Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Ecoterrorism: 11 Charged

By

According to an online NBC news report the FBI considers ecoterrorism the most widespread and damaging form of domestic terrorism in the US. It has been carried out against forestry activities and against biotechnology (genetically modified plants) and for animal rights. Yesterday 11 ecoterrorists were charged:

“The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.

“There is a clear difference between constitutionally protected advocacy … and violent criminal activity,” Mueller added.

“It is one thing to write concerned letters or to hold peaceful demonstrations,” Mueller said. “It is another thing entirely to construct and use improvised explosives to harass and intimidate victims by destroying property and to cause millions of dollars in losses by acts or threats of violence.”

… A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Eugene accused Paul, a firefighter, of setting firebombs that burned down a horse slaughterhouse in 1997. The ALF claimed responsibility for that fire, which caused an estimated $1 million in damage.

Savoie, who works in a group home for the developmentally disabled, is accused of serving as a lookout for a fire in 2001 that destroyed offices of a lumber mill. The ELF claimed responsibility for that fire.

Ecoterrorists have done more than $100 million in property damage over the past decade, officials told NBC News on Friday.

… Targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, U.S. Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, lumber companies, meat processing companies, a ski area and the power line, the indictment said.

Interestingly the terrorists, the media and the Judge don’t appear to distinguish between terrorism for ‘the environment’ and terrorism for ‘animal rights’. To quote from a recent post at this blog: “Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context.”

What were the 11 really fighting for?

My Aversion to Whaling is Not Cultural: Libby Eyre

By

Libby Eyre sent me the following letter which is really a critique of an article that I wrote for Online Opinion titled No Science and No Respect in Australia’s Anti-Whaling Campaign.

In the letter Libby asks why I put the case for whaling and also quotes some comment from me at this blog. I wrote back explaining that I write to understand issues and that I believe there is too much ‘blind opposition’ to the sustainable harvest of many plant and animal species.

But let’s read what Libby has to say. She is a researcher and museum curator at Macquarie University. She doesn’t like to be called an expert, but as been involved in cetacean research for over 20 years including with wild cetaceans and captive, and also marine mammal events such as strandings. Libby has also worked with Greenpeace including undertaking whale and dolphin surveys on board the Rainbow Warrior.

Dear Jennifer,

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make with regards to the article “No science and no respect in anti-whaling campaign”. It would appear you are trying to put forward a balanced argument, and you state in comments that you are “motivated by a desire to understand the world around me and try, through my writing, to get as close as possible to the truth”. You also have written that you “care about whales”, and you “don’t like the idea of killing whales”. I am concerned that although you appear to want to report the truth and appear unbiased, comments such as “it is well known I am sympathetic to whaling” would suggest otherwise.

You have written that commercial harvesting uses more humane methods than aboriginal subsistence whaling. You also write later that “Whales are said to die instantly when struck by a harpoon”. There is no guaranteed humane way of killing a large whale at sea. It is difficult enough euthanasing the smaller species in a humane fashion when they are lying on a beach. Although the Norwegian scientists do research on killing techniques and time to death, the current practices used are still able to cause extreme suffering if an accurate hit is not obtained. As there are no independent observers on whaling vessels operated by the Japanese, Norwegians or Icelanders, researchers have to take information provided by these countries on face value. The Norwegians claim they kill >80% of whales instantly, whereas the Japanese instantaneous kill rate is said to be 40%. A significant number of whales in both the Norwegian and Japanese hunts require secondary killing methods, such as high calibre rifles to kill them. When the Japanese kill the 10 fin whales in the Antarctic this year (50 in subsequent years), they will use the same size explosive grenade that they use for minkes, which are about 8 times smaller in size.

With regards to the smaller odontocetes not being regulated by the IWC – the IWC has a small cetaceans sub-committee which meets when the Scientific Committee does prior to the plenary meetings. As you would know, the Scientific Committee is made up of leading cetacean researchers from around the world, who are there due to their knowledge and expertise to advise and provide facts on the state of the cetacean environment, discuss sanctuaries, model populations and work out possible sustainable quotas. The IWC has traditionally been an organization set up by whalers for whalers, however due to the lack of ability to adequately manage whale stocks, and the subsequent crash of great whale populations, a moratorium was in place, and more emphasis was given to the scientific community to model future trends in whale populations. Small cetaceans have not traditionally been viewed in the commercial whaling discussions at the IWC, but the IWC have recognised that there needs to be discussion about these animals, as many are now threatened with extinction. It should be noted that the Japanese are against discussions on small cetaceans as they have never been part of IWC negotiations.

With regards to the consumption of the pilot whale meat in the Faroe Islands, high levels of heavy metals have been found in the meat, and could possibly have severe adverse health effects on those that consume it. It would be a tragedy if these people risked the health of their children because of traditional (and cruelly executed) practices. Persistent organic pollutants have been detected in cetaceans from seemingly remote populations, and the health repercussions of eating products from small and large cetaceans should not be readily dismissed.

You have pointed out that “Norwegian whalers have a long cultural tradition of killing, eating and selling whale products”, and some of the comments on the blog have rightly pointed out that Japan’s history of whaling is mainly post WWII, when they had little else to eat. Some social commentators suggest that the Japanese hang on to the idea of eating whales as it reminds them of the hard times they went through after the War. Traditions are by their nature somewhat emotionally driven, rather than logical. Many past times and events are carried out in the name of tradition when they have been superseded by superior technology or knowledge. Certain cultures would argue that genital mutilation is traditional amongst them, but that doesn’t make it morally right when you consider the pain and suffering the individuals endure. We often hang on to traditions because they remind us the good old days and how things used to be, or perhaps because “it’s always been done that way”. These are emotional rather than logical arguments a lot of the time. Having a long cultural tradition of doing something does not justify its continuation. Using the traditional argument is an emotional tactic similar to what you accuse Senator Campbell of employing.

You wrote that “Norway resumed commercial whaling in defiance of the IWC”, and that the Norwegians maintain that the “harvest is based on scientific advice supported by the best available knowledge”. I wonder what makes their knowledge any more superior than the researchers who gather at the IWC scientific meetings each year? Would not these scientists also have an understanding of population dynamics and numbers?

Pro-whaling supporters say that we can learn a lot of information by studying dead whales. With advances in technology, we can learn more from studying whales alive than dead, including gathering follow-up data on individuals, which of course lethal techniques do not allow. Faecal studies provide the study of diet; biopsies provide a range of information on sex, reproductive state, health, population dynamics; acoustics provide behavioural and population information; photographic research provides individual life history information, migratory patterns, age and health information; tagging provides information on environmental factors such as depth and sea temperature along with acoustics of the subject and surrounds; and so on. The Japanese proposal to kill humpback whales will negatively impact on humpback whale research in areas such as the South Pacific and Australia. Some of these projects have been going for decades. The Japanese have doubled their quota of minke whales to meet the requirements of their scientific research, but do you need to kill almost 1000 animals to satisfy these research needs (or some 8000 animals since the JARPA programme was established)? Combined, other nations have killed approximately 2,100 whales for scientific research since 1952. Perhaps a more likely explanation for the increase in numbers is to use ‘science’ to advance a political agenda, namely using ex-commercial whaling vessels and equipment to kill whales to sell commercially and thus create a financial incentive to kill more whales. This mis-use of science does little to instil confidence in science or policy in the general public.

I do not agree that as a consequence of the anti-whaling campaign we have come to “venerate cetaceans”. It is my opinion, and that of others, that the oceanarium industry of the 60’s and 70’s brought about the ‘touchy-feely’ association with cetaceans. The ability to capture, house and train Orcas turned the public’s perception around enormously, along with the scientific work that was also being produced at the time on dolphin cognition and large whale acoustics (such as humpback whale song). The concern about anti-whaling likely arose from media images and a heightened awareness of the cognitive abilities and social lives of this group of animals. When I was a child, people would carve their initials in stranded cetaceans and put cigarette butts down their blowholes. There has been a massive change in opinion from fearing whales when you are in a boat to making money out of them. To suggest that Greenpeace is responsible for our change of heart towards whales is unreasonable, and to be totally honest, in Australia it was Project Jonah who led the protests in 1977 to close the Cheynnes Beach whaling station, not Greenpeace.

This forum appears to be very much ‘anti-green’, and you have already expressed “It is already well-known I have little sympathy for Greenpeace”. In an effort to try and discredit this organization, I am concerned that you yourself are not presenting the truth at times.

Are you suggesting that because we apparently “venerate cetaceans” we are biased when national and international environmental policies for the conservation of the species are developed? There is no question that cetaceans receive more positive press than stick insects. Sadly, it is human nature that makes us favour certain Orders over others. However, to claim that we are so awe-struck by these ‘mystical beings’ that scientists and policy makers can’t make unbiased and sensible decisions is plain insulting, as well as very silly.

I do agree with your comments on the need to better regulate the dugong hunting in Australian waters. Along with hunting, the species faces entanglement, boat strikes, habitat destruction, diminishing food resources and pollution. However, this is another issue altogether, and perhaps one you can make a positive contribution towards in your forum separately.

You say you support the right of indigenous communities and the Japanese and Norwegians to kill marine mammals as long as it is sustainable. Estimates of cetacean populations in the Antarctic and elsewhere vary widely, depending on who is doing the research, the techniques involved, the season and year surveys are conducted in, changes in possible ‘site fidelity’, the validity of old data such as whaling records, and the influence of factors such as predator-prey relationships and environmental dynamics. There are estimates from 1989 of 760, 000 minkes in the Antarctic (not considering stock/genetic identity), although the IWC no longer considers this number to be valid. In reality the figure could be as low as 300,000 (not considering stock/genetic identity). The numbers of minkes killed has increased for both the Japanese scientific kill and the Norwegian commercial hunt. Should commercial whaling resume by Japan and other countries, it is sensible to believe that the numbers will be significantly higher. Is it realistic to assume that the whale populations will remain at current levels (whatever they may be), and not be negatively impacted upon by other events such as global warming? The polar regions are particularly susceptible to climate change, and changes in sea surface temperature, sea ice coverage and ocean circulation are almost certain to change phytoplankton communities and all that depend on them.

The ability to honestly report numbers and species that are being killed is something that many are rightly sceptical about. We now know that the Soviets were conducting illegal whaling in a number of areas (most notably the Antarctic), after the protection of highly endangered species such as right and blue whales. Japanese researchers have also reported that sperm whale catches were under-reported in Japanese land-based whaling operations. The knowledge of the illegal Soviet catches makes it easier to understand why populations of humpbacks in the Fiji/Tonga breeding assemblages are not showing the same rates of recovery as the East and West Australia humpbacks. These populations are the ones the Japanese intend to start taking for their research under JARPA II. The taking of protected species such as humpback, fin and sei (the North Pacific JARPN II lethal research programme) whales, which are also highly migratory, demonstrates that this one nation has very little ‘respect’ for the conservation concerns and transient fauna of other nations.

Cetaceans, and in particular the large species such as the baleen whales, do not reproduce annually. They have low recruitment rates and take many years to reach sexual maturity. There is no way of telling the sex of a whale when you are standing behind the harpoon, and therefore you may be biasing the population by taking out mostly mature males or even pregnant females. One argument that is often used is that we eat (for example) cows. Cows are regular reproducers, and cows can be counted and adequately managed when they are in a paddock, even the size of one in the Top End. There is so much debate about population estimates of cetaceans that I am surprised you have not mentioned how hard it is to get accurate figures of whale stocks, be they in the Antarctic or North Atlantic. Cetaceans by their very nature are very hard to study as they spend so much time out of sight and inhabiting areas that are expensive and often difficult to survey properly. Migratory species like fin whales, although being the second largest animal on Earth, are largely unknown as a species. No one knows where the southern stocks of this endangered species winters and breeds, let alone what their numbers are. Counting the animals at sea is extremely difficult. Killing animals that we know very little about in order to gain further knowledge is irresponsible when there are non-lethal techniques available.

Of course whaling is not the only threat that whales now face. A female humpback whale will reproduce every 2-3 years. But her calf has a high risk of mortality in its first year due to a variety of factors such as predation, entanglement (maybe in Queensland shark nets), illness, its mother being compromised and so on. We know that low frequency sonar such as is used in naval exercises can cause mortality, that there is an increase in the numbers of cetaceans struck by ships (the northern right whale is highly endangered due to vessel strikes), that some 300,000 cetaceans die from entanglement in man-made fishing devices annually, and that scores are killed in pollution-triggered die-offs. That information is out there, and the numbers are often under reported. It is not a simple exercise of saying that whaling will have no impact on cetacean numbers when there are so many other factors at play as well.

You have argued that the Norwegians have a “reasoned and scientific approach” that we could “learn from”. One of their main arguments for hunting marine mammals is that they believe they are in direct competition for food resources. As far as I am aware, there is no reliable scientific evidence to support this. The dynamics of ecosystems and predator-prey relationships cannot be answered by simply taking out a single species of predator, such as minke or sei whales. Industrialised fishing is responsible for changes in composition and abundance of fish stocks. The commercial push for the resumption of commercial whaling is no different to fisheries, and fisheries statistics shows that many populations are already beyond their sustainable levels. In light of your “sympathetic” view on whaling, I see your support of Norway’s “reasoned and scientific approach” far from impartial.

Personally, my aversion to whaling is not “cultural”. It is based on the fact that there is no scientific, social or historical evidence to show me it is sustainable, in addition to it being inhumane, and unnecessary. I think you are underestimating the Australian public and most cetacean researchers, and putting your own opinions in a forum that you maintain is to be balanced, but is highly biased and also poorly researched and understood.

Libby Eyre

Why Isn’t the Antarctic Warming as Much as the Arctic?

By

I was really impressed by this picture when I first saw it. It is from the NASA website and shows the extent of warming in the Arctic relative to the rest of the globe.

2005_surfacetemp_anomaly.gif

An American newspaper included comment that:

A University of Alabama scientist says global warming is not nearly as global as some people think. …Temperatures in 2005 followed a general pattern seen since 1978, with the most significant warming seen in the northernmost third of the planet. Large regions of slightly warmer than normal temperatures covered much of the globe.
The Arctic atmosphere, however, has warmed more than seven times faster than that over the southern two-thirds of the globe.

And there was comment at Tim Blair’s popular blog along the lines:

The carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is distributed pretty evenly around the globe and not concentrated in the Arctic, so it doesn’t look like we can blame greenhouse gases for the overwhelming bulk of the Northern Hemisphere warming over the past 27 years

Vincent Gray has written that:

The models predict increased warming, equally, at both the North and South Poles. The measurements show that the two poles are completely different. The North Pole is warming the South Pole is cooling.

The models predict much greater warming than is observed, and the only way they can get out of it is to assume a large cooling influence of clouds and aerosols, Since these are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, there should be greater net warming in the South than in the North. The observations show the opposite.

But, according to Cecilia Bitz writing for Real Climate the models can, and do, account for lots of warming at the Arctic and not much at the Antarctic:

Manabe and Stouffer (1980) first popularized the phrase “polar amplification” to describe the amplified rate of surface warming at the poles compared to the rest of the globe in their climate model’s response to increasing greenhouse gas levels.

Their early climate model had a simple ocean component that only represented the mixed layer of the water. Their model had roughly symmetric poleward amplification in the two hemispheres, except over the Antarctic continent, where they argued the ice is too thick and cold to melt back.

…Observed polar climate change from the instrumental record is not symmetric. Except along the Antarctic Peninsula , most evidence of significant warming is from the Arctic. In addition, total sea ice extent in the Southern Ocean has had no significant trend since satellites began taking data in 1979 (Cavalieri et al 2003). Newer climate models generally also have very modest or no polar amplification over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica in hindcasts of the last century. The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key because ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms (see Gregory 2000). The asymmetry at the poles does not however result from a difference in feedback strength associated with the ice or atmosphere. In fact, when these same climate models are run to equilibrium (in the same way that Manabe and Stouffer ran their model so that ocean heat uptake is not a factor) the hemispheres have nearly equal polar amplification.

David Jones at the Australian Bureau of Meterology explains:

The failure of the Antarctic to warm is pretty well understood. It is linked to the marked strengthening which has occurred in the southern annular mode. The “southern annular mode” is a fancy name for the strength of the Antarctic low pressure trough and westerly winds (the roaring forties, furious fifties, screaming sixties).

… Over the last 30 years we have seen a very marked intensification of the trough – most of this happened in a short period of time from around 1970 to 1990. This is believed to be due to the loss of ozone in the polar stratosphere which caused a very strong cooling of the stratosphere and upper troposphere over the Antarctic. This cooling lead to a strong increase in the temperature gradient between the equator and poles, which through the dynamics must strengthen the westerly winds (this is summarised in a fairly basic dynamical equation called the “thermal wind” relationship).

The strengthened westerlies has a number of effects. These include enhanced warming on the northern side of the trough (the trough typically being near 65S). This explains the spectacular warming over the Antarctic Peninsula (which is occurring much faster than one might expect from the simple greenhouse effect). On the southern side, the reverse happens; i.e. cooling.

For the last 20 years of so, this cooling has been sufficient to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is a great example of the thermodynamics (temperature changes) and dynamics (winds etc) operating in different directions. Another effect of the stronger westerlies is that the increase the equatorwards drift of sea ice (through a process called Ekman drift) which probably explains why sea ice in the southern hemisphere appears to have retreated extensively from around 1900 to 1970 and stabilised and infact expanded subsequently.

There is a real cautionary tale here about non-linearities in climate change.

There is, in my view, also a real cautionary tale in the new paper by Keppler et al. in science journal Nature as summarized in the Editorial:

The unexpectedly high levels of the green-house gas methane over tropical forests, and the recent decline in the atmospheric growth rate of methane concentrations, cannot be readily explained with the accepted global methane budget. Now a genuinely surprising discovery provides a possible explanation for these phenomena, and may have implications for modelling past and future climates. It was thought that methane formed naturally only in anaerobic conditions, in marshes for instance. In fact living plants, as well as plant litter, emit methane to the atmosphere under oxic conditions. This additional source of methane could account for 10-30 percent of the annual methane source strength and has been overlooked in previous studies.

Vincent Gray has remarked with respect to this new finding that:

The answer to the fact that climate models cannot simulate actual global temperature change may be due to a fact I have been emphasizing for many years. The models all assume that greenhouse gases are “well-mixed”, however, they are not “well-mixed”, so that temperatures cannot be adequately calculated by using average greenhouse gas concentrations. You should use actual concentrations over the particular region.

… Of course, average methane concentrations in the atmosphere have apparently stabilised, so this present scare does not add any extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It does cast into serious doubt current models supposedly relating emissions of methane to atmospheric concentrations, though.

This discovery will certainly change attitudes to “climate change”, for it now appears that in order to reduce “global warming” you should not only cut carbon dioxide emissions, but you should also cut down forests, reduce agriculture, drain wetlands and cover the world with concrete.

Rather than “cover the world with concrete” as concrete is also a source of greenhouse gases, there is perhaps reason at this time in our history for both global warming skeptics and global warming believers to be a bit humble. There is so much we just don’t understand.

But someone, tell me how important is it really, as Vincent suggests, that we “use actual concentrations over the particular region”?

How This Blog Rates

By

If you want to know how popular a blog is you can go to Alexa and check its rating.

A week or so ago blogger Tim Lambert listed the ‘Top ten right-wing Australian blogs’ based on their Alexa-rank.

The lower the number the more popular the blog.

Tim Blair blitzed the field with a score of 50,087, followed by Catallaxy at 225,663 and then Gravatt.org at 488,606. Number 10 at a whooping 3,394,951 was the Australian Libertarian society.

A reader of this blog sent me an email asking why I wasn’t listed.

Based on this morning’s rating I would have apparently come in third, with an Alexa rating of 477,565 (and 311,301 in the last week).

I reckon I wasn’t listed because this is not a right-wing blog.

Tim Blair has done a list of popular left-wing Australian blogs and I’m not there either. Then again this is not really a left-wing blog.

This has really developed into a blog for progressive environmentalists.

After all, as Professor David McKnight has explained, the good guys are always the progressives.

Fishing: Could It be Banned?

By

Members of a Murray River recreational fishing club took me fishing soon after the IPA published my controversial Backgrounder ‘Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment’. They wanted to pick my brains on various issues including the future of fishing along the Murray.

That afternoon I remember one of the group John, showing me the Murray Cod he had just caught. He had this fish, about the size of a 3 month old baby, cradled in his arms and he was bringing it up to his face to give it a kiss in the same way a mother might kiss her baby. I thought it was gross, but he clearly adored the fish he had just caught and killed.

According to today’s ABC Online,

The Federal Government says an animal welfare bill introduced by the Democrats could mean the death of recreational fishing in Australia.

Under the the National Animal Welfare Bill the ‘capture and killing of wild animals for the purpose of entertainment and sport’ would be outlawed, a concept federal Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald says will mean the end of outdoor sports like angling.

“It would mean a lot of people along the West Australian coast, a lot of families who love to go fishing together as a family, wouldn’t be able to do that any more,” he said.

However, Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett says the bill has nothing to do with fishing.

“The legislation seeks to outlaw things such as tail docking of dogs, cock fighting, it does not mention fishing in any way shape or form,” he said.

The bill is currently before a Senate Committee and a report is expected by the end of June, for more information click here.

Is fishing hunting? On Monday, ABC Online published a piece about hunting lions in Africa:

Regional governments and conservationists have agreed on initial steps that need to be taken to save the African lion, which has been pushed to the brink of extinction throughout much of its range.

The strategies were worked out at a workshop on lions in east and southern Africa, which wrapped up at the weekend.

“The reduction in the lion’s wild prey base, human-lion conflicts and habitat degradation are the major reasons for declining lion populations and need to be addressed,” the World Conservation Union (WCU), one of the workshop’s organisers, said.

Government officials, local community representatives, lion biologists and safari hunters attended the meeting.

“Regulated trophy hunting was not considered a threat, but rather viewed as a way to help alleviate human-lion conflict and generate economic benefits for poor people to build their support for lion conservation,” the statement said.

Trophy hunting of lions already takes place in several African states including South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

But expanding these lucrative operations to other states is bound to be opposed by animal welfare groups, which view hunting as cruel.

With its iconic status as “King of the Beasts,” the hunting of the lion is an emotive issue sure to stir controversy, even if it does generate revenue for poor rural communities from licensing fees and jobs created.

Other strategies agreed on at the meeting include: action to prevent the illegal trade in lions and lion products; developing management capacity; and creating economic incentives for poor rural folk to live close to lions.

The lion’s overall situation is dire in the face of swelling human populations on the world’s poorest continent.

“Over the past 20 years, lion numbers are suspected to have dropped dramatically from an estimated 76,000 to a population estimated to be between 23,000 and 39,000 today,” the WCU said.

“Across Africa, the lion has disappeared from over 80 percent of its former range.”

In West Africa, lions number fewer than 1,500.

Conflict between humans and lions is a huge problem with attacks on people on the rise in Tanzania and Mozambique.

For those still reading this long post. Here are a few ideas to ponder:

1. Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context?

2. Society can justify pursuing animal welfare on anthropogenic grounds (benefits to people). It does not require any commitment to biocentric philosophies. Science is and will continue to be the most effective tool in improving animal welfare, so actions aimed at constraining research with animals may have limited utility in advancing animal welfare?

3. The core business of animal welfare is the reduction of unnecessary pain and suffering in captive and wild animals within different contexts. It should be objective and scientifically-based. Different contexts will always involve different levels of pain and suffering. When assessing the right to exist of individual contexts, such as the live export trade, battery hens or hunting, animal welfare is but one of many variables that society needs to consider?

Contrasting Views on Global Warming: James Lovelock versus Patrick Moore

By

According to Michael McCarthy writing in The Independent today:

“The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia – the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today’s Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: “Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself – increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System – which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet’s ancient regulatory system will be non-linear – in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon “The Revenge of Gaia” and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.”

What a different view to that of Patrick Moore! Patrick Moore, was quoted a few days ago (13th January) in The Honololu Advertiser suggesting global warming might be a good thing for Planet Earth. Sean Hau wrote :

“Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn’t the message that was unconventional, but the messenger – Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called “environmental extremism,” or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren’t supported by science or logic.

Hawai’i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs.

Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists.

“There’s no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials,” he told those attending a luncheon at a three-day Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy.

The event was sponsored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Sponsors included Dupont, Carghill and the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, which spent $15,000 to support the conference.

In direct opposition to common environmentalist positions, Moore contended that global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. He added that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.”