 Illustration by Katie Giddens Leading environmentalist James Lovelock says global warming has gone so far that sustainable energy is not enough. WARNING: not for the faint-hearted.
Words by Helen Gilchrist
(First published in Stranger 03 - February 2005)
His famous 'Gaia' theory in the 1970s - in which he argued that the earth was a complex self-regulating organism, highlighting how volatile our planet is and how we need to respect it - kicked off the modern green movement. However, James Lovelock has ruffled many a green feather with his powerful calls for nuclear energy as the only viable energy solution to prevent the imminent catastrophe threatened by global warming. His controversial views even include an argument for dumping nuclear waste in the rainforest to stop people cutting it down. These days, he's 85 years old, has nine grandchildren, and has lived on a farm on the Devon/ Cornwall border for the last 28 years, where he has planted over 20,000 trees. Stranger caught up with the Godfather of the Greens turned heretic.
Helen Gilchrist: Do you believe that there's not enough time for renewable energies like wind, solar and tidal turbines to be effective, because global warming has already gone too far?
James Lovelock: Yes, it has I'm afraid. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, stopped carbon emissions from cars, planes, the whole damn lot, the planet would still go on heating up until the end of this century. We have to stop, because if we don't, it'll get so bad that we'll leave a ruined world for our descendents.
HG: Investing money and technology into fuel efficiency, tidal energy and small-scale energy production for individual homes, is this all too little too late?
JL: It's not that we shouldn't do it, but we mustn't expect that they will provide the answer quickly enough.
HG: What about the potential for tidal energy? A big problem with wind is that it's not consistent - but we know the tide will rise and fall every single day.
JL: This is one reason I'm so disappointed with my friends in the green movement. Many years ago, there were plans to put a barrage across the Severn estuary. That would've produced the equivalent power of four nuclear power stations, and provided six per cent of our total energy needs. The main objection to it came from wildfowl people at Slimbridge. It was absurd. People fail to look at the importance of the bigger picture. Now we don't have enough time to experiment with tidal technology.
HG: Do you think there's a culture of fear about nuclear power?
JL: Absolutely. The fear of nuclear energy is understandable, through its association with nuclear warfare - but nuclear power plants are not bombs. What at first was a proper concern for safety has become a near pathological anxiety, and much of the blame for this goes to the news media, the television and film industries, and fiction writers. There's nothing like a good story. The truth tends not to be so important or interesting.
The Swiss did a study many years ago on the safety of all the different power sources, and found that nuclear was the safest of the whole lot - because people discount the endless number of deaths in coal mines, power stations and oil fields. Even if nuclear was as dangerous, it's insignificant to the death toll there's going to be if global warming continues at its present rate.
If we go on burning fossil fuels at the current rate, or at an increasing rate, it is probable that all the
cities of the world now at sea level will be flooded. London would be completely taken out - where do all the people in London then go? That will put pressure on our existing resources. It's going to be a very grim century if we don't do something about it.
The scientists at the Hadley Centre are predicting that in just a couple of decades, we're going to be in dead trouble. The polar icecaps in the Arctic are going. This is not science fiction; it's all happening. In 2003, 35,000 people died from overheating. That's just the start of it.
HG: Can you explain nuclear power in laymen's terms, and what the real dangers are?
JL: Well, the best way to look at it is this: In one year in the 1960s - I think it was 1962 - the Americans and the Russians together let off as many nuclear bombs in atmospheric tests as would have amounted to a quite medium-scale nuclear war. The total amount of radioactivity that went into the world was roughly equivalent to at least 100 Chernobyls - some people put it as high as 400. All happened in one year. We all breathed it and we're living longer than ever. What's the problem?
HG: So is nuclear waste not a problem?
JL: I'd offer to take some here where I live. I could use it for my home heating. It would just go in a concrete pit and there'd be no radiation escaping through the concrete.
One gram of uranium produces the same amount of energy as one tonne of oil; when you burn that one gram, it's not going to produce much waste, is it?
When you the burn oil, you'd produce several tonnes of waste, because it adds on oxygen. The waste pile each year of carbon dioxide is gigantic - it would cover 500 square miles and be something like 30 metres deep. Now that really is a waste problem.
HG: How many nuclear power stations would we need in the UK to solve the current energy crisis?
JL: All we have to do is replace the ones we've already got; you wouldn't need to build any new ones. We need a safe, steady and reliable source of electricity. We've had nuclear providing power for 40 years, with very few problems. I don't think nuclear alone is the answer, but you do need a safe, secure supply of electricity - that at least keeps hospitals and services going - it holds civilisation together, because it's guaranteed. It's like the outboard motor for a lifeboat. It's looking ahead for when things get bad.
HG: Greenpeace say, "90% of Britain's nuclear waste stockpile is so badly stored it could explode or leak with devastating results at any time."
JL: That's a lot of rubbish. Most of the nuclear waste we have in this country comes from the weapons programme, not the power stations. It's amazing how well our nuclear power stations have done; they've quietly given us energy over all these years. The one at Hinkley Point has produced electricity for nearly 40 years - and is equivalent to 3,200 of the giant wind turbines. So why get rid of it?
HG: Do you enjoy being a member of the "awkward squad"? You initiated the green movement in the 1970s; you have friends at Greenpeace - and now your views on nuclear power have made you a heretic in their eyes. Is there an element of deliberate heresy, or is it just that you've realised what a grave situation we're in, and you're not afraid to say what you think, even if it makes you enemies?
JL: It's the latter, entirely. I think we're in a desperate state, and we need desperate remedies. Nuclear fits that bill. Sustainable energy alone is not enough. If we had another 50 years, it might be - but we don't. As far as getting started goes, we don't even have ten years.
This interview took place on 19 January 2005.
|
