CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE LIVING EARTH
6 November 2007
Hazel Prowse

Notes of a talk by James Lovelock to the Royal Society, 29 October 2007. This was an open meeting with no advance booking, so I turned up early and was about number 40 in the queue an
hour before the start, and I still worry if those at the back ever got in...

Professor Lovelock’ visited the Hadley Centre at Exeter some forty years ago and found from talking to climate scientists that each individual study (eg ocean, warming) showed accelerating change, but they were not thinking together. Polar ice melting was separated from tropical rain forests, reflecting the division of science into specialities. Chemists saw one reason for climate change, other scientists saw others, in essence, ‘physical’ v ‘biological’, so the dynamics of the whole system were being missed.

Professor Lovelock sees our planet operating as a self—regulating system and in 1968, published his Gaia hypothesis. This theory was not popular and was even compared to creationism.

The IPCC report of 2004 was the scariest document he had ever read. That of 2007 was written with caution, but sadly, the most pessimistic members of the panel did not see the speed of climate change.

He sees Mars and Venus as dead planets, but the Earth is different. We have a relatively unstable atmosphere, but its major gases are in equilibrium.

We need a better understanding of the earth system, for example, the effects of removing of plants from farmland. Most research looks at the atmosphere, yet the influence of clouds and oceans is not studied sufficiently. The population is rising but the reserves of food and water are diminishing.

It was a long time before the invisible hand of feedback was recognised in Adam Smith economics, but we can see it in our climate now. We think we can be stewards of Earth before we
understand it.

Ocean systems dominate the cooler periods of Earth history, and land, the warmer times. Recently, oceans are showing a decline in their ability to take up CO2 It also looks difficult
to re—stabilise Earth in a new warmer state.

The rapidity of our generation of carbon dioxide as bad as its quantity. Even with a planned cutback in fossil fuel combustion the Earth may get hotter, because we would lose dust particles
and their global cooling.

Climate change is too fast for us to react in time, although 200 years ago it might have been possible. Implementing Kyoto is unlikely to succeed.

‘Ceo—engineering’ ideas such as ‘sunshades in space’ have potential, and techno—fixes should not be condemned — rather, they may give us time to react.

Think of Earth as a live, self—regulating system, eg direct synthesis of food from N and water — less land required, and no CO2 produced.

Merely reducing carbon footprint is not enough. 40% of Earth’s ecosystems have already been destroyed by agriculture, and it would be worse if we added biofuels!

Earth now is in ‘positive feedback’, leading to a stable state at higher temperature. We should learn to live in Baghdad temperatures — without the war — but that would mean less green.
With only a few million human beings, everything was in balance, but now, plants are insufficient to take up the CO2 we produce. It will not be enough just to reduce our emissions. Our species
should act as the heart and mind of Earth; it is not just a matter of human rights alone, but human obligations.

The Q&A session revealed both expertise and enthusiasm in the audience. How can we de—carbonise the electricity grid, and transport? What about large solar works in arid zones?

Professor Lovelock said there was not much time for major engineering operations, as they all take about 40 years. There was too much tendency to model, instead of actually trying experiments.

We need a climatic wake—up event, as in war, a disaster to get a political reaction.

What did the speaker think of the opening of the NW Passage? ‘The only things that people notice are those that affect their lives, eg Katrina. Mere deaths do not worry people. And human inertia is HUGE, so the main effort should be in adaptation.

What would he say to the Climate Conference meeting in few months time? ‘We must all prepare to adapt. Off—setting, and subsidised renewables are only gestures.

Would we do better with a smaller population of only 3bn? (Applause from audience.) ‘Yes, but 1 billion better still’.