|
 |
James Lovelock
James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher and environmentalist. His most famous work is the Gaia hypothesis.
|
A controversial solution?
Long held as the hero of the green movement James Lovelock has recently shocked them with his view that the only way to prevent the impending climate catastrophe is through the use of nuclear power.
I rather like this image you return to two or three times, of Gaia as an old lady, ready to evict a group of unruly teenagers – i.e. the human race – from her house.
I’m sorry! It’s a bit silly. But I feel it gets over to the reader the situation we’re in.
So my question is: is it too late? Has the eviction notice been served? Have we passed the threshold?
Yes. I’m almost certain, or as certain as a scientist can be.
When do you think we passed it?
I would reckon some time in the mid-90s, perhaps before that. The clincher, of course, is the phenomenon of global dimming. I don’t know if you noticed the news saying temperature only has to rise 2 degrees and the melting of Greenland becomes irreversible.
Well, the climate would be 2.5 to 3 degrees warmer if it weren’t for the atmospheric haze produced by pollution. Once there’s an economic downtown and industries slow production, then that haze goes in a week, and you’re 2 to 3 degrees warmer immediately.
Well, the climate would be 2.5 to 3 degrees warmer if it weren’t for the atmospheric haze produced by pollution. Once there’s an economic downtown and industries slow production, then that haze goes in a week, and you’re 2 to 3 degrees warmer immediately.
So what do you think then of the government report that we’re on target with renewables?
Typical rubbish. I may be wrong, maybe I’m looking for conspiracies that don’t exist, but I see our current government as populated on the environment side by old CND members who used to march to Aldermaston.
Their great dream was that if there could only be a nuclear-free Britain, all would be well. They will do anything to ensure that that happens, and they know jolly well that they’ve only got to hang out another year or two years and all nuclear activity in Britain will cease, because it can’t carry on without support. So that’s their motivation.
What they say of course is rubbish. There’s no way you can solve our problems with renewables alone. It’s not that renewables are bad per se – in some parts of the world, like Saudi Arabia, it would be a splendid idea to use wind-turbines for desalination on the desert shores.
Their great dream was that if there could only be a nuclear-free Britain, all would be well. They will do anything to ensure that that happens, and they know jolly well that they’ve only got to hang out another year or two years and all nuclear activity in Britain will cease, because it can’t carry on without support. So that’s their motivation.
What they say of course is rubbish. There’s no way you can solve our problems with renewables alone. It’s not that renewables are bad per se – in some parts of the world, like Saudi Arabia, it would be a splendid idea to use wind-turbines for desalination on the desert shores.
And solar power, presumably, as well.
Yes, quite. But to use it in a densely populated small island where the countryside is truly treasured, that would be complete philistinism of the worst kind.
So you are very anti wind-turbines.
Yes I am. If you would, to take an extreme case, try to take all the electricity in Britain from turbines, you would need about 250,000 of them, and they would be biggies, 1 or 2 megawatt ones, all over the country. And the problem is that the wind only blows 25% of the time. So you’ve got to back them up with 75% fossil fuel power stations.
So what are you gaining?
Well the government is not so mad to try and get all our electricity from wind turbines, but they hope to get 20% of it, and get the rest of the energy from Russian gas. Well this is quite insane. If Russians turn off the tap and there happens to be a big anti-cyclone like now, tough luck. We’d collapse.
So what are you gaining?
Well the government is not so mad to try and get all our electricity from wind turbines, but they hope to get 20% of it, and get the rest of the energy from Russian gas. Well this is quite insane. If Russians turn off the tap and there happens to be a big anti-cyclone like now, tough luck. We’d collapse.
One of the German authors of that government renewables report was saying it’s all very well talking about nuclear replacement in stable democracies, but to turn the planet over to nuclear is a crazy idea, and wholly unrealistic given the international political situation.
No, I wouldn’t suggest that. I’m talking about us. I mean the UK. Not even Europe.
So you say the nuclear solution is a UK-specific solution.
Exactly.
So what you’re actually advocating is a kind of energy isolationism, to prepare for the oncoming storm of…
Well soon the supply of fuel from abroad is going to be completely disrupted, by the time things get bad. Even last year it only took hurricane Katrina to bung oil prices up like a rocket. And that’s just the first baddie of that type that’s going to happen.
And it’s going to apply to food, too. We’re going to be thrust back on our own. Everywhere is. And so all I’m trying to do is to make recommendations for keeping civilisation going on these islands.
And it’s going to apply to food, too. We’re going to be thrust back on our own. Everywhere is. And so all I’m trying to do is to make recommendations for keeping civilisation going on these islands.
So what about the rest of the planet?
There’s nothing we can do about it. Because whatever we do, whatever gestures we make, isn’t going to move the Chinese one bit. Or the Indians. Or the Americans. Or the Russians.
I’ve got a friend who’s an advisor for the Chinese government, and they say, “Look, we’ve got the toughest, most rigid government in the world. But they know that if they hold back the aspirations of our people just one jot there’d be a revolution and they’d be out tomorrow. And if they can’t do it, how the heck can you do it?”
So it’s not a lack of willing or understanding on the part of the Chinese. It’s just practical politics.
Our government lives in a dream world. They think that by signing Kyoto or something they’ve got a load of brownie points with Gaia. This is rubbish.
Anyway we’re past the point of no return. If we all suddenly said, great, the penny’s dropped, we’re not going to burn another ounce of fuel, the first thing that would happen is the temperature would rocket up two or three degrees as the dust went out the atmosphere.
So why bother with renewables?
I’ve got a friend who’s an advisor for the Chinese government, and they say, “Look, we’ve got the toughest, most rigid government in the world. But they know that if they hold back the aspirations of our people just one jot there’d be a revolution and they’d be out tomorrow. And if they can’t do it, how the heck can you do it?”
So it’s not a lack of willing or understanding on the part of the Chinese. It’s just practical politics.
Our government lives in a dream world. They think that by signing Kyoto or something they’ve got a load of brownie points with Gaia. This is rubbish.
Anyway we’re past the point of no return. If we all suddenly said, great, the penny’s dropped, we’re not going to burn another ounce of fuel, the first thing that would happen is the temperature would rocket up two or three degrees as the dust went out the atmosphere.
So why bother with renewables?
Okay, well let’s say that you’re right. Can we afford to build nuclear power stations here? They’re extremely expensive.
What I’m recommending is not building new nuclear power stations at all. There’s nothing wrong with the existing ones. They merely need new reactors in them. And some of them could even be upgraded to last another 20 or 30 years.
So let’s say perhaps a half to two-thirds of them need new reactors, and the rest could be improved and left running. Everything is there, the cables run to the grid, the planning permission’s been done. This is the obvious thing to do. And that is all we need.
We don’t need to build more of them, because once the crunch comes we’ll bloody well have to live on the electricity they produce.
And we will.
Comments extracted from a full-length interview originally conducted on behalf of Mute magazine, www.metamute.org, on January 31st, 2006.
James Flint’s most recent novel, The Book of Ash, based on the true story of an artist making art from nuclear waste, is currently available in Penguin, priced £7.99
So let’s say perhaps a half to two-thirds of them need new reactors, and the rest could be improved and left running. Everything is there, the cables run to the grid, the planning permission’s been done. This is the obvious thing to do. And that is all we need.
We don’t need to build more of them, because once the crunch comes we’ll bloody well have to live on the electricity they produce.
And we will.
Comments extracted from a full-length interview originally conducted on behalf of Mute magazine, www.metamute.org, on January 31st, 2006.
James Flint’s most recent novel, The Book of Ash, based on the true story of an artist making art from nuclear waste, is currently available in Penguin, priced £7.99
 |
|
|
| Bruno Comby/Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - www.ecolo.org |
Terms & Conditions © Christian Aid 2007