Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

I know this article is a little dated (2006) but i think that only makes it all the more relevant. Enjoy! ;D

Environment in crisis: ‘We are past the point of no return’

Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind’s abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today’s Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet’s ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon “The Revenge of Gaia” and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain’s Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, “a hell of a climate”, likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book’s concluding chapter, he writes: “What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold.”

And in today’s Independent he writes: “We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen …”

He goes on: “We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can.” He believes that the world’s governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist’s vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is “a broken rabble led by brutal warlords.”

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet’s northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world’s industry.

This shields us from some of the sun’s radiation in a phenomenon which is known as “global dimming” and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of “a guidebook for global warming survivors” aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but “on durable paper with long-lasting print”, it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC’s next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

SOURCE:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-in-crisis-we-are-past-the-point-of-no-return-523192.html

I’ll be brutally honest here and say that the conclusions in this article do not surprise me. I don’t think the Earth will be very pleasant (that is to say possible for humans to inhabit) before long, agricultural society or not. I’ve begun to wonder whether or not I actually want to survive a collapse. It’s not as though the metaphorical stormclouds of a collapsing civilization will roll away, the birds will start chirping, the Earth will magically spontaneously heal, and the inertia of climate change will suddenly reverse itself. Things may get really shitty in the wake of civ’s collapse. Currently, there are enough nuclear weapons to kill most of the animal and plant life 10 times over.

And if I do survive, I will certainly not be one of those “breeding humans” in the Arctic (as Lovelock so callously puts it… I hate the term “breeder” btw, it’s so dehumanizing) because I would never bring a child into such conditions. I have decided to get sterilized, made the final decision last week. There are too many overwhelming realities about where the world is going ecologically speaking, it is too much for people to grapple with psychologically, hence they either go into full/partial denial, or lose their minds. Even after civ collapses, many of Gaia’s human-caused afflictions will persist for some time, global warming being the primary example. Can people live through the conditions described in the article? Would they be able to bear it? Are our bodies built for that, physiologically and mentally? Why would I choose to keep my ability to have children if there’s a good chance I will see that child suffer in desolation, no matter how kind and loving a parent I’d try to be? How is it kind and loving to have a child in the first place, when you believe that’s what the future has in store for it? I don’t expect a perfect world, just a habitable one… people have limits, we’re mortal creatures.

I have said before, I have no doubt that life will continue on this planet (and that some kind of ecological balance will be restored…eventually), but I’m not holding my breath for human life in particular. Frankly, I don’t care if our species goes entirely extinct.

I know these thoughts are not exactly in the rewilding spirit, but it’s what my heart has been telling me, more and more lately. If anyone can convince me out of this position, you’re welcome to try. Rewilding has taught me a lot about what it means to be human, and for that I appreciate it, but I am really starting to doubt whether its practical application can really withstand a likely future scenario.

There, I’ve said it. Skewer my arguments.

Hi BlueHeron,
You mentioned:

“…I have said before, I have no doubt that life will continue on this planet (and that some kind of ecological balance will be restored…eventually), but I’m not holding my breath for human life in particular. Frankly, I don’t care if our species goes entirely extinct…”

“If anyone can convince me out of this position, you’re welcome to try…”

Okay, LOL!! I’ll give it a try!

And I’m only asking these next questions matter of factly. And I don’t need you to answer me. And you’re entirely free of course to tell me to fuck off, lol!

  • Do you also not care about the few remaining indigenous peoples who still live as they did for thousands of years?

  • Do you not care about the few people scattered around the world, living within the “belly of the beast”, such as :- Those struggling to re-create TRULY sustainable ways of living? - Those struggling to bring down this abomination aka civilization? - Those struggling to re-activate their Ancient Indigenous Cultures? - and so on…

Regards
Misko

Haha… there’s no way I’d ever tell someone “fuck off” just for asking some questions.

I think that (just for the purpose of responding to you) I could lump the two groups of people you describe into one group, and therefore create one question. - Don’t I care about the people who live for the continuation of the web of life?

I do care about those people, and even many people who support civ (even if I disagree with them, they are friends and family and I care about them), and I also care about other-than-human lives, but whether or not I care about them is irrelevant if the course of civilization has brought the biosphere that humans were/are a part of to the point of no return. If the course of civilization has taken out the support beams for the web of life. The few remaining indigenous people may not get to live that way much longer, they may find themselves without the community of life that they belong to, and they have nothing to do with the reason why, and I do feel it’s tragic and unjust and it makes me angry and bitter.

I don’t wish pain upon anyone, but at the same time, if the world becomes unfit for human life, I don’t believe it has to continue at all costs, in fact I would rather that people not even try if it would only mean more suffering, and I don’t think that’s a contradiction. The world would be perfectly fine without humans. It is perfectly fine without dinosaurs too. We’re not essential to the rest of life.

Of course, I can’t know the future, but something keeps telling me to prepare for the worst. And if the worst doesn’t happen, I don’t think I’ll regret having been prepared for it.

Maybe I’m being thick with this, but since you care about the people who live for the continuation of the web of life, then isn’t it just civilization and its hypnotised cheerleading zombies that have to go extinct? And not our species?

Well, what I’m trying to say is, I think it may be too late, for anyone, whatever kind of life they’re leading. If you survive the societal crash, things will get much worse before they get better. An 8 degrees Celsius rise in temp before the century’s out, and there’s no stopping it even if we drastically cut carbon emissions literally tomorrow. I did a little research and looked at multiple temperature charts along geologic time scales. I also read from one source that the temperature has remained within a 6 degree Celsius range for the past 2.5 million years, the charts indicate that it’s more like an 8 degree range. Right now, it’s not the highest it has ever been in those 2.5 million years, but it’s close. An additional 8 degrees Celsius increase from the current temp would bring unprecedented conditions for people. I’m all for the continuation of life, but it sounds to me like life will continue without us.

Or if some humans survive, we won’t be able to live within the means of our surrounding ecosystems like rewilding assumes we need to do… because there won’t be much of that ecosystem left. If we’re lucky, and if soil/temperature/rainfall conditions are right, we can grow food.

Here’s Lovelock’s original article: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html

I mean, what does he know, he’s just a damn scientist, right? But considering that he originated the Gaia theory, and his history of being there all along as a global warming theorist, I’m not so quick to write him off.

Heron –

Having recently been through a crippling bout of depression over the future of the planet, and any humans’ roles within that, I feel compelled to say a few words. I came to grips with the whole thing after realizing a few things myself, and while they didn’t necessarily make me all cheery again, I did manage to get back on my feet to continue walking My Path.

The Earth has been through dramatic climate changes before. I remember reading once about fossils of tropical plants being found in boreal and even arctic regions, which means those areas were once hot enough for a long enough period of time either for plant life to evolve there, or to migrate there. Plant “migration” might be the wrong term to use, but that’s the basics of it in a nut-shell, and it’s still happening today – take the maple tree in the Eastern US: It’s been on a slow but steady northward march for a few hundred years now (based on pollen records, etc.). Stuff moves and changes all the time, and if it didn’t, live on this planet wouldn’t have nearly the diversity it does now. (Side note: The MidWest, as uncomfortable as I find it, used to be a giant shallow sea – there are trilobite and tube-worm fossils everywhere in Iowa, for example, and now its Prairie and Oak Savannah – or at least it should be, if it weren’t for AgroBiz, but if AgroBiz dried up tomorrow, the prairie would creep back in.)

It is true that these current changes are happening much more rapidly than some of the others (at least as far as our “science” can tell us), and with this rapid change there will perhaps be a greater number of species that succumb to the change than by changing with it, and I find this terribly depressing as well – but that’s the Earth. That’s what She does. Just as you’re not the same person you were five years ago, or ten, neither is the Earth the same person She was 5 million years ago, or 10 million (or 65, since you mentioned the dinosaurs). I found my own change in person to be rather drastic, too – 4 years ago I was a nerdy technophile that liked going to clubs, tinkering with the newest electronic gadgetry, and hated being dirty. Now I loathe techno music, am disgusted by the omnipresence of machinery, and can’t wait to get out of work so I can go play in the mud. This change deffinitely brought about the deaths of a few relationships I had (i.e. clubbing friends, etc.), but it also laid the foundation for me to make new relationships (i.e. rewilding buddies). It helped me to think of the earth as going through similar changes – the last time the earth was hot and muggy, She was friends with a bunch of gigantic reptilians – then She changed Her mind and got chilly, and made friends with a bunch of furry-things – then changed her mind again, and here we are.

My point, I suppose, is that yes, the world is just fine without dinosaurs, and she will invariably continue doing what she does if humans don’t survive the coming changes, but I can guarantee you that the dinosaurs didn’t stop trying. Neither did the Mammoth, the Cave Bear, the Big Cats, or the Giant Sloths that didn’t make it through the Ice Age, or rather the even bigger transition between the Ice Age and the current climate conditions (by the way, humans made it through that one just fine).

So in closing, maybe you just need to shift your view of what a “good” world looks like, and what a “bad” world looks like – it’s always just The World, for all the events that shape it. It will be our children, and their children etc. that get to decide if that world is worth living in or not – just because it doesn’t sound so great to us, doesn’t mean it won’t be just fine for them.

~ SW

PS: I had considered sterilization at one point also, for very similar reasons, and in the end I’m glad I didn’t. Generally speaking, it’s a one-time decision that you definitely have to live with for the rest of your life – moreso if the world is changing in the ways that we anticipate. Maybe simply practicing less… er… permanent methods of planned parenting will suit your needs just as well… Just my 2c. Feel free to disregard!

A strange thing happened today.

A relatively new friend of mine (about 6 months now) called me up to see if I wanted to hang out. I said, “sure… but I may not be the best company. I’m stressed out. I’m supposed to move out of the city in two weeks and I haven’t found a job, or a place to live, yet. To top it all off, I read a news article written by one of the few scientists I can respect about how all my efforts to rewild, all the primitive skills I plan to learn, may come to naught.” And then I explained that even if civ, and the burning of fossil fuels, ended tomorrow, the Earth’s climate would change at a much faster pace than previously/popularly thought, and that I didn’t feel it would be possible to keep up with those changes and maintain an intact human society that fulfills even our basic needs, while remaining true to the principles of sustainability & intersubjectivity with the surrounding ecosystem.

She listened quietly. I knew she had been planning to remain in civilization and have children, even though she has claimed to accept that civ is inherently unsustainable. She had talked once about how she and her husband were trying to find a way to move to Canada or France and become citizens, so that they could give their children a society with affordable health care. I didn’t want to alienate her by bringing this vision crashing to the ground, but at the same time I knew that she respected my position of rewilding, and I felt she would understand and sympathize with my shaken faith, maybe with some remove but certainly with sincere effort to understand in the best way she could.

After asking some questions about the article and expressing her condolences, she asked if I still wanted to hang out. I said yes. She also said, “We can talk about this more if you want.” I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to or not; I felt I just wanted to shoot the breeze and not think about such weighty matters for the rest of the day. But I said, “Maybe, I might not feel like it, but maybe.”

I met her an hour later at the cafe where I work. Honestly, I can’t remember how it started, but before long we had established two things:

  1. Her belief that the collapse of society as we know it would be sooner than she had previously thought… and that she knew she had to deal with it in her lifetime.
  2. The very real possibility of establishing survival preparedness at her father’s house, which is on an island in Puget Sound on 1.5 acres of land in the forest. … and after we have what we need to survive, finding ways to make that existence fun, enriched with music, art, culinary experimentation, and other hobbies and explorations.

We talked for 5 hours about this, made a list, started to discuss planning strategy… example, we will want to have a dinghy to row to the island (other people do it without getting caught in any currents or being swept out to sea, so it’s a solid investment) in case we are stuck on the mainland or want to travel back and forth after the Puget Sound ferry system goes kerplunk.

BUT I will say one thing:

In light of the possibility that the ecosystem/wilderness itself may be strained due to climate change, we can’t bet that we will have enough to eat from hunting and gathering alone. Certainly we want to interact with the ecosystem, but we also want to survive. So we’re going to build greenhouses that are adaptable to a range of possible exterior climate conditions (we don’t know how climate change will run its course and we want a flexible greenhouse that has temperature controls). In short, we will be growing food, with the intention of weaning ourselves off of it. I would like to put a reminder, carved into stone (literally), near the entrance to the greenhouse for future generations: Population is a function of food supply. I will also spell it out in pictograms.

So, yeah, I’m back on board. And with many, many projects to work on.

Yay! Conversations also count as Rewilding, see, see!

:smiley: :wink: :smiley:

[quote=“BlueHeron, post:8, topic:1087”]1. Her belief that the collapse of society as we know it would be sooner than she had previously thought… and that she knew she had to deal with it in her lifetime.
2. The very real possibility of establishing survival preparedness at her father’s house, which is on an island in Puget Sound on 1.5 acres of land in the forest. … and after we have what we need to survive, finding ways to make that existence fun, enriched with music, art, culinary experimentation, and other hobbies and explorations.

We talked for 5 hours about this, made a list, started to discuss planning strategy… example, we will want to have a dinghy to row to the island (other people do it without getting caught in any currents or being swept out to sea, so it’s a solid investment) in case we are stuck on the mainland or want to travel back and forth after the Puget Sound ferry system goes kerplunk.[/quote]

that sounds like the ultimate rewilding “fort”. i wish i had a friend like that.

That conversation may have saved my life. Or at least, extended it, and made it more interesting. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Yay for good friends!

I really need to get some of those…

If it weren’t for my partner, I don’t think I’d have anyone to really talk to about all of this stuff. We’re best friends, but we really need to get more friends who can actually hold a serious, intellectual conversation about things we’re interested in.

Sounds like your friend is just using civ for the healthcare ;).

I wonder what effect regrowth of vegetation will have on climate change. Surely after overshoot’s consequences take full effect, plants will reclaim lost areas, both in the ocean and on land?

We are also heading into a solar cooling period, perhaps akin to the Little Ice Age, which could really help if civ falls soon enough. Of course the cooling will put people back at ease, and they’ll keep doing what they’re doing, maybe worse.

I think we may have to make civ fall as soon as possible at this point, because we want as much ecosystem left intact as possible. Civ’s death throws will be violent and horrifically destructive. Everything within it’s grasp will be fed to the fire.

[quote=“kveldulf, post:14, topic:1087”]I wonder what effect regrowth of vegetation will have on climate change. Surely after overshoot’s consequences take full effect, plants will reclaim lost areas, both in the ocean and on land?

We are also heading into a solar cooling period, perhaps akin to the Little Ice Age, which could really help if civ falls soon enough. Of course the cooling will put people back at ease, and they’ll keep doing what they’re doing, maybe worse.

I think we may have to make civ fall as soon as possible at this point, because we want as much ecosystem left intact as possible. Civ’s death throws will be violent and horrifically destructive. Everything within it’s grasp will be fed to the fire.[/quote]
Ai wish we had a rating system, like on youtube. Ai’d give you a thumbs up for that one!

I wonder what effect regrowth of vegetation will have on climate change. Surely after overshoots consequences take full effect, plants will reclaim lost areas, both in the ocean and on land?

I would guess that the regrowth of plantation in the upper northern hemisphere will be high, due to the melting of the permafrost etc.

Increase in temperatures closer to the equator are likely to stunt growth, but not stop it (look at the Sahara right ?)

As humans+machines die off there will me a sharp decrease in the amount of CO2 and CO produced, as the increase in plant life in the northern hemisphere takes place thats likely to cause a huge increase in oxygen etc, good for (new ??) animal life to start building back up…

This (i guess) could take a few hundred thousand years, or it might not. During which the plant live in the earth will become more abundant and possible result in cooling the earth (if eaten a plant in a hot desert… they tend to still be cold, i think this has something to do with reflecting heat ??)

then probably the earth will be thrown back into an ice-age.

just a stab :stuck_out_tongue: