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

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

A few people prefer it hot. There will be plenty of heat between now and the century's end, says environmentalist James Lovelock. "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 toward the hottest we have been, since we were 55 million years ago." In more forceful criticism published in January of this year in the English-language Independent newspaper, Lovelock issued the following warning: "The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years." I thought we were worried about a new Ice Age?

His 1,220 word essay may skeptics 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. In his newspaper column, he did confess, "This article is the most difficult I have written." 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. I think the impending crunch will provide us with a chance to better ourselves. Who can say for sure? Restarting gives man a greater opportunity.

Approximately one billion people are expected to make it.

When he says "start again," 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. "There might be something, maybe a billionth of a percent." "Is there much hope?" we inquired. He expressed his disappointment in our modern civilization's ability to hack it. However, what if...? "We need to make enormous changes," he emphasized. "Reduction efforts by society are moving at a snail's pace." At the very least, fifty years ago, he said, these reforms ought to have begun. "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.

Lovelock predicts that by the century's end, the Arctic will be home to the last of humanity as they reconstruct what little they have left of our civilization. Up there, it won't be quite as chilly as you would imagine by that point. "The majority of the world's Arctic ice will disappear within 25 years," he informed us. It will be possible for you to reach the North Pole by sailing. When will we start to see these changes? The exact amount of years is uncertain, according to Lovelock's modeling. "It could be five years, it could be 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 horrible and likely permanent. Our actions have rendered Earth incapable of self-regulation. Imagine Earth as Lovelock sees it a few decades from now; he hates doing it. "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 related news, Environmentalists who advocate for renewable energy sources are risking Earth's future, according to Lovelock, who has criticized them time and time again in his book and other works.

At that point, we started discussing eco-warriors, particularly the idealists who say they are doing their part to keep the planet habitable. We wanted to know what was truly wrong with the modern environmental movement, so we consulted this prominent environmental expert. When Lovelock responded, "It's mostly made up of urban people, who know almost nothing about the countryside and still less about the ecosystem," he grew increasingly bitter in his voice. He dismissed their ideas as merely urban-political and scoffed at them. 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 tons. Put this amount in context with the half a gigaton tons of food that humans consume each year... To cultivate fuel alone would require the surface 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. Furiously retorting, "They are being very foolish," he shot out. His next comment came after a little silence: "They are living in a dream world." Lovelock, being the kind father figure 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.

It's clear that Lovelock is pushing for a nuclear war.

"Are Pro Nuclear People the New Greens?" was the question posed in the headline of an editorial that appeared in a Boston newspaper not long ago. We covered that ground. “It’s a bit of an old term, really,” he said with a smile. As a technology, nuclear power has been around for over 40 years. I guess some factions are leaning toward nuclear in some nations, like the UK.

James Lovelock is very much against nuclear power, that much is evident. He said, "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization." His comment is prominently displayed on the World Nuclear Association's website. As the "preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness," the trade group justifiably claims that its advocate is. Lovelock states in his book that until fusion power and reasonable renewable energy sources become a reliable source for the long term, nuclear fission will be the only option. Nuclear power does not contribute to pollution and does not rely on foreign suppliers in a world that is sure to be unstable.


In The Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock provides a concise analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of each energy source. Coal mining is something he despises with a passion, and he thinks carbon-based fuels are bad for the environment and people alike. Renewable energy sources are inadequate to fulfill 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 programs, in contrast to renewable advocates like Amory Lovins or Senator Hillary Clinton. According to him, their renewable energy ideas could perhaps speed up the end of our society.

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? He responded, "It will never be a very big operation," meaning that the size of the business is irrelevant. "The amount of uranium being mined is insignificant in comparison to coal mining, when you consider the ratio of energy produced from the two." Dr. Lovelock was briefed on the process by which American uranium firms shifted from traditional mining to In Situ uranium recovery. The In Situ, in Lovelock's opinion, was "a good idea because it mobilizes the uranium with the oxygen in the water and doesn't make a god-awful mess of the environment."

Navaco Nation Uranium Ban Denied as Irrational

We discussed uranium mining in New Mexico because we covered environmental developments there for firms like Uranium Resources (OTC BB: URRE) and Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF). We talked about the Navajo Nation's restriction on uranium mining in the "Four Corners" area, which encompasses four states and tribal reservations, because it was such a strange occurrence. Our previous discussion with Dr. Fred Begay was brought up as we attempted to make sense of this, considering the most recent scientific advancements about the in situ uranium recovery technology.

We spoke with Dr. Fred Begay on the changing face of uranium mining in November during our visit to Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL). As a nuclear physicist and Navajo, Dr. Begay was carrying on his ties to LANL through community outreach initiatives within the Navajo homeland. "The Navajo don't get it," he told StockInterview. In terms of mining and uranium, they are uneducated.

We put the Navajo uranium prohibition in the perspective of the tribe's other major source of revenue—coal mining royalties—and asked James Lovelock for his thoughts on the matter. He went on to say, "I could understand their rejection to any mining" if the Navajo Nation had never mined before and desired to preserve the resources in their natural state. "However, it would be completely unreasonable to oppose uranium mining if coal mining is permitted."

The president of the Navajo Nation, Joe Shirley, Jr., and other aboriginal tribes in Australia and abroad have strong feelings against uranium mining; what would James Lovelock say to them? A hasty "very little" was his response. Then he elaborated on his earlier reply. It's nearly the same as attempting to convince a religious person that their faith is ill-founded. Telling a practicing Catholic that I have my doubts regarding Mary's virginity is something I would never dream of doing. "They don't think about it," he added, drawing a parallel to a religious principle. This is bad, but they are unaware of it. Dealing with individuals like that is quite challenging. Does the typical anti-nuclear environmentalist fall under that category? He detailed his approach to dealing with the ignorant, Saying things like, "Yes, it may be slightly dangerous, but nothing quite so dangerous as global warming" was the only thing that worked for me in this country, the UK. If we want to get over this, we might have to use it.

The Chinese and the Last Word

No discussion of nuclear power in the twenty-first century can avoid mentioning China's predicament. China is preparing the most ambitious nuclear energy expansion program in the last thirty years, and it is also the biggest coal miner and one of the worst polluters in the world. Lovelock started by saying, "The Chinese government is the strongest government in the world. "The Prime Minister often receives advice from a friend of mine who frequently visits that country to discuss environmental issues." A timeless Lovelock tale thus began:

They assure him, 'We're all striving to have more renewable energy than anyone else.' And they leave it at that. To prevent more atmospheric carbon emissions, we are constructing nuclear power stations 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 sufficient nuclear power plants or other renewable energy sources to fulfill our demands, we will continue to rely on coal.

He finally said, "How the hell can Western democracies do it if the Chinese can't?" Some see this as evidence of his fatalism on the planet's condition. Is he really as gloomy as many say he is?

Quite the opposite, he said. "People say I'm a pessimist, but that's not how I think at all. In light of the present danger of climate change, Lovelock drew parallels to his time as a young worker and student in World War II. He remembered that in 1940, a great opponent threatened to invade. "In utter horror, some individuals raised their hands and proclaimed, 'There's nothing we can do.'" For individuals who toiled away in the face of danger, though, it was a fantastic period. Despite the danger, Lovelock and Britain were able to survive, and he will be able to pass on his knowledge to future generations. Even if it's difficult, thinking about global warming is horrible. Many younger folks can have a fantastic time.

According to others, Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia serves as his testament. Rather, we take a fresh look at Lovelock's masterwork. From our discussion with Dr. Lovelock, we infer that his book serves as his strongest call to action for scientists and policymakers around the globe to rapidly adopt nuclear power in the face of an imminent and potentially devastating sequence of events. Lovelock never actually declared "certainly," although he did state that there was "a high probability." Despite this vast disparity, Lovelock still sees a silver lining in his cup.

Location:

Share :