I've mentioned Lovelock here and there, noting his support for nuclear power and disdain for burning fossil fuels, and his contempt for agriculture, but haven't given him major attention. Brian Hayes reviews The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity and strikes just the note I would have sounded if I had his talent.

The Revenge of Gaia: The title of James Lovelock's new book calls to mind the fourth or fifth sequel of some horror movie, one with a monster that rises from the sea to maul Tokyo or New York. This mental image is not altogether inappropriate. The book is in fact a sequel, following several earlier titles by the same author: Gaia, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia, Homage to Gaia. Furthermore, it is a horror story, meant to frighten us. Tokyo and New York and hundreds of other cities are in grave danger, Lovelock warns. And, as in most horror flicks, the real villain is not the tormented monster but human arrogance and greed. . .

It's fair to say there's something for everyone in this book—something each of us can admire and embrace, and also something each of us can disdain or ridicule. For me it's pretty nearly an even mix. Given the persistence of life on Earth, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the global ecosystem must be reasonably stable and self-correcting. But self-regulation requires no purposeful, animating spirit; Lovelock's vision of Gaia twiddling the controls to keep us comfortable—or else deliberately turning up the heat to snuff us out—leaves me utterly baffled. Even as metaphor it's nonsense. On the other side of the equation, I share Lovelock's worry that climate change will make the world a less congenial place for coming generations, yet I find his predictions wildly overconfident. In his discussions of theory, Lovelock puts much emphasis on the difficulty of understanding the behavior of nonlinear systems with feedback loops; he even exaggerates it a bit. And yet he does not hesitate to predict in detail not only the effect of CO2 on climate but also the response of ecosystems to climate change and even the consequences for societies. It's his seeming certainty that makes me most skeptical. But then what do I know? Lovelock has a goddess whispering in his ear.

That's the first and last grafs of an article worth reading in full. It's lucid and complete - it lays out the thesis and comments wisely.

Like Hayes I find things to admire in Lovelock's work while being skeptical of much else. The hysterical rejection of nuclear power over the past few decades is a colossal blunder, one that we have the politicized environmental movement to thank for. In this as in so many other things they destroy the environment in the name of the environment. The inversion of sensible agronomic practice - reverting to less productive and more extensive "organic" methods which need more land and more water to produce food and fiber - is precisely the wrong thing to do while human population increases rapidly. Environmentalists again, penny wise and pound foolish. Lovelock's views on these issues aren't too far from mine.

But I think he fails to grasp the possibilities for direct action. More emphasis on cleansing the atmosphere is needed. We have some methods and new ones are occasionally proposed - the recent discussions of bio-char come to mind since the problems in agriculture as well as the atmosphere are addressed by it.

I think that Hayes should be glad that no goddess is whispering in his ear. No good comes to mortals who consort with goddesses. Look how things went for Odysseus - sitting on a rock weeping for 7 years was just part of his trouble.

Update:

Alex took notes.

Tonight I heard James Lovelock speak at Kepler's Books. The notes are, as always, my own take on his remarks, and not an official transcript. . .

What to do:

• We need a new science that incorporates biology and geology.
• Give up environmentalism: it's urban-based superstition about nature that focuses on personal and human risks rather than the bigger dangers, It's "an understandable but unthinking response to rapid change." Biofuels are downright dangerous; wind power is too low-intensity for use in places like Europe and the North American coasts. (Further, the consumption of fossil fuels is pumping out both carbon that's warming the earth, and aerosols that are helping to keep the earth a little cooler. If there were a big disaster or economic downturn, we'd lose this rather suddenly.)
• Look seriously at geoengineering-- i.e., proposals to put a shade up at a Lagrange point, or seeding the air with sulfate aerosol-- to buy us some time. "What we need is a well-planned, sustainable retreat that embraces nuclear energy," and looks forward to the day when other alternatives mature.

Earlier I said that "I think he fails to grasp the possibilities for direct action." Perhaps not.