Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

on 11 April 2008
We should salute the (now) 89 -year-old author, James Ephraim Lovelock (Ephraim is Hebrew for fruitful): an independent, dissenting voice in science. Rebelling against reductionist philosophies, he took an inclusive, systems view of the planet, publishing his Gaia Hypothesis in 1970. It took over 30 years for the international scientific community to come round.

Having studied chemistry at Manchester U and received his PhD in medicine at London U, Lovelock was engaged in the 1960s by NASA to find ways to detect life on Mars. He realized that life would influence the atmosphere and designed an instrument to detect trace gases. Thinking about the reason why Mars is so barren and Earth so fruitful, he arrived at his Hypothesis.

In brief the Hypothesis stated that the Earth is not just a rock that happens to have things living on it: it is a complex interacting system of soil, sea, atmosphere and living things that shows a tendency to keep itself stable in a way that supports life. In particular this complex web has acted to hold temperature within a narrow range over hundreds of millions of years even as the sun warms and the planet wobbles in its orbit.

Lovelock calls this system Gaia after the ancient Greek goddess of the Earth and persists in referring to Gaia as a person who acts with intent. Some find this annoying and unscientific. This reader accepts it as poetry and metaphor.

In summary, in his latest book, Lovelock revisits his Hypothesis and argues that:

1. Not only is climate change an impending disaster but an irreversible tipping point may already have been reached
2. The single most important step to take now is a major switch to nuclear power
3. Too many people simply do not understand the issues correctly: the well-meaning Greens are also at fault
4. Gaia's revenge will be to restore the equilibrium of the planet by removing most of the human population

On page 1 he states bluntly: `we are now so abusing the Earth that it may..move back to the hot state it was in 55 m years ago and most of us and our descendants will die.'

He starts with a by-now familiar history of the issue of climate change and goes on to say: ` we are now approaching one of those tipping points and (are) like passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail.'

He reminds us how huge are the effects of what seem like minor temperature shifts: only 3 degrees separates us from the last ice age; the same scale of increase now seems likely this century: very rapid change indeed in geological time.

The tipping point factors of climate change are by now well-known:

1. The poles melt and less sun is reflected: this seems to be happening now
2. The bogs thaw and methane is released (a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2)
3. The seas warm and the algae stop fixing carbon and making clouds
4. The forests bake and catch fire
5. Methane clathrates are released from the deep sea bed

What makes Lovelock distinctive is his Gaian perspective. He argues that:

1. A `cold' planet' is healthier than a `hot' one. If the Earth was 5 C cooler than now (as it has often been) , there would be glaciers down to the English Channel. But the Atlantic would be teeming and Africa would be a green garden.
2. We are mistaken to think that the Earth is in a Goldilocks orbit. It started out too cold for life. The sun is slowly warming and now the Earth is becoming too hot. So Gaia keeps tilting to coldness. There have been 11 recent ice-ages in the British Isles. We are in the `fever' of a warm interglacial and would normally be heading to the `cure' of the ice-age.
3. But man has disrupted the balance, not just by burning fossil fuel but also by replacing forest with farm. Gaia will do what it must to restore the balance.
4. The underlying problem is that the sustainable human population is probably under 1 billion. Today it is 6 billion, forecast to be 11 billion by 2050.

His argument for nuclear power is simple: all the other solutions produce lots of CO2 or don't work well and/or take too long (new approaches such as carbon sequestration take 20-40 years to mature):

1. Nuclear power is tried, tested and economical and produces very little CO2
2. Wind power is unreliable and costly. It would take 56000 large wind-mills plus fossil fuel back-up just to replace current nuclear capacity (20% of our total needs)
3. Solar is poor for the UK: unreliable and 3x more expensive than conventional methods
4. Wave power apart from a Severn barrage is expensive .....

And so on.

He believes that popular misconceptions of cancer risk militate against nuclear. (It's arguably worse than that: the UK government has ducked the issue for over a decade. Only in the last few months, stampeded by the risk that (a) the lights will go off around 2012 and/or (b) we will depend on a hostile Russia for gas, has the UK government moved). Lovelock bemoans the fact that our political classes do not have any feel for nature or the planet. (They also know little of science or business and there is often a grim determination among temporary ministers to avoid difficult decisions.)

He feels that the Green movement has lost its way: for example by wanting `sustainable development' when much more radical action is needed and for promoting low-productivity organic farming when this means eating up yet more of the countryside. This is putting a lifestyle choice ahead of the planet. He detests the Green wish to cover the land with tens of thousands of windmills.

He offers several examples of similarly faulty decisions: including the massive error of banning DDT. Because the vocal western middle-classes did not want pesticide in its food, Africans died. Yet the use of DDT to kill human disease vectors posed little food risk: it was abuse of DDT by farmers.

Lovelock explores some blue-sky technical fixes to global warming: planetary sun-shades, for example, but without real enthusiasm. Perhaps because it would distract from his here and now message: go nuclear.

So are his arguments complete and wholly compelling? No. The central question of power sources deserves a large book in its own right. Do you have to accept Gaia to believe that climate change is likely to destroy us? No. Do you have to accept Lovelocks' wistful argument for a countryside free of windmills? No.

But although bits of the book can be faulted, the whole seems to me to succeed. It is a well-written, lively, provocative book on a critical subject and a key idea of our times written by one our most gifted and original thinkers.


It's nice to know that when climate Armageddon arrives: the poles and the permafrost melt, the bogs and tropics catch fire and much of Southern Europe, Asia, Africa and the USA and Australia starve and fry, the Atlantic Conveyor will also switch off resulting in a local temperature drop. The result could well be that the UK climate remains equable. On the other hand the UK will be a shrunken archipelago, with our major cities submerged, tens of millions of people looking for a home and many millions of refugees landing on our beaches.
0Comment| 53 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 6 February 2010
This is the latest in James Lovelock's books about Gaia. In this book he suggests that we might have taken Gaia beyond the point of no return and that human created climate change will lead to a shift in the steady-state of Gaia.

I am not an anti-Gaia skeptic although I think you do not need to personify the planet to make it a "living" system. I agree that the Earth's System is probably going to move to another steady state and that humanity is contributing to this move. Where I would disagree is that we know what this state will be and that we can work out our contribution to this shift. Lovelock himself admits that the system is too complex for humanity to understand and that we would be hopeless if we tried to take over the management of Gaia but that argument works both ways. We also cannot tell how Gaia will react to the current crisis. Where I would agree is that the new state is unlikely to be very human friendly, but Gaia will survive even if we do not.

He is pro-nuclear power and anti-sustainable and wind in particular. His arguments for tidal forget the contribution they make to environmental change. I agree that nuclear is our only current hope until we learn to reduce our consumption and we have to make do with less land and to generate the largest amount of food we can from this. So organic might not be the way forward. He is inconsistent over protecting the eco-systems while saying we cannot go organic and need to keep factory farming. He is silent on GM but this is something we might use.

There are lessons we can learn from the book but we can be more positive. It is not hubris to think that we can help Gaia and try to come to an agreement for our mutual benefit. We will never be able to take over control but humans can make positive steps, such as the lessons we can learn from the New Guinean highlanders or the experiences of the Vikings in Greenland from the book Collapse.

Lovelock pointed out that we needed to take a big picture view of the Earth and so we have to embrace all that we can do. There is much to learn and much to do and very little time.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 1 October 2009
James Lovelock is a green icon and quite rightly so: this book is brilliantly written and scaring in equal measure and presents a convincing case for the use of nuclear power. One fundamental flaw, though, is Lovelock's apparently uncritical support for the sociobiology school of Dawkins and Wilson. It's astonishing that Lovelock doesn't seem to realize that by endorsing them he is undermining his own argument. If we are by nature selfish, by nature 'tribal carnivores' as he says, then what we are doing to Gaia can't be helped: it's just 'natural' and there's nothing we can do about it. He is not apparently aware that the 'human predator' theory advanced back in the 70s by people like Lorenz and Ardrey is history. As Erich Fromm and others have shown, human beings are not predatory carnivores by nature: all known predatory mammals are PURELY carnivorous: man is an omnivore, and hunter-gatherers are known, ironically perhaps, to be 90% vegetarian. The SEVILLE STATEMENT of 1986, signed by 20 of the world's leading biologists stated that, 'It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have an inherited tendency to make war or act violently. That behaviour is not genetically programmed into human nature.' My impression is that Lovelock isn't much interested in social sciences and hasn't studied this, but it is a fundamental flaw in the presentation of his argument
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 July 2009
Professor James Lovelock is one of the world's leading scientists. He has been writing for very many years on subjects relating to the dangers of damage to the environment we inhabit.

The Revenge of Gaia is a fascinating insight into the problems that face the entire world with regard to changes in world climate.

I believe it should be required reading for every decision maker on Earth!

This lovely "Penguin" format makes it a delight to own and have on one's shelf!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 18 January 2014
The book explodes the myth of the effort to produce sufficient power without a Nuclear source.With the increase in population
globally, and the consequent need for extra tillage of forestry, and grassland, to feed people we are killing the means by which
our planet regulates both climate and temperature, hence global warming which is not good for humanity. This book explores the depletion of our natural resources i.e. oil, coal, gas, etc. and shows the calamity that will ensue when they disappear if not replaced as he suggests. Dr. Lovelock makes the case for the development of nuclear power as the main saviour of our planet (powerwise)
coupled with wind, water and other means where practicable.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 February 2017
Interesting read.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 14 January 2017
great read
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 August 2015
Excellent reading. If you read this James Lovelock is probably preaching to the converted - so buy it and lend it to your friends.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 April 2014
Beautifully written and full of facts, not opinions. Interesting facts worth knowing. Makes our energy options very clear. A bit too clear.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 22 March 2016
Interesting theories. Quite believable !!!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)