World's Population to Decline by 80%, According to Renowned British Scientist

 World's Population to Decline by 80%, According to Renowned British Scientist

The heat is just right for some. Ecologist James Lovelock predicts that the world will see plenty of heat until the century comes to a close. "As many of us look at it, it's not going to make very much difference what anybody does," Dr. Lovelock, a prominent atmospheric scientist, told StockInterview in a tape-recorded interview last week, adding, "we are so far down the path towards the hottest we have been, since we were 55 million years ago." "The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years." Lovelock warned in a more forceful piece he wrote for the Independent newspaper in England in January of this year. Did you really think another Ice Age was going to happen?

His 1,220 word essay may sceptics believe was nothing more than promotional material for his book. Penguin Books (UK) started selling Lovelock's most recent book, The Revenge of Gaia, in bookstores across the British Isles approximately two weeks before his harsh our-world-is-doomed piece was released. "This article is the most difficult I have written," he said in his newspaper column. Despite his harsh assessment of what the remainder of this century may bring, the octogenarian sounded hopeful while interviewing Dr. Lovelock over the phone across the Atlantic. His prediction, however sad, was certain. We may use the impending crunch as a springboard to greater success, in my opinion. What the heck? When man starts over, he could have a better chance.

We can expect only around one billion people to make it.

Restarting, what does he imply? "The majority of our species on Earth will likely be extinct by the end of this century," Lovelock said with a serious tone. "Perhaps there's still something, plus or minus, on the scale of a billionth." Asked whether there was any chance. As for our present society's ability to hack it, he expressed his regret in his reply. What if, though? "Significant adjustments are required," he emphasised. "Reduction efforts by society are moving at a snail's pace." He was adamant that these shifts ought to have begun half a century ago. "If Europe and the USA were trying to be good and cut back by 30 percent, it's really not going to help much," he said later on as an afterthought. People just aren't interested in doing it, in my opinion.

According to Lovelock's prediction, at the turn of the next century, the Arctic will have become home to the last of humanity's civilisation. Up there, it won't be quite as chilly as you would imagine by that point. Much of the Arctic's ice will melt away within the next quarter of a century, he assured us. Taking a sailboat all the way to the North Pole is within your reach. When will these changes become noticeable? The exact amount of years is uncertain, according to Lovelock's modelling. "The time could be anywhere from five to thirty years." He used the analogy of a rope or string to illustrate his point. According to the IPCC's projections, global warming could rise in a straight line or a slightly curved trajectory.

In a nutshell, Lovelock said, "Everyone forgets the greatest damage we've done to the earth is not so much the emissions from greenhouse gases, but taking away the natural resistance from the farmland ecosystem," which is why his prediction is so bleak and likely permanent. We ruined Earth's capacity to self-regulate when we did that. Imagining what Earth could look like in a few decades is something Lovelock finds tedious. "Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves," he wrote in January for the Independent. In his article, Lovelock has harshly criticised environmentalists in his book and other writings for endangering Earth's future through their advocacy of renewable energy.

From that point on, we broached the subject of environmentalists, particularly those idealists who profess to be working to protect the planet. Therefore, we sought the opinion of this eminent environmentalist on the true issues plaguing the modern environmental movement. In Lovelock's response, he grumbled, "It's mostly made up of urban people, who know almost nothing about the countryside and still less about the ecosystem." "Their solutions are basically urban-political solutions," he scornfully said. Their desire to use biofuels in their vehicles is unwavering. Among all the crazy ideas, this one is among the worst. Those who are fighting for biofuels won't get any sympathy from Lovelock. It would necessitate the annual combustion of approximately two to three gigatonnes of carbon as biofuel, as he states in The Revenge of Gaia. A gigatonne is one thousand million tonnes. When compared to our annual food intake of half a gigaton tonnes, this amount is quite large... "Just to grow fuel," we'd need the land area of many Earths.

Does he think ecologists are doing irreparable damage to the planet? "I'm sorry, but I do," he said with a hint of sadness. We wanted to know his thoughts on the environmental groups that still refuse to accept nuclear power as a viable option for the world's energy future. "They are acting extremely foolishly," he retorted in a flash. He paused before continuing, "They are living in a dream world." Lovelock, being the caring guy that he is, is disappointed but attempts to keep his spirits up. "How the hell can these unruly charges be disciplined and made effective?" he wrote in his recent book, comparing his feelings about modern environmentalism to those of an inner-city school headmistress or the colonel of a newly formed regiment of licentious and naturally disobedient young men.

LOVELOCK DESIRES A NUCLEAR WORLD NOW

A recent editorial in a Boston newspaper posed the question, "Are Pro Nuclear People the New Greens?" in its headline. We went over it. "To be honest, it's a rather stale term," he said with a smile. When it comes to nuclear power, the industry has been operating for almost 40 years. I think there are factions in the UK and other countries that are leaning towards nuclear weapons.

James Lovelock is very much against nuclear power, that much is evident. The World Nuclear Association's website prominently features his comment, "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilisation," and it is displayed on the home page. The trade group uses the term "preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness" to describe their supporter, and with good reason. "Until fusion energy and reasonable renewable energy sources come as a truly long-term provider," Lovelock says in his book, leaving no choice but nuclear fission. Nuclear power doesn't contribute to pollution and doesn't rely on foreign suppliers in a world that's bound to be unstable.


Lovelock provides a concise assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of each energy source in The Revenge of Gaia. In his view, carbon-based fuels are harmful to both people and Earth as a self-regulating system, and he has an intense dislike for coal mining. Renewable energy sources are inadequate to fulfil our global energy demands, as he has often cautioned. "It will fail and bring discredit both to the greens and to the politicians foolish enough to adopt renewables as a major source of energy before they have been properly developed." Lovelock sees little value in the immediate future for solar or wind energy programmes, in contrast to renewable advocates like Amory Lovins or Senator Hillary Clinton. In his opinion, their green energy ideas might actually speed up the end of our civilisation.

Where does Lovelock stand on uranium mining, given his vehement opposition to its broad use and the fact that it is essential to the production of nuclear power? "It won't be a very big operation, so I don't think it matters," he replied. "When you compare the amount of energy produced by uranium and coal, the quantity of uranium being mined is insignificant compared to coal mining," the author writes, "when you consider the ratio of the two." Dr. Lovelock was briefed on the process by which American uranium firms shifted from traditional mining to In Situ uranium recovery. "It mobilises the uranium with the oxygen in the water and doesn't make a god-awful mess of the environment," Lovelock said of the In Situ, suggesting it was a solid concept.

Navaco Nation Uranium Ban Denied as Irrational

We discussed uranium mining in New Mexico as part of our coverage of environmental developments in the state for firms like Uranium Resources (OTC BB: URRE) and Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF). Considering the peculiar nature of the occurrence, we spoke about the Navajo Nation's prohibition on uranium mining within the "Four Corners" region, which encompasses four states and a tribal territory. We revisited a previous discussion with Dr. Fred Begay in light of the most recent scientific advancements about the in situ uranium recovery technology, as we were perplexed by this.

While visiting LANL in November, we spoke with Dr. Fred Begay regarding the changing nature of uranium mining. On the Navajo reservation, Dr. Begay—a nuclear physicist and a native of the Navajo people—was carrying out community outreach programmes as part of his ongoing involvement with LANL. That the Navajo "don't get it" was his statement to StockInterview. They don't know anything about uranium or mining.

Given that the Navajo receive almost $100 million yearly in royalties from coal mining, we wanted to know James Lovelock's opinion on the Navajo uranium prohibition. "I could understand the Navajo Nation's rejection to any mining if they had wanted to keep the deposits pristine as part of a natural ecosystem and there had been no mining at all," he explained. "Rejecting uranium mining becomes ridiculous when coal mining is permitted."

Is there anything that James Lovelock might say to the president of the Navajo Nation, Joe Shirley, Jr., or any of the aboriginal tribes in Australia or anywhere else who are opposed to uranium mining? "Very little," he responded suddenly. He repeated himself after that. It's nearly the same as attempting to convince a religious person that their faith is ill-founded. I would never imagine of telling a practicing Catholic that I have my doubts regarding Mary's virginity. He went on to say, "They don't think about it," drawing parallels to a religious principle. It is wrong, but they don't realise it. Dealing with someone like that is quite challenging. Does the typical anti-nuclear environmentalist fall under that category? As for his approach to dealing with the ignorant, he detailed it, In the UK, the only thing that worked was to point out that while it was risky, it wasn't nearly as bad as climate change. If we want to get over this, we might have to use it.

THE FINAL WORDS ON CHINA

No discussion of nuclear power in the twenty-first century can avoid mentioning China's predicament. China, which ranks high among the world's most polluting countries and the biggest coal miner, is preparing the most ambitious nuclear energy expansion programme in the last 30 years. "The Chinese government is the strongest government in the world," Lovelock started. "The Prime Minister often receives advice from a friend of mine who frequently visits that country to discuss environmental issues." This was the start of a famous Lovelock story:

"They tell him, 'We're all trying to have more renewable energy than anybody else.'" In an effort to keep carbon emissions in check, nuclear power stations are being constructed at breakneck speed. No matter how powerful our government is, tomorrow there will be a revolution if we fail to develop the resources for our people. Until we construct enough nuclear power plants or other renewable energy sources to fulfil our demands, we will have to continue using coal.

"How the hell can Western democracies do it?" he said, drawing a conclusion. Some see this as evidence of his fatalism on the planet's condition. Does he really believe what others say about his being a pessimist?

Quite the opposite, he said. "People say I'm a pessimist, but that's not how I think." Lovelock drew parallels between his time as a student and young worker in WWII and the present danger of climate change. He remembered that in 1940, a great opponent threatened to invade. Out of sheer terror, some individuals raised their hands in the air and muttered, 'There's nothing we can do.' The those that worked hard and faced the danger had a great time, though. Lovelock and Britain made it through the danger unscathed, and he will be sure to share his wisdom with future generations. Although it is difficult, the thought of global warming is horrible. Many younger folks can have a fantastic time.

According to others, Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia serves as his testament. We choose to view Lovelock's masterwork via a new lens. Based on our discussion with Dr. Lovelock, we understand that his book serves as a strong call to action for scientists and policymakers around the globe to quickly adopt nuclear power in order to prevent a potential chain reaction of devastating events that could befall mankind in the coming decades. Despite his assertion of "a high probability," Lovelock refrained from using the word "definitely." Lovelock nevertheless sees a silver lining, not a cloud, in his otherwise hopeless situation, despite this vast disparity.

Location:

Share :