Here’s his take on what’s coming down the pike, via an analogy:
Lovelock said temperature rises of up to 8C were already built in and while efforts to curb it were morally commendable, they were wasted.
"”t is a bit like if your kidneys fail you can go on dialysis — and who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative. We should think of it in that context,} he said.
And here’s why he doesn’t think we can turn the ship around in time:
Lovelock said the United States, which has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, wrongly believed there was a technological solution, while booming economies China and India were out of control.
China is building a coal-fired power station a week to feed rampant demand, and India's economy is likewise surging.
If either suddenly decided to stop their carbon-fuelled development to lift their billions of people out of poverty they would face a revolution, yet if they continued, rising CO2 and temperatures would kill off plants and produce famine, he said.
“If climate change goes on course ... I can’t see China being able to produce enough food by the middle of the century to support its people. They will have to move somewhere and Siberia is empty and it will be warmer then,” he said.
I’m not as apocalyptic as him, or as James Kunstler is about Peak Oil.
Nonetheless, if Lovelock is a quarter of the way correct, it’s a matter of serious concern. If he and Kunstler are both a quarter of the way correct, their scenarios could play off each other enough to in fact be apocalyptic.
That, in turn, might encourage people to “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Problem is, if such merriment involves the use of carbon-generated energy sources, it actually hastens that very apocalypse.
No comments:
Post a Comment