truly long-term supplier. Nuclear energy is emission free and independent of imports from what a troubled world."
Lovelock analyzed briefly the value and harm to individual energy sources in The Revenge of Gaia. He has a burning disgust for the coal industry and carbon-based fuels is inefficient and dangerous, not only men but also on the groundas a self-regulating system. He has repeatedly pointed out that renewable energies are not sufficient to meet our planetary system energy requirements. In contrast to the renewable Amory Lovins or endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, Lovelock sees little value in the immediate future for either solar or wind energy programs and has harsh words for her, writes: "It will fail and will benefit both the greens and discredit the politician stupid enough to renewable energy a major source of energy before they were adopteddeveloped properly. "He believes that their solutions for renewable energy could only hasten the decline of our civilization.
As Lovelock spread against strong mining industry, and because nuclear energy depends on the extraction of uranium, how he feels about the uranium mining? "I do not think it matters, because there is never a very big operation," he said. "When one considers the ratio of energy produced from uranium compared to coal, with a quota was for millions of people, the quantity of uraniumis degraded, is trivial compared to coal mining. "We said Dr Lovelock as U.S. firms uranium conventional version with in-situ uranium recovery. Lovelock thought of in situ" is a good idea because it mobilizes the uranium with the oxygen in the water and makes no god awful chaos of the environment. "
Navajo Nation URANIUM BAN CALLS ON ABSURD
Through our reporting on environmental development in New Mexico for companies such as Uranium Resources (OTCBB: Urre) and Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), we talked about uranium mining in this state. Since it was such a wonderful event, we discussed the Navajo Nation ban on uranium mining in the four-state Indian reservation area called Four Corners. Confuses us from this, the latest scientific developments of the in-situ uranium recovery method, we discussed a conversation that we had previously based with Dr. Fred Begay.
Last November, during a visit to Los AlamosNational Laboratories (LANL), we asked Dr. Fred Begay on the new face of uranium mining. Dr. Begay is both a nuclear physicist and a Navajo, was continued to reach his affiliation with LANL through the implementation of out-community programs on the Navajo reservation. Stock interview he said: "The Navajo do not get it. You have illiteracy in mining and uranium."
James Lovelock, we asked what he thought of the Navajo uranium ban in the context that the tribe also receives approximately 100 million U.S. dollarsper year from coal mining royalties. "Had there was no mining at all in the Navajo Nation, and they wanted to keep the initial deposit as part of a natural ecosystem, I understand the refusal is not mine," he said. "But if they order the coal mining, then it is absurd to reject uranium mining."
What would James Lovelock said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr. or any of the aboriginal tribes in Australia and other countries, not the uranium mining? "Very little"he said suddenly. He then clarified his answer. "It's almost like trying to any religious person who convince their unfounded beliefs. I would not explain the dream to a devout Catholic that I am doubtful about the virginity of the Virgin Mary have." He compared it with an article of faith, added: "Do not think about it. She did not know that it is wrong. It is very difficult to deal with people like." Is this also true for the average anti-nuclear environmentalists? He explained how hehas the uninformed: "The only thing I is as effective in this country, the United Kingdom, saying:" Yes, it can be a little dangerous, but nothing quite as dangerous as global warming. So we should use it to overcome them. "
CHINA AND FINAL PROVISIONS WORDS
We can not have 21st Century speak, without the nuclear to dilemma in China. The world's largest miner and one of the worst air polluter, China is planning its most aggressive expansion of nuclear energyProgram of the last thirty years. "The Chinese government is the strongest government in the world," Lovelock began. "I have a friend that is there to consult regularly with the Prime Minister about the ecological problems." Thus began a classic Lovelock anecdote:
"They say to him:" We all do our best to more renewable energy than any other. We are building nuclear power plants as quickly as possible, so that we no longer have the carbon in the atmosphere. However, if weis can not develop resources for our nation, much as our government, it will be a revolution tomorrow. We are not able to use the coal resources until we have enough nuclear and other renewable energy sources to build to meet our needs. "
He concluded: "If the Chinese can not do it, how the hell do the Western democracies?" Therein lies what some consider his fatalism about the health of the earth. Is he really the pessimist some make him to be?
"Quite the contrary," he saidresponding. "I have accused a pessimist, but no, I do not think so." Lovelock, compared the current threat of global warming on his experiences as a student and young workers during the Second World War. "In 1940 we were threatened by the intrusion of a very powerful enemy," he recalled. "Some people threw their arms in horror and said:" There is nothing we can do. "But it was a very enjoyable time for those who survived the hard work and threatened." Lovelock of Great Britain and the dangerPassed on to the next generation of what he learned from it: "It is terrible to think of global warming, but it's still a challenge. It certainly is a wonderful time for many young people."
Some have reported The Revenge of Gaia is Lovelock's will. We read instead of Lovelock's masterpiece in a different light. Our conversation with Dr. Lovelock led us to believe that his book is his strongest warning to the world's politicians and scientists to acceleratetheir embrace of nuclear energy, a set of very possible catastrophic events that come to us to avert the coming decades, possibly. He says it has "a high probability", but Lovelock never said "definitely." In this wide difference, Lovelock looks not into his cup and finds it half full, not half empty.
Copyright © 2007 by Stock interview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
