World Population to Crash by 80 Percent, Says Top U.K. Scientist, Part One

Some like it hot. According to environmentalist Jamesrenewable energy sources.
Lovelock, we'll get plenty of hot between now andThat's when we began talking about
the end of the century. "We are so far down theenvironmentalists, especially the idealists who claim to
path toward the hottest we have been, since webe helping preserve the earth. So, we asked this
were 55 million years ago," Dr. Lovelock, who is alsoleading environmental scientist what was really wrong
a leading atmospheric scientist, told StockInterview inwith today's environmental movement. Bitterness
a tape-recorded interview last week, "that as manyentered his voice when Lovelock answered, "It's
of us look at it, it's not going to make very muchmostly made up of urban people, who know almost
difference what anybody does." In strongernothing about the countryside and still less about the
commentary, which he wrote for England'secosystem." He scoffed, "Their solutions are basically
Independent newspaper, this past January, Lovelockurban-political solutions. They continue to insist on
warned, "The Earth is about to catch a morbid feverwanting to run their cars on bio fuels. This is one of
that may last as long as 100,000 years." And wethe maddest ideas of the lot." Lovelock cuts no slack
were worrying about another Ice Age?for those championing the cause of bio fuels. He
Skeptics might wonder if his 1200-word essay waswrites in The Revenge of Gaia, "It would require us
just book publicity hype. Lovelock's scathingto burn every year about two to three gigatons of
our-world-is-doomed article was published about twocarbon as bio fuel (a gigatons is one thousand million
weeks before Penguin Books (UK) began selling histons). Compare this quantity with our yearly food
latest work, The Revenge of Gaia, in bookstoresconsumption of half a gigaton tons... We would need
across the British Isles. He did admit within histhe land area of several Earths just to grow fuel."
newspaper commentary, "This article is the mostDoes he believe environmentalists are wrecking the
difficult I have written." While interviewing Dr.environment? "I'm afraid I do," he glumly responded.
Lovelock, during our transatlantic phone conversation,Because we know there remain several
the octogenarian sounded sad with his prediction, butenvironmental groups who refuse to embrace nuclear
still optimistic, despite his ruthless appraisal of whatenergy as a much-needed solution to the planet's
may lay ahead for the rest of this century. "I seeenergy mix, we asked what he would like to say
the crunch coming as an opportunity to improveabout them. "They are being very foolish," he quickly
ourselves in a way. Who knows? Man may have ashot back. After a pause, he added, "They are living
better chance when he starts again."in a dream world." Like the father figure he is,
ONLY ABOUT ONE BILLION HUMANS WILLLovelock is disappointed but tries to remain buoyant.
SURVIVEHe wrote in his recent book, "My feelings about
What does he mean by starting again? "By the endmodern environmentalism are more parallel with those
of this century, there is a high probability that thethat might pass through the mind of a head-mistress
bulk of our species on the planet will be eliminated,"of an inner-city school or the colonel of a newly
the soft-spoken Lovelock gravely remarked. "Thereformed regiment of licentious, and naturally
may be something, plus or minus, on the order of adisobedient young men: how the hell can these unruly
billion left." Is there much hope, we asked. "I don'tcharges be disciplined and made effective?"
see our current civilization hacking it," he lamented inLOVELOCK WANTS THE WORLD TO GO NUCLEAR
his response. But, but, what if? "Enormous changesNOW
must be made," he stressed. "Society is much tooThe headline of a recent editorial in a Boston
slow in cutting back." He insisted these changesnewspaper asked, "Are Pro Nuclear People the New
should have started at least 50 years ago. Later heGreens?" We discussed that. "It's a bit of an old
added, as an afterthought, "If Europe and USA wereterm, really," he grinned. "Nuclear has been around for
trying to be good and cut back by 30 percent, it'smore than 40 years at least. I suppose in some
really not going to help much. I don't think the publiccountries, like the United Kingdom, you will find some
wants to do it."groups are looking more toward nuclear."
In Lovelock's forecast, he envisions, at the end ofMake no mistake in thinking James Lovelock is
this century, the last few humans would be forcedanything but Pro Nuclear. His quote adorns the top of
to rebuild the remnants of our civilization in the Arctic.the front page of the World Nuclear Association's
It won't be as cold up there by then, as you mightwebsite, "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear
think. He told us, "Within 25 years, most of the globalpower if we are to sustain civilization." Rightly so, the
ice in the Arctic will be gone. You will be able to taketrade association refers to their proponent as the
a sailboat to the North Pole." How long before we"preeminent world leader in the development of
begin to feel these changes? "In my own modeling, Ienvironmental consciousness." In his book, Lovelock
rather think it is an unknown number of years,"writes, "There is no alternative but nuclear fission until
Lovelock explained. "It may be five years or it mayfusion energy and sensible forms of renewable
be 30 years." He offered a visual, "Think of it as aenergy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear
rope or a string. Global warming may run up in aenergy is free of emissions and independent of
straight line or a curve lying a bit loose as the IPCCimports from what will be a disturbed world."
seems to project."Lovelock briefly analyzes the value and harm of each
Lovelock summarized why his forecast is dire andenergy source in The Revenge of Gaia. He has a
probably irreversible, "Everybody forgets theburning disgust for coal mining, and finds
greatest damage we've done to the earth is not socarbon-based fuels inefficient and dangerous, not only
much the emissions from greenhouse gases, butto humans but also to earth as a self-regulating
taking away the natural resistance from the farmlandsystem. He has frequently warned that renewables
ecosystem. By doing that, we have disabled theare insufficient to meet our planetary energy needs.
planet's ability to regulate itself." Lovelock does notIn contrast to renewable advocates Amory Lovins or
enjoy painting a picture of what earth might look likeSenator Hillary Clinton, Lovelock sees little value in the
several decades from now. He wrote in theimmediate future for either solar or wind energy
Independent, in January, "Much of the tropical landprograms, and has harsh words for them, writing, "It
mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longerwill fail and bring discredit both to the greens and to
serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent ofthe politicians foolish enough to adopt renewables as
the Earth's surface we have depleted to feeda major source of energy before they have been
ourselves." Through his book and in various articles,properly developed." He believes their renewable
Lovelock has repeatedly blasted environmentalistsenergy solutions might only hasten our civilization's
who gamble away earth's future by campaigning fordemise.