A Gaia Theory conference held this weekend at George Mason University's Law School drew nearly 200 environmentalists, educators, policymakers ... and the nuclear energy industry. Our message: Nuclear energy has a role to play in addressing climate change.
James Lovelock, a British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory as a way of understanding the planet as a self-regulating entity, would agree. Essentially, his theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface.
In his latest book, "The Revenge of Gaia," Lovelock writes, "There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
I staffed a booth for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a conference co-sponsor, along with fellow blogger Michael Stuart of Dominion. Frequently asked questions focused on used fuel, new plants and radiation. Although many attendees were in the "no nuclear" camp, we shared information on nuclear energy's clean-air benefits, as well as its safety record and contibution to national energy security. Many attendees were especially intrigued by the U.S. Department of Energy's reprocessing initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Most encouraging aspect of the day: Many attendees listened to our message. Still, there continued to be some doubters. As one attendee said: "I can't decide if you are the craziest person here or the bravest person here." We'll opt for brave.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Gaia, James Lovelock
James Lovelock, a British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory as a way of understanding the planet as a self-regulating entity, would agree. Essentially, his theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface.
In his latest book, "The Revenge of Gaia," Lovelock writes, "There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."
I staffed a booth for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a conference co-sponsor, along with fellow blogger Michael Stuart of Dominion. Frequently asked questions focused on used fuel, new plants and radiation. Although many attendees were in the "no nuclear" camp, we shared information on nuclear energy's clean-air benefits, as well as its safety record and contibution to national energy security. Many attendees were especially intrigued by the U.S. Department of Energy's reprocessing initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Most encouraging aspect of the day: Many attendees listened to our message. Still, there continued to be some doubters. As one attendee said: "I can't decide if you are the craziest person here or the bravest person here." We'll opt for brave.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Gaia, James Lovelock
Comments
This lack of environmental credentials has been asserted in the above writings on the bases of:
-Lovelock's support for the nuclear industry (as outlined in a section above)and widespread uranium mining. Most environmentalists regard the nuclear and uranium industries as undemocratic, socially-destructive, overly-centralized, dangerous, militaristic and incredibly messy; producing unmanageable radioactive waste, pollution, terrorist hazards and nuclear weapons material.
-Lovelock's support of the project to conquer Mars and spread dubious human technologies there. Most environmentalists would take issue with the fact that he seems to be trying to spread human environmental destruction to other worlds, as though messing up our own world has not been enough. Lovelock co-wrote a novel forecasting such endeavors (see J. Lovelock and M Allaby, The Greening of Mars, Warner Books, 1985).
-his support of a host of other techno-fixes to environmental problems and his support for industrial growth in general (as seen in his major books, The Ages of Gaia, Healing Gaia and The Revenge of Gaia). Most environmentalists would say that technology and industrial growth are, on balance, a negative force for environmental betterment, and that a deeper look into social, cultural, political and psychological matters must be made to effect any positive change to the world's environment.
-his soft approach to pollution control. Lovelock believes that localised polluting from the chemical industries, for example, is no problem for Gaia--it is only a problem for the local human and local non-human communities (as expressed in The Ages of Gaia).
-his representation of Gaia as the primary organic entity on Earth. This viewpoint is a form of intellectual totalitarianism, where the abstract 'whole' is regarded as more important than the real 'parts.' Thus concrete individual organisms and ecosystems are devalued compared to the global being called 'Gaia'. In protecting the entire global whole, Lovelock is quite prepared to sacrifice many unimportant communities and ecosystems (as expressed in The Ages of Gaia).
-his declared view that some ecosystems on Earth, such as tundra and the deep sea ecosystems, are expendable since they do not matter in the health of the overall Gaian Earth. This view arises from his extreme use of ecological functionalism. For Lovelock, if an ecosystem, and all the organisms within it, do not contribute to the functioning of the Gaian organism, by supplying certain ecological services, then they are redundant and useless.
-his denigration of intrinsic value theory in environmentalism. The ecological functionalism inherent in Lovelock's Gaia theory suggests that organisms and ecosystems should only be valued for their function and not for their intrinsic value. Thus, he is quite prepared to pollute and damage some ecosystems as long as the Great Gaian organism remains intact. This does not make him anti-environmental but it does position him in the shallow camp of environmentalism.
-his mechanistic vision of the Gaian organism. Whilst some New Agers hail the Gaia theory as a great organic view of the Earth, when you look closely at his theory, it only regards the Earth as being alive because there are ongoing global cycles of inanimate chemicals such as carbon, water, oxygen phosphorous, nitrogen etc. Gaia, for Lovelock, is merely a machine that cycles these things and this cycling is what defines Gaia as alive.
If James Lovelock can be regarded as an environmentalist at all, it is primarily by a) technological experts and nuclear proponents who see his Eco-guru status as good for coloring their industries Green, b) uninformed media professionals who buy straight into prior press reports rather than researching his credentials deeply, c) the New Age wing of the environmental movement because his Gaia theory seems to align to their worldview of a great organic Mother Earth.