The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning By James E. Lovelock

The author talks for a third of the book about how the world is unpredictable and surprising; how all models predicted by climate scientists have been wrong or under predictions of steady temperature increase. Then *shock* he goes on to proudly announce that his model, his baby The one unifying model of Gaia (where the earth has its own physiological response to climate change) is accurate (which, by the way, was only ever published (after a strong of peer review rejections) in Nature because he was pals with one of the top wigs). Then swings back again to say that “all models are wrong and it is impossible to apply any sort of model to the Earth.

He says that we “have to use data and measurements” even though he claimed at the beginning of the book that data and measurements are incorrectly used. Seems to be using the rhetoric of “the truth of science” to win the reader’s heart without actually saying anything. I suspect his presentation of the Earth as a living breathing thing is done for the same reasons.

“American scientists: They were wrong because they used measurements”
“I Cannot ignore the large differences between their (the IPCC) predictions, and what is observed”


Edit: perhaps he was referring mostly to “predictive modelling” which has been shown to be wrong when compared to the changes that have been observed. But then what alternative predictions does he suggest?

The whole book was him espewing his dear baby Gaia Theory Model, which he never actually really explained by the way. I'm still not really sure what he means by Gaia theory, which was ostensibly the whole point of him writing this book. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFICS?! WHAT EXACTLY IS ALIVE?!

He finished by going on a very long religious tangent, where again, I wasn't sure if he was criticising the religious ferocity of some Climate activists, or else proposing his own Green Climate Religion. I was left very confused and disturbed.

Most important points (because they stayed with me all through reading this book)

I was strongly in support of his strong support of Nuclear Power being the only true green and clean and all-round amazing energy. But I knew that it was “The greenest, cheapest, and most secure source of renewable energy” before picking his book up. He talked about the amount of CO2 and land which is produced by Green Energies and the pittance of energy that they provide. As well as their unreliableness (see later point re Russia).

HOW-bloody-EVER. He was so determined to convince his readers of the safety of Nuclear Power (which, as I have pointed out, I was already convinced by) by trying to play down and dismiss the Chernobyl Disaster. He claimed that only 75 lives were lost and that we only ever knew about it/thought it dangerous because the wind blew to the West and not the East. This was foolish. The Chernobyl accident was wildly dangerous and deadly, and its effects likely being felt today as nuclear mutagenic material sweeps through rivers and animals and food-chains. It only would have ever happened in Soviet Russia, which is why we should totally confident in NE. But to claim that it was not damaging... Lockwood must really be a bit of an idiot.

There were also touching descriptions of his frugal lifestyle, driving around in his Honda jazz and his “hopes of building a snake and potato farm”.

Also this:
“Several years later I found that I had crashed my left kidney and rendered it dysfunctional”

I’m a doctor and am pretty sure this is not a thing. Especially as it didn’t sound as if he basically fell from standing AND his kidney just sort of… quietly whimpered and died?


Some good/interesting/ambivalent/brain dump points:

* Interestingly scathing about the biofuel industry. If we will have no land left for humans to live or for agriculture, this eco “biofuel” will be more dangerous for the survival of humanity than anything else.
* He does seem to describe this strange sudden dystopian event when the people of the world will suddenly have to flee their countries and decide which new place to lead to. He thinks that this will be difficult for governmental politics to overcome, but I somehow don’t share his scepticism.
* Once the ice caps melt (whatever the cause) there will be a sudden exponential rise in temperature as their heat storage/cooling capacity is suddenly lost. Normally the white icecaps reflect heat back to space and are a protective mechanism.
* Completely agree (am in consensus) with his opinion that scientists should not be able to “reach a consensus”
* Sea level rise is a much better measure of global temperature increase because it is a proxy of the amount of heat the earth has absorbed. “Global temperature fluctuates” (did he say why?). But sea levels are based on two things: the melting of the icecaps (although not very much) and the expansion of the ocean due to heat
* The Bhopal pesticide gas accident in India killed over 2,000 people overnight as the cloud of methyl isocyanate seeped through the town in 1984
* Posits that one of the reasons that litvinyeko was poisoned using (obviously traceable) polonium was to keep the west scared of nuclear substances and to keep us reliant on them for supply of energy/gas/nuclear. I think this theory might well have some truth to it.
* He is unashamedly scathing about so-called green energy and asked the reader to imagine what London would be like if it were left without electricity for a week. If we relied wholly on green energy and then for some reason were unable to get gas from the mainland (Russian controlled) Then London would turn into a can of starving refugees stop even the sewers and the petrol pumps rely on electricity stop
* Puts most of his faith into geo-engineering. I have been too lazy while reading this book to look up any of his suggestions, or whether technology has moved on since. Either we could trap CO2, or prevent the earth from heating up. I was amazed to discover that after certain volcanic eruptions the earth became notably cooler, so one proposition is to release sulphur dioxide into the Earth’s stratosphere to emulate this.
* Interestingly, in support of his Gaia theory, he describes times when “massive geological accidents” caused huge release of CO2 into the atmosphere more than is being done today - “The largest producer the CO2 is the Earth, not people” - why could this not happen again and diminish the importance of human additions.
* He notes that green intentions have been politicised and commercialised with their incorporation into the socialist and left and pacifist movements.
* The fact also remains that many government subsidies have been incorrectly directed.
* Running your own watermill and planting all your own trees probably aren’t actually any good for the environment and economically unviable (At least without government subsidies). It’s like “intersectionality” but with plants and weapons.

This book was written in 2009. If we're all dead and fleeing to other countries by 2030 then perhaps then, I'll admit he was a prophet. 288 Foi uma boa leitura, incomodativa confesso, mas em termos de alarmismo (no se sentido, de tocar o alarme nos incautos) para mim o livro de David Wallace-Wells, é bem mais consistente e abrangente.
Mas voltemos ao Gaia, em muitos pontos achei repetitivo, e isso me incomodou. O autor tem uma espécie de obsessão com a energia nuclear, que parece ser a única solução para tudo e de todo o caos reinante. Mas não considera os efeitos nefastos da poluição, do lixo, por exemplo...
Não me arrependo da leitura que fiz, mas certamente não é o livro que pensaria em utilizar para refletir sobre o tema.
Opinião puramente leiga e pessoal.
24.03.2021 288 This is the first book by Lovelock that I've read. I enjoyed it and was maddened by it in equal measure- Lovelock has a wonderfully clear vision of what is and is not possible to accomplish vis-a-vis climate change, with an admirable focus on adaptation as opposed to remediation, but I suppose his shrugging pragmatism rubs me a bit the wrong way. He does a great job here of tearing apart the green ideology that has been foisted on highly consumerized societies in the hopes of making their orthorexic guilt stimulate further orgies of commodity purchase. His voice is just what you would expect from someone who essentially started a branch of science, then another branch of science, and was shunned by academies for decades before his ideas began to gain broader popular and professional traction, but, surprisingly, with nary a hint of I-told-you-so. 288 Lovelock convinced me that a holistic approach towards earth science is preferable to the narrow, reductive views held by many of the established scientists who rely on models that only account for factors within their areas of study. I was also somewhat skeptical about the net benefits of such green energy sources like biofuels, wind power, and solar cells before reading this book, but Lovelock pushed me firmly into the enemy camp. Too many bandwagon enthusiasts fail to calculate the overall effects of these huge industrial initiatives. When you add the manufacturing, transportation, land use, and other negative factors involved, they have an overall negative impact on the environment and global warming. His contrarian viewpoints on nuclear power also might be worth further study. And the more I read about global warming and overpopulation, the more convinced I am that geoengineering is the only hope, although a slim one, for civilization to avoid a huge collapse within the next century or so. However, I think Lovelock could have written a more concise and clear argument. The last couple of chapters especially were so messy and full of meandering personal anecdotes that I'm still not sure exactly what he was advocating. He may be promoting a scary totalitarian future in which governments in favorable climatic regions like the British Isles, Canada, and New Zealand reject democracy and impose mandatory nuclear energy, high-density living, land use control, birth control, genetically engineered foods grown in vats, and a merit/fitness system for admitting a small fraction of the billions of draught and famine refugees that will clamoring to escape to their oases. But it's hard to say because he doesn't clearly describe his solution. Maybe he was afraid of the backlash if he was too direct. 288 +:
+ Síkra száll az atomenergia démonizálása ellen, yaaaaay!
+ Bolygómérnöki ötletek a klímaváltozás megállítására, a kvótarendszer meg a nagyonzöld szélturbinák helyett.
+ Alapvető jó szándék.

-:
- Nekem ez az egész Gaia-hipotézis sántít. Mivel nem vagyok szakértő, csak intuitív alapon sántít, de akkor is.
- Lovelock csapongó, naiv sztorizgatásai.
- Nagy-Britannia, mint a világ közepe és a klímamenekültek mentsvára, amit majd megkímél a klímaváltozás. Aha. 288

The

The Vanishing Face of Gaia is my first exposure to James Lovelock’s work and is my first in-depth reading of a work about Gaia theory, the idea that the Earth is a self-regulating organism. Environmentalists and New Age movements speak of the earth being alive and this perspective is often lumped with Gaia theory to discredit the concept. The origination of Gaia in the 1960’s didn’t win any skeptics over either. Sadly, mainstream science has sidelined Lovelock’s ideas for the last 30 years, gaining acceptance only recently as predictions from the theory have been proven true time after time. In fact, 8 out of the ten major predictions (table of predictions on p.177) of Gaia theory have been proven or generally accepted, including:

1. Oxygen has not varied by more than 5% from 21% for the past 200 million years (confirmed through studying ice-core and sedimentary analysis)

2. Boreal and tropical forests are part of global climate regulation (generally accepted)

3. The biological transfer of selenium from the ocean to the land as dimethly selenide (confirmed through direct measurements)

4. Climate regulation through cloud albedo control linked to algal gas emissions (many tests indicate high probability, pollution interferes)

That’s a much better hit rate than string theory, an idea receiving magnitudes of greater funding. Unfortunately the decades of widespread skepticism has prevented many leading bodies of science and policy groups to ignore the dire implications of a living Earth, most specifically in relation to climate.

Lovelock was the first scientist to invent instrumentation that could accurately demonstrate the accumulation of CFCs in the atmosphere, leading to international action on the hole in the ozone layer. And his work on atmospheric, geological and ecological sciences led him to become the first researcher to link the fields, understanding that the earth’s life regulates the atmosphere, and that the earth’s atmosphere regulates life. How is this so? The original Daisyworld model created by Lovelock (although seemingly common sense to us now but revolutionary for its time) was a convincing demonstration,


Years of added complexity later, Daisyworld still stands up as an accurate model of reality and the most definitive link between climate and biology. Unlike the IPCC projections of a gradual climate change, trending towards warmer temperatures over a long period of time, is not in agreement with historical models of major changes to our planet’s climate. Massive leaps are common as demonstrated by several graphs in the book. Disturbingly, the coldest years are prior to the major warming years, giving a false sense of security. Anthony Watts, through his blog, provides quality commentary on scientific information that disputes the IPCC climate change models, however Anthony doubts that global warming is occurring. Lovelock shares similar skepticism but provides evidence that the IPCC models are not severe enough in their projections of the serious lifestyle changes we’ll need to make to mitigate a changing climate. Scientists have held up the progress of the world for a long time, with their Cartesian deterministic views, perhaps the eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress. Lovelock quotes Ogden Nash to demonstrate,

‘I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, “He never bungles!”
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
‘You mean,’he said, ‘a crocodile.’

Lovelock’s perspective is credible and valuable, disputing many claims of the environmental movement, leading me to question some of my own approaches. For one, Lovelock states that nuclear fission is our only hope to avoid poverty and CO2 accumulation. Unfortunately I think we’ve missed the boat on this because the US couldn’t build the political will to dedicate $700 billion dollars for a secure future. Why nuclear? A fission plant has no emissions, other than water vapor, while in operation. Nuclear waste fades away after 600 years. The yearly output of a 1,000MW station is enough to fill a medium sized car. Compared with the ash from coal that no one seems to think about, the CO2 emitted, or the manufacturing that goes into transporting a wind turbine/PV panel the entire process of nuclear fission energy is by far the cleanest. The issue of nuclear waste is no different than dealing with the issue of defunct PV panels or wind turbine components, only the nuclear waste is much lower in volume while needing greater attention and security. Lovelock goes on to give some excellent examples of how nuclear energy is mis-represented, with 27 people having lost their lives in the history of nuclear power accidents, at Chernobyl. Modern nuclear plants include passive control systems, in the event of a failure the plant would simply shut down.

How does the death toll measure up? On December 3rd, 1984 a pesticide plant accident in Bhopal, India instantly killed 3,800 when a cloud of methyl isocyanate gas leaked into the night air. (And many more in the following weeks.) Yes, nuclear energy isn’t perfect but it is as close to perfect as we can get.

Why not renewables? Lovelock argues that the focus on “green” energy is propagated by those seeking to drive new financial bubbles, continuing the manufacturing status quo, and doing little to actually mitigate climate impacts. We always idealize the wind turbine but forget that a combustion turbine has to be run on-site at a wind farm to keep the frequency of the turbines regulated for use on an electric grid. This simple fact has led some studies to conclude that wind farms are greater contributors to CO2 emissions than a coal plant, with wind farms emitting more than 840 pounds of CO2 per MWh vs 8.8 for nuclear power. Photovoltaics are better, but land requirements are devastating, 8 acres per megawatt. Whereas a few hundred acres can house a 2,500MW nuclear plant. We need that land for farming and for return to Gaia so that the earth can do what it does best, self regulate. Where I significantly diverge from Lovelock is through is views on farming. On p. 134 of the book he details how synthesized food may be our only hope. If it is count me out. Real food can’t be substituted for and the nutrient model of eating has been proven as flawed.

This book is full of interesting insights and pessimism (or realism?) on how screwed we are. The basis of Lovelock’s argument, and reason for writing the book, is that we’ve outgrown the Earth as a species. Humans must learn to view themselves as equals in the scheme of ecology, not as a domineering species. The massive population we now support is subsidized at the expense of slowly renewing resources like coal and oil and at the cost of a damaged biosphere. As we exceed Gaia’s limits, the climate will adjust to fix the problem. This doesn’t mean the end of humanity but a severe readjustment to population centers and population numbers. James Lovelock has convinced me of this through his analysis of Gaia theory applied to the Earth. Could we avoid massive global warming? Yes. An unexpected minimum of sunspots like we are currently experiencing (see the note below). Massive volcanic eruptions. Successful geoengineering efforts(although highly unlikely, as Lovelock states). These could all bring an end to global warming. But they are highly unlikely. Our only plan as a species should be to adapt and realize our intelligence as human beings. Only then can we ensure our duty to survive and to carry on the legacy of the Earth. The relentless critique of the “green movement” and of environmentalism, a field many credit Lovelock for starting, was cause enough for me to find this book valuable. But the scientific discussion within is of far greater importance as we enter a turbulent time in the existence of the human species. This is a challenging read for the climate change skeptics and the climate change evangelists alike.

Note/Rampant Speculation: The current sunspot minimum can’t be explained by scientists and has been primarily responsible for much of the cold rainy weather my home area this spring, as well as record snows/cold elsewhere. If this is the start of a new Maunder Minimum serious questions have to be asked about the link between solar system bodies. Do feedback loops exist between the Sun and the Earth? Amazingly convenient that as the global temperature trends upward the Sun suddenly makes things cooler. Perhaps we are all linked to much greater things than we currently understand. 288 This is well written, if confused book. I find the author's arguments twisted in a strange way, but there is a certain logic to them. James Lovelock (eminent scientist who championed Gaia Theory), certainly makes a good case that we are on a path to destruction, but at the same time he derides environmentalism, once even to the point of endorsing the use of DDT and the use of other harmful pesticides. On the one hand he says that preserving Gaia (the planet as an Eco-sphere), with or without the continuation of humans as a species, should be our primary focus. But, he says, since we are part of the system, neither superior nor outside of it, everything we do, from industry to deforestation, is natural. He is an advocate of nuclear power because, he says, it is the cleanest, safest energy source we have - and most notably, because we don't have any time left for alternative energy. He almost had me on that argument when he was discussing the amount of pollution and the number of fatalities that are associated with other types of energy industries. If it were not for the bitterness I felt coming from him toward environmentalism and environmentalists, I might have overlooked some of the inconsistency in light of perceived good intention. I think where the logic fails is that he gives no answer as to why, or method to ameliorate, what inevitably becomes rampant abuse of what he considers good practices that turns them into destructive forces. I think his pessimism (at least in this book)is probably more realistic than most authors on this subject. He does not hold out much hope that the human species will remain viable on planet earth, but on the other hand sees Gaia as a self regulating system which will either push us off the planet or not. Do I detect a small amount of misanthropy mixed with this anthropomorphism? I think so, but as they say, it takes one to know one. his most compelling argument is that there are just too many people, a sentiment I agree with. The planet cannot support us in the numbers we are now, much less in the numbers we are steadily, if no longer exponentially ballooning into. I enjoyed the book. I did not agree with most of his solutions to the emerging world, but he clearly sees that enormous challenges lie just ahead. 288 الكاتب عالم قدير وباحث سابق بناسا والكتاب ترجمته جيدة وموضوعه العلمي غني ومهم، أنصح بقراءة الكتاب، ينتقد الكاتب سياسة الحكومات في وضع خططها لمواجهة الاحترار العالمي لعدة عقود إلى الأمام بناء على نماذج (آي بي بي سي) وهي منظمة حكومية، ورغم كفاءة هذه الجهة العلمية فإن المعطيات اثبتت أن الاحترار العالمي يزداد بشكل يفوق أكثر السيناريوهات الموضوعة سوءا، وأن السياسة المعتمدة حاليا على وسائل الطاقة المتجدد كالرياح والطاقة الشمسية لن تفيد في تجنب الكارثة القادمة
ويصر الكاتب على خيار الطاقة النووية، التي نحيت جانبا لعدة اسباب من أهمها طمع الشركات الصناعية الكبرى في مجال الطاقة المتجددة
ويحذر الكاتب من أن الأرض كانت متكيفة مع آثار الإنسان السلبية في زيادة الاحترار العالمي حتى بضع مئات من السنين حيث انتهت قدرتها على التكيف، وأخذ النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، حيث ستتخلى غايا (كوكب الأرض) عن عدد كبير من البشر، وستكون بقع معينة من العالم صالحة للحياة ستستضيف لاجئين مناخيين، منها جزر بريطانيا مثلا، ويجب أن يحسب حساب أن تكفي موارد هذه البقاع لأصحاب هذه الأراضي واللاجئين إليها بحيث لا يتجاوزون اعدادا معينة، سنصبح في ذلك الوقت في ظروف ستكون فيها الحروب والمجاعات والكوارث السابقة أحداثا صغيرة قياسا لما سنعيشه وما هو قادم
ونظرية غايا التي وضعها الكاتب تقول أن النظام الأرضي يطور مناخه وكيميائيته بحيث يدعم قابليته للحياة، واجهت النظرية معارضة شديدة في أوساط العلماء في بداية ظهورها بستينات وسبعينات القرن الماضي وعانت من نقد علماء الجيولوجيا وعلماء الداروينية الجديدة، لأنها عدت كثورة على المفاهيم العلمية الراسخة كما لم تكن مبنية على دلائل كافية، وكان الرأي بأن علم الأرض وحده كافي لتفسير جيوكيمياء الأرض ولا حاجة فعلية لغايا، يفرض نفسه، لكن نظرية غايا عادت وأثبتت نفسها وأنه من الجدير الأخذ بها على محمل الجدية والخطورة الكافية، منذ الثمانينات إلى اليوم
وازدادت أهميتها اليوم وفي الوقت الذي أثبتت فيه جدارتها العلمية فانه لم يؤخذ بها حتى الآن في الحد من الاحترار العالمي 288 James Lovelock writes very scary books. Since the 1960’s, he has been warning that we are abusing the planet and that we do so at our peril. Now, at the age of 90, this British scientist has written what is likely to be his last book, with ominous sub-title of “A Final Warning”.

Lovelock believes that our current population of nearly seven billion is completely unsustainable, and that we are about to see a catastrophic plunge in our numbers, likely to something under one billion. In fact, he says that he thinks the long-term stable population level may be on the order of just 100 million. This is about as profoundly pessimistic a vision as I have heard of from any environmental writer. It’s Malthus on steroids. But, it is the viewpoint of a scientist who has been studying the question for many decades.

Lovelock’s name and reputation will be forever linked to the Gaia hypothesis. In brief, he thinks of the planet as alive. This was considered a radical notion in the 1960’s, and depending on how it is stated, might still be considered radical today. In reality, I think he is really stating that the Earth is a living system, where both geo-chemical and biological processes interact to create the environment that regulates itself to make life possible. Since life has existed on the planet for three billion years, the Gaia theory seems very likely true. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t likely be here. And as for the interaction of biological and geo-chemical processes, the evidence of climate change shows many examples of how it works. A dramatic example: when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and put hundreds of tons of sunlight-blocking particulates in the air, the climate cooled for years afterwards, with significant effects on many species and ecosystems.

From this model of how Earth works, Lovelock proceeds to the observation that carbon levels in the atmosphere are rising rapidly and inexorably, and that there is no evidence that the many peoples of this planet have the emotional desire or political will to do anything about it in time to prevent disaster. Result: the planet warms by several degrees centigrade, the oceans acidify, the waters rise, the land dries out, a large proportion of species vanish forever, crop failures become widespread, and humans die in droves. He does not see this scenario as inevitable, but highly likely. Pretty bleak stuff.

Not only does he see dramatic global heating as likely, he also thinks it will come upon us much more suddenly than the IPCC models predict. Climate, he says, is subject to tipping point events that cause dramatic swings in temperature in a short period of time. We don’t know what those tipping points are, but the evidence strongly points to their existence. It could be a sudden change such as a die-off in ocean plankton, a major change in ocean currents, the rapid melting of Arctic permafrost, or any of a number of other hard-to-predict events. Climate follows a fickle and decidedly non-linear pattern. A classic example is the effect of the melting of the Arctic icecap: today, the highly reflective (high albedo) surface of the ice serves to reflect most solar energy back into space; but as the planet warms and the ice changes to seawater, its darker (low albedo) surface mostly absorbs that solar thermal energy, acting therefore as a de-stabilizing positive feedback loop that causes an even more rapid rise in global temperature. Already, the 2007 climate forecasts of the IPCC are looking too rosy, with rates of sea ice melting, glacier retreat, and seawater temperature rise all increasing faster than predicted. It seems we may be moving quickly to a new steady-state climate equilibrium, but at a much hotter temperature than today. How hot? Lovelock says the range of outcomes is large, but could be five to nine degrees centigrade warmer. Either end of this range would be disastrous.

How do we avoid this disaster? There are a few possibilities, but the two that he highlights are:
• Mass adoption of nuclear energy
• Planetary scale geo-engineering (to block sunlight, increase carbon dioxide sinking and so on)

The other choice, assuming Lovelock’s dire scenario is right, is for us to move to those places on Earth that will be least affected by global heating. These include high latitude islands such as the British Isles, New Zealand, Tasmania, Japan – as long as they’re not flooded. They also include northern locations such as Canada, Scandinavia, Siberia and Alaska. Lastly, you can head for the mountains, as long as they’re high enough to stay cool and moist. None of this bodes very well for the most densely populated parts of the planet, such as India, China, Bangladesh, Africa and much of Europe. I think this says that the already grim real estate market in Florida -- a hot and low-lying state -- is looking like a worse and worse investment.

Is Lovelock right? I don’t know, but the worrisome thing is that his thesis is plausible. I hope his vision of the future is a worst case scenario, but sometimes worst case scenarios actually materialize. So, start preparing for the possibility of a hotter and drier world – and hope that the technology to save us moves faster than the technology that may destroy us.
288 In general, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The author and I share similar views on the need for a massive investment in nuclear power as a viable alternative to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels (until such time as tidal and solar energy become as powerful and efficient). He and I also share the viewpoint that it is already too late to undo what we've done - and the full effects of our impact are still to come. Even if we end everything right now, today, we will still see a ramp up in warming and change based on what we've already done. We are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years from reversing our impact, let along erasing it. To this end, I loved this book.

The concept of Gaia, I'm still on the fence about. Yes, I agree that life on Earth is self-regulating, interconnected, and ultimately dependent upon one another...and yes, I believe that one must take life's impacts onto the environment into account when looking to model the past and/or the future...but I'm hesitant to label it Gaia. As a secular person, ascribing any type of spirit or consciousness to the Earth itself rubs me the wrong way. I completely understand what he is saying, but I'm not going to call the Earth her or believe that the Earth itself is, in any way, responsible for the path life takes. That this book is about life being self-regulating, but then giving that regulation to an Earth Spirit seems disingenuous.

Lastly, I'm a bit upset that in his conclusion, the author has to go on to attack Marxism, and repeating the falsehood that Marxism itself it responsible for the deaths of millions of people. What the hell does that have to do with the topic of this book? And, more to the point, he then goes on to extoll the virtues of Christianity and Catholicism as wonderful institutions that do nothing but help. I mean...are you listening to yourself? He also goes on and on and on about the evils of profit-seeking and how almost all moves to green the economy are only based on seizing upon current government subsidies and are driven by profit, profit, profit, without a care for the consequence, but ends with the idea that capitalism will ultimately be the cure. WHAT?!?! How can you not see this?!?!? I'm just...I mean...I don't...whatever... 288

Celebrities drive hybrids, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, and supermarkets carry no end of so-called “green” products. And yet the environmental crisis is only getting worse. In The Vanishing Face of Gaia, the eminent scientist James Lovelock argues that the earth is lurching ever closer to a permanent “hot state” – and much more quickly than most specialists think. There is nothing humans can do to reverse the process; the planet is simply too overpopulated to halt its own destruction by greenhouse gases.In order to survive, mankind must start preparing now for life on a radically changed planet. The meliorist approach outlined in the Kyoto Treaty must be abandoned in favor of nuclear energy and aggressive agricultural development on the small areas of earth that will remain arable.

A reluctant jeremiad from one of the environmental movement’s elder statesmen, The Vanishing Face of Gaia offers an essential wake-up call for the human race.
  The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning

Read & download The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning