James Lovelock: You Ask The Questions
The eminent scientist answers your questions, such as 'Is the Earth really a living organism?' and 'Why do you like nuclear power?'
I have heard that the Gaia theory means that the Earth is alive. What does that mean, exactly? Roger Middleton, Chester
The Earth system (Gaia) shares many attributes with a living cell; it metabolises, it responds to changes in its environment, it can die, and it reduces its internal entropy by taking in high quantum energy as sunlight and excreting infra-red radiation to space. It does not reproduce, but something that has lived about 3 billion years hardly needs to reproduce; selection theory asserts that organisms reproduce at a rate reciprocally related to their lifespan. Gaia's reproduction rate would therefore be expected to be less than one in three billion years.
Some scientists say that your suggestions for geoengineering sea algae will never work. Is it just pie in the sky? Guy Brewer, Nottingham
Those who claim that encouraging algal growth in the ocean will not reduce CO2 abundance in the air might be right, but they do not know for sure. Their arguments are based on calculations using theoretical models and not, as they should be in science, on observation and experiment. Evidence from the ice cores of Antarctica and from ocean sediments suggests that algal growth was more abundant in the ice ages. We also know from Antarctic ice core data that the low temperatures of the ice age were closely associated with low CO2. It reached as low as 180 parts per million, and this requires powerful biological pumps. What better than those of the abundant ocean algae?
Conventional farming methods produce higher yields at less expense. Is organic farming really good for the environment? Matthew Fell, York
All kinds of farming are less good for the environment than natural ecosystems, such as forests, scrub and deserts. Organic farming might be better than agribusiness per hectare, but if it produces less food, more land would be farmed and consequently there may be nothing to choose between organic and agribusiness farming so far as the environment is concerned.
Is it true that you think that Gaia has always worked in our favour but that with climate change Gaia will work against us? Helen Barrington, Winchester
Gaia works in her favour and tries to keep a habitable planet. Most certainly she does not work specifically in our favour. When we do environmental damage we may disable Gaia's ability to help. Indeed, Gaia may now be changing the Earth in a way unfavourable for us.
You have said that the UN's scientists are underestimating the speed of climate change in their official reports. Is that right? Chris Hastings, Dover
Yes, scientists who observe sea-level rise find it is happening about 1.6 times faster than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted. Other observers find the rate of melting of floating ice in the North polar ocean is happening faster than predicted. Just now we are long on theory and short on observations.
If we are past the point of no return, what should we do? Edward Farmer, Pickering
If we are beyond the point of no return, then our greatest efforts should go towards adapting and making sure that we survive as a species. Beyond this mythical tipping point it would be too late to try to stop global heating. If we have not yet reached the tipping point, I still think that we should concentrate on adapting and surviving. We are not good at working together to reduce land use and CO2 emissions, and there may be little time left in which to do it.
Why are you so much in favour of nuclear power as a solution? Doesn't it have lots of dangers? Hatty Hamilton, Exeter
I am in favour of nuclear energy for small, densely populated nations such as the UK, Germany, France, others in Europe, and Japan. Such nations need an abundant supply of electricity to continue civilised life, and there is no alternative to nuclear energy; we used to use coal, gas and oil but now know we cannot. Nuclear energy also happens to be the safest, the most economical and reliable of energy sources. It is foolish to reject it. Its safety record in the UK – and we are not the best – is a vast improvement over that of coal, gas or oil. Remember over 5,000 people died in one night in London in the 1950s from coal-smoke poisoning. Apart from water power and solar energy in desert nations, renewable energy is inefficient, expensive and unreliable, but with huge subsidies it makes a great deal of money for its developers. Most arguments against nuclear energy are propaganda and it is well worth asking who benefits from the flood of misinformation.
Why do you attack the green movement so much? Aren't you a green yourself? Howard James, Manchester
Yes, I am a green but, not surprisingly, an old-fashioned one. My difference with the modern greens is mainly over their failure to see that the countryside has intrinsic value for wildlife, for food supply and as park land for our ever more urban society. The countryside should not be regarded as an industrial site for wind or solar energy. I also dislike the rampant ignorance of science shown by modern greens, especially the idiotic way they class all chemicals as bad. We are all made from a mixture of chemicals and not from some mysterious spiritual brew.
Nuclear power is fantastically expensive – no nuclear power plant has ever survived without vast sums of public money subsidising it. Aren't your well-publicised positions just playing into the hands of the well-financed nuclear lobby? David Lowe, Whitehaven
Nuclear power is not more costly than coal power. It could be much less expensive than coal, but has been made expensive by the prolonged legal and political objections that confront all attempts to build a new nuclear power station. It is nonsense to suggest that there is a wealthy nuclear energy lobby. The nuclear fuel industry is tiny compared with the coal, oil and gas industries, and small compared with the renewable energy industry. The small size of the nuclear fuel industry is because one gram of uranium can deliver as much energy as a ton of coal or oil. If uranium were as costly as gold it would barely affect the price of electricity.
Why are you so hostile to renewable energy in general and wind power in particular? Norma Jones, Halifax
Mainly because they do not work under north European conditions and because they have become, through the abuse of subsidies by the greedy, a scam. I like the idea of solar thermal energy in nations with sunlit deserts, and wind energy in places where the wind blows constantly and few people live.
Where do you go to escape? Mary Plant, Plymouth
I would love to know where to go. Just now I am far too busy to escape. Our holidays are in the South West, mostly walking.
You are determined to leave the planet and "see the face of Gaia" on one of Richard Branson's strange-looking rockets. Isn't that environmentally damaging? David Christopher, Birmingham
Probably no more damaging than driving from Devon to London and back a few times or flying to Majorca every summer. If by seeing Gaia from Sir Richard's spacecraft I can give a better account of Gaia, it will have been worthwhile.
You once wrote that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable". How should we choose the breeding pairs? Louise Smith, Hamilton
The Earth is already selecting the survivors. Those that move to a safer place when life gets tough are likely to survive. We are not clever enough to judge who should survive and should not try. But we may have to chose when faced by the awful question, who you allow aboard the lifeboat when there is room for only one more?
You're nearly 90. What ambitions do you have left? Henry Allen
To enjoy life to the full while I still can.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
Do not know where MIT got the 35 years from but suspect that this is Mines presently in Production. Cameco's Cigar Lake Mine (when producing in 2012?) will, on its own, add 12 to 15% to world supply.
again, looking at the types of human ( you know, all those bonussed bankers and political wankers) who will survive the present financial armageddon, surely from gaia's point of view she would be far better off without the whole lot of us?
Just read the above and I am most impressed, except that you seem to avoid mentioning the possibility that present global warming might just be variations in the sun's output. I have heard it said that ALL the planet's poles are warming presently..no 4X4's on mars then!
And what about Al Gore's support for the hockey stick graph, since rejected and the judge who ruled his book "An inconvenient truth" was propoganda and nor suitable for dissemination to school children?
Yes. we have to conserve our resources, and many of us have thought so since the '60's, but the present hype looks like just plain lies and an excuse for taxation.
Thank you for an excellent book. Yours sincerely Nick Ellis
Volcano roots are in Mantle so Core not affected.
Core probably getting colder but very slowly. Original heating because of Gravity Compression plus Planetoid impact that created the Moon, temperature reduction over time moderated by radioactive decay of Uranium, Thorium etc, in Planet from its formation from Solar Dust Cloud.
Suspect that heat seepage rate to surface is less than leakage rate to space, so Earth Atmosphere not really hotter because of Core heat.
All this from memory of degree in Physics 30 years ago so it may be that I have forgotten other factors. Hope this helps you.
good this journal thing-lots of peeps to teach me stuff I do not know-= tons- lawyer sadly, not economist or physicist so a lot tolearn
I have designed ESDs for Oil, Gas & Petrochemical Plants but not Nuclear so I am not certain but suspect that, in event of a total power failure, the moderator rods would fail-safe to the default position of moderating the chain reaction in the Reactor Core. The fish should be safe (at least until the concrete containment dome rots). Water can be split or modified by radiation (the Hydrogen & the Oxygen components), if memory serves, but not radioactive (dangerous)in the way that I think that you mean.
I misunderstood what you were asking before - you are talking about "secondary" radioactive risk from things like irradiated steel piping etc. in the Reactor? If sea level does rise and a Reactor has to be abandoned then (since we would, in all probability, have years of notice of the likliehood) the Reactor would be shut down in a controlled (not emergency) mode and the Core would be stripped out. Modern Reactor designs allow for the fuel elements to be replaced/removed on a regular basis. The elements can then be treated & re-used elsewhere or (if the Politicos sorted themselves out) be stored in an Underground Waste Depository.
The Reactor steel etc would, I presume, be left for a few years for its radioactivity to decrease with time and then disposed of. Depending on residual half-lives, this would mean some small % to the Depository, a larger % stored for a few years/decades (in a cooling water pool?) & the bulk re-smelted and re-used in other constructions. Sorry but I cannot give exact figures as it is not my area. Perhaps some other reader has more knowledge?
In any case, my understanding is that no Reactor Site in Britain would have this problem if sea level rose in the range that has been mooted because of Climate Change.
I saw a programme re the abandoned City near Chernobyl (about as bad as any Nuclear Accident could get) which showed that wildlife was re-inhabiting the area after less than a quarter-century. It started with Insects (as you would expect as they seem to be more radiation-resilient) but now Moose, Foxes, Rabbits etc. So I do not think children could play on an old Reactor site after a few years but, probably, after a few decades.
Trust this is of interest.
"Most arguments against nuclear energy are propaganda and it is well worth asking who benefits from the flood of misinformation."
Who does benefit then?
and does not the nuclear industry have its own PR corporations working to provide a biased story?
Mike Atkinson, Dunstable
Dear Sir,
My question is not about your articles, sorry!
I am typing the English translation of a French manuscript for a book written by Mr. F. Rombaut who lives in Belgium.
He has asked me to try to find your contact address as he would like to write to you with regard to the book he is writing which concerns his vision of the future of the Earth and Mankind.
Please can you help? Thank you.
Sheila Breeds
email: bats2@pandora.be
can someone get Mr Lovelock to contact me. ? pure@look.ca
I like science but am self taught - so excuse me if this question is silly.
Could the moon be considered a product of binary fission?