It was James Lovelock who put into words the concept of the Earth as a living entity. Anything that smacks of New Age or mysticism usually makes me gag, but I kept going because the author doesn't ascribe a consciousness to this mechanism, which he calls Gaia. Rather, Gaia is the process by which the Earth behaves as a single, self-regulating system. Mr. Lovelock believes that human activities have limited Gaia’s to self-regulate. He believes disaster is all but inevitable .

The book contained some surprising ideas: support for nuclear energy, disapproval of organic farming. But the test for a book like has to go beyond interesting. It needs to make a compelling argument, and I think Mr. Lovelock falls a little short of compelling in several cases.

In spite of his arguments, I have some doubt about the safe disposal of nuclear waste. He is nostalgic to the point of being realistic; for example, when he talks about returning to sailing ships for long distance travel. And, he tells us that Gaia is “old and has not very long to live”. So, either we need a new metaphor or there isn’t much point worrying about anything, including climate change. ( )

One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive waste is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of people and their pets. It is easy to forget now that we are so numerous, almost anything we do in the way of farming, forestry and home building is harmful to wildlife and Gaia. The preference of wildlife for nuclear-waste sites suggests that the best sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry farmers and developers.

Although I had heard of the Gaia theory, I had not read about it in any detail before so there were quite a few surprises awaiting me between the covers of this book.

And are we all doomed? Most likely yes. ( )

For millennia, humankind has exploited the Earth without counting the cost. Now, as the world warms and weather patterns dramatically change, the Earth is beginning to fight back. James Lovelock, one of the giants of environmental thinking, argues passionately and poetically that, although global warming is now inevitable, we are not yet too late to save at least part of human civilization. This short book, written at the age of eighty-six after a lifetime engaged in the science of the earth, is his testament.

He argues for nuclear power and highlights the downsides of renewables (lack of reliability, insufficient scope and nasty side effects) ( )

http://gcoupe.spaces.live.com/blog/cn... ( )

This is a deceptively short book, but let's start (near) the beginning.

James Lovelock was the scientist (and he's a fully paid up, kosher scientist, not some New Age quack) who put into words the concept of the Earth as a living, self-regulating entity.

No, don't pick up your coat just yet... he doesn't ascribe a consciousness to this mechanism, which, for simplicity's sake is called Gaia (courtesy of his neighbour, William Golding). Gaia is the process by which the Earth behaves as a single, self-regulating system, comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components. The interactions between the component parets are complex and exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial variability.

Gaia, Lovelock explains, is a dynamic system, and one that uses the natural resources available to it to manage the process. Unfortunately, human activities have wrested more and more of these resources from Nature's control, and have severely hampered the system's ability to self-regulate. Lovelock therefore fears - nay, predicts, even - a 'tipping point' in climate is approaching, one which will push the climate beyond Gaia's ability to moderate sufficiently to be compatible with our (the Western world's) lifestyle.

Ironically, current pollution levels are helping keep temperatures down because the suspended particulates in the air filter and reflect sunlight back into space. Unfortunately, these particulates have a relatively short shelf-life in the atmosphere, such that were we to cease all emissions tomorrow, within a few weeks the protective blanket's effectiveness would dwindle, and the temperature would increase. So simply turning off the switches isn't going to help as much as one might thing.

Yeah, it's a fairly depressing read, and despite Lovelock's eminence in his field, I'm not wholly certain of his impartiality in the long, hard-sell section devoted to nuclear power.

Anyway, Lovelock's central thesis is that the Earth cannot support the lifestyle we currently enjoy/expect/demand. It can't support that lifestyle for the existing populations that enjoy it, let alone accommodate the developing nations' thirst for the same.

Indeed, he argues that we need to step back. That 'sustainable development' isn't sustainable, and what we need to be looking at is 'sustainable retreat'.

Oddly enough, I came across a page at The Beeb the other day which claimed that if the planet were to enjoy a UK lifestyle, we'd need 3.7 earths to provide the resource for it. Apparently, the magic 1 Earth figure equates to a 1961 lifestyle...

I digress. Lovelock's main message is that we should be doing all we can to prepare for a soft, powered landing, now, rather than panic when the whole system tilts us into a brand new, hotter world.

It's a thought provoking book, but a depressing one. I'm not terribly well-read in this field (although I am intending to continue exploring), so I have no feel for how 'out there' Lovelock is. Some of the language, some of the metaphors, jar in what one expects to be a studious tome. But maybe this is no bad thing.

It's a quick read, and an illuminating one. 's worth a look. ( )