Scientist: Carbon trading is a scam, 90% of humans will be dead by the end of the century

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

With his 90th birthday in July, a trip into space scheduled for later in the year and a new book out next month, 2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Q: Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

A: Not a hope in hell. 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. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.

Q: What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

A: That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

Q: Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?

A: It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.

Q: So are we doomed?

A: 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.

Q: Would it make enough of a difference?

A: 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.

Do you think we will survive?

A: 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.

Q: It's a depressing outlook.

A: Not necessarily. I don't think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen - a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare.

Q: How much biodiversity will be left after this climatic apocalypse?

A: We have the example of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55 million years ago. About the same amount of CO2 was put into the atmosphere as we are putting in and temperatures rocketed by about 5 °C over about 20,000 years. The world became largely desert. The polar regions were tropical and most life on the planet had the time to move north and survive. When the planet cooled they moved back again. So there doesn't have to be a massive extinction. It's already moving: if you live in the countryside as I do you can see the changes, even in the UK.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...&print=true

[dalegg 143]

Well hell then. I don't care about the deficit anymore! Send me my check now. And send B of A another 10 billion since the poor executives underestimated Merrill Lynch's problems. In fact. Send a million dollars out to everyone who bought something they regret buying!

[alienlovechild 75]

A: 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.

I haven't heard this one yet as a solution.

A: 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.

600 to 700 million surviors is still pretty big. What if a few people told their descendents to stock up on canned goods to until most of the surrounding population dies of starvation? Potatoes will grow in varied climate enough to survive on. Build greenhouses?

[Ban Hammer 14,572]

and people wonder why i bought so much ammo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's that word again...

In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides".^[2].

.....

It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal,.....nuff said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

Since when are interviews "peer reviewed"?

That's what this is - an interview. I thought the Q&A format made that obvious

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven,

Since when are interviews "peer reviewed"?

That's what this is - an interview. I thought the Q&A format made that obvious

Exactly. It's one scientist giving his opinion, which isn't necessarily bad, except that with regard to the controversial topic of Climate Change, by giving him the podium (a non-peer reviewed science magazine interview), he assumes an authoritative position - 'Carbon trading is a scam.' I know you're purposefully making your headline titillating, I'm just giving it a reality check.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

Since when are interviews "peer reviewed"?

That's what this is - an interview. I thought the Q&A format made that obvious

Exactly. It's one scientist giving his opinion, which isn't necessarily bad, except that with regard to the controversial topic of Climate Change, by giving him the podium (a non-peer reviewed science magazine interview), he assumes an authoritative position - 'Carbon trading is a scam.' I know you're purposefully making your headline titillating, I'm just giving it a reality check.

So the word of someone with no scientific background whatsoever is supposed to give us a 'reality check' on the word of an actual, credentialed, scientist?

Ok then.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

and people wonder why i bought so much ammo

Took the words out of my mouth. Gun ownership has many advantages.

Don't own a gun? Not to worry.... just post this on your front door.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Carbon trading is a scam

'nuff said. It allows the rich and famous to maintain their planet destroying lifestyles, and yet pay a small "indulgence" to forget their guilt. Ah, Pope Pius would be proud, and Martin Luther is rolling around in his grave. On which door will the next reformer post his grievances?

--Bullwinkle

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Carbon trading is a scam

'nuff said. It allows the rich and famous to maintain their planet destroying lifestyles, and yet pay a small "indulgence" to forget their guilt. Ah, Pope Urban II would be proud, and Martin Luther is rolling around in his grave. On which door will the next reformer post his grievances?

--Bullwinkle

Corrected.