Monday, March 29, 2010

Why humanity won't win a fight against climate change?

James Lovelock, a real legend when it comes to environmentalism, and the founder of the idea that our planet is a giant, self-regulating organism – the so-called Gaia theory, has recently given very simple explanation why humans won't stop climate change, namely because humans are too stupid.

Lovelock said that he doesn't believe how humans have yet to evolve to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change, and that only a catastrophic event of great magnitude (for instance collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level) would be able to persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough.

It is become rather clear that another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report won't be enough to force the world to an immediate action, especially not after the panel was heavily criticized over a mistaken claim that all Himalayan glaciers are likely to melt by 2030.

The number of climate change skeptics seems to be growing lately, and I also believe that world will fail to react to climate change before some catastrophic event of gigantic proportions. The most worrying part in this whole story is that once climate change starts showing its scary face we'll have very limited options to do something about it.

The main problem with the adequate response to climate change is that there are so many different interests involved, especially on global level, and lets face it humanity doesn't exactly have positive experiences about solving matters on global level. If that was the case then hunger and wars would be long forgotten by now.

Humans are indeed stupid, stupid in their selfishness which blinds them to see things from global perspective. Global interests should be above the individual interests, that is common logic, but sadly when it comes to individual interests greed destroys any logic. The Copenhagen failure was the best example of our civilization's immaturity, and things still do not look as they could improve any time now.


  1. Lovelock has said that we're too stupid, that we haven't evolved enough to fight climate change. Well I'm glad that some one said it. So now that we're too stupid, can we put this thing to rest finally? We need to focus on pollution, cleaning the air, cleaning the water. We must give up trying to create a new carbon trading commodity market. With all of the pollitics and social control mixed in with it. And now that Lovelock says we are too stupid, perhaps we can get back to dealing with real envionmnetal issues.

  2. Anonymous, that is a false choice. The same activities that cause climate change - burning fossil and biofuels as a source of energy - cause the bulk of the pollution. There are other sources of course - plastics and chemicals chief among them - but they aren't in and of themselves enough to destroy a habitable climate.

    Nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, and peroxyacetyl nitrates from burning coal, gas, diesel, and ethanol create ozone, which causes cancer, emphysema, and asthma. Vegetation is even more sensitive to exposure than humans. The inexorably rising level of background ozone is already causing widespread damage to crops and it is only a matter of time before farming becomes impossible.

    And that doesn't even mention the acidification of the oceans from CO2. Most of the oxygen that we breathe comes from life in the sea, and the food chain will ultimately collapse as calcium-based pteropods at the bottom are dissolved. This is a beautifully filmed video with a vivid explanation:

    We need more than a price on carbon, we need rationing, and an emergency transition to clean energy before famine wipes out the human race.