Image
boredbrand
Father of the Gaia Theory --not to mention certified donavon-- mister James Lovelock, blames too-much-talk as the reason we're all basically doomed, before he pops out to space later this year for his 90th birthday party aboard Richard Branson's Thunderbird 2.


[from New Scientist:]

"I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again.

"I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing's been done except endless talk and meetings."
  1. groups:
    Green,   Earth and Science,   UK News
  2. tags:
    Green Earth and Science Environment UK News 10 more
  3.     
    |

27 comments // One last chance to save mankind

  • mram49
    • 0
      mram49  
    • I won't be around at the end of the century unless they come up with super kyrogenics and hand it out free. Maybe our grandkids will learn something, but I'm 50.. My generation was one of the most greedy in the recent past, but certainly not in history.
      The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of chiggers. Who's to say we deserve this rock anyway? We're selfish beings and no more superior nor deserving than the dinosaurs. We reap what we sew.

    • 3 years ago
  • Maitereya
  • courage
    • 0
      courage  
    • /i hope hes right if most of us die the earth can be saved thats whats really important saving the earth but then again there have been 4 to 5 total exstinction episodes since the earth formed so the earth doesnt care either way.

    • 3 years ago
  • ampersand
    • 0
      ampersand  
    • Only one billion to survive the effects of global climate change? Exactly the number research says is the sustainable human population of the planet.

    • 3 years ago
  • QCBUCKI
    • 0
      QCBUCKI  
    • ...........................NOW, IF THAT DOESN'T BEAT THE GAME FOR THE NOROMING ALL WE CAN EAT AND RETAIN WAFFLE RUN.
      SAD AND VERY DANGEROUS

    • 3 years ago
  • cerealforeal
  • judiestar
  • pjacobs51
  • judiestar
  • boredbrand
  • judiestar
  • damnneargenius
  • boredbrand
  • omshaantih
  • onechance
  • judiestar
  • Morality87
    • 0
      Morality87  
    • The only one we have to blame is ourself. we are the one's who choose to have childeren, to litter,to buy our food, instead of grow it ourselves, recycle, and choose not to have little replicas of yourself in an already overpopulated world. In order to better our world, we have to instill this knowledge and spread it like a plague, or else we've done nothing at all, and will eventually see our downfall..

    • 3 years ago
  • omshaantih
    • 0
      omshaantih  
    • how come i never heard of this guy? and if he is so concerned why is he boarding a space ship? how can someone believe in Gaia and also be a donovan?

    • 3 years ago
  • boredbrand
  • judiestar
    • 0
      judiestar  
    • I wholeheartedly agree with onechance. We have abused this Earth for far too long with our arrogance and greed. Now She will have Her vengence. I'm willing to die to save the planet. And to all the people who yell, "How did this happen?", I will laugh.....

    • 3 years ago
  • boredbrand
  • onechance
  • boredbrand
  • SW2
    • 0
      SW2  
    • Certainly food for thought, it is scary to think that all the things we take for granted will disappear.

    • 3 years ago
  • boredbrand
    • 0
      boredbrand  
    • SW2:

      absolutely! especially considering these things will come to pass in our lifetime, & so it is doubtful whether any of us will be lucky enough to live to Lovelock's ripe old age!

    • 3 years ago
  • boredbrand
    • 0
      boredbrand  
    • Lovelock also maintains, perhaps most interestingly of all, that the only major environmentalist measures now being practiced are in place to better serve --surprise surprise-- the corporations.

      "Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning."

    • 3 years ago
  • boredbrand
    • 0
      boredbrand  
    • Lovelock continues:

      "There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast."

      [Would it make enough of a difference?]

      "Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."

    • 3 years ago
more from Green:

top videos