Gaia's Revenge

BBC follows up with a report on the panel discussion of scientists concerning James Lovelock's new book The Revenge of Gaia. As the report notes, "An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change is 'real and dangerous.'

Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century, with impacts likely to be 'severe' but not 'catastrophic.' the panel said.

It also concluded that politicians are unlikely to cut emissions sufficiently to prevent dangerous global heating.

The panel's discussions were based on themes set by Professor James Lovelock in his latest book The Revenge of Gaia.

The book argues that human society, through greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of environmental degradation, has brought the natural world to the brink of a crisis.

Temperatures will rise, Professor Lovelock warns, reliable supplies of water will be disrupted, life in the oceans will be compromised, food production will decline, and there will be mass migrations to areas of the planet's surface which remain habitable.

With fossil fuels currently the dominant source of energy, he sees a large-scale switch to nuclear power as vital if electricity supplies are to continue reliably and carbon dioxide emissions are to be brought down."

Some important points:

*Climate change is "real and dangerous".

Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century, with impacts likely to be "severe" but not "catastrophic", the panel said.

*Politicians are unlikely to cut emissions sufficiently to prevent dangerous global heating.

*There was general agreement that the rising global population and rising levels of consumption are major issues which are largely absent from discussion in political and public circles in many countries.

I think these final points -- rising global population and rising levels of consumption -- are key and are the two issues that no politician dares mention. But, facts is facts. This planet, the only one we've got, can't sustain even this level of population nor can it sustain this level of consumption. Either we need fewer people and/or we need those in the US to consume far, far less than they do while those in other countries consume more, but somewhat less than current Americans consume. Neither of those are popular scenarios. And the notion of a seriously declining population does present a one- or two-generation problem, where old people outnumber young.

But, seriously, what are our alternatives? The ostrich model won't work any longer.

I am just saying.