Monthly Archive for February, 2007

The current climate change crisis is one example of the interrelatedness of the Earth’s systems, showing that we can not change one aspect of the system without affecting other systems.

In the 1970’s biologist James Lovelock used the ancient word Gaia to name his observation (the Gaia theory at wikipedia or in the Journal of theoretical biology) that the geologic history of the world shows a tendency for systems of our planet to work to reduce the variability of things like climate. That in the long term ice ages bring about changes to restore warmer conditions and that dry periods bring changes which restore moister climates.

In the current situation we see that there are systems working to absorb the increased CO2 emissions of the last few decades. In fact only 50% of our greenhouse emissions tend to remain in the atmosphere – this is a good thing – effectively halving the effects of our emissions. It would seem that Gaia systems are working to reduce the effects of human activity.

Unfortunately there are many scientists who would suggest that these systems are reaching capacity, or that other changes are reaching a place where the systems no longer function. This is part of the idea of tipping points – those limits which when crossed will cause rapid changes.

Think of sitting at your end of a see-saw, the other person is much lighter than you so they are up in the air and you are down. If you move along your side of the see-saw toward the middle nothing changes. Until you reach that point where the forces are in balance and you feel your self moving very slowly upward.

Well that is the point we are at, CO2 is increasing, temperatures are rising and we are seeing the possible climatic effects of that warming.

If you were to slide just a little bit further forward the see-saw goes all out of balance and the see-saw changes tilt. You are no longer up, the tipping point has been reached. This is the point many scientists fear we are approaching or crossing.

Already studies like the Stern report are saying we have gone too far to prevent climate change, but that we are still in a position to make changes to prevent the extreme changes predicted by some climate modellers.

However if we do not make those changes and soon, the effect will be to take the atmospheric systems beyond tipping points that will have thousand year effects rather than hundred year effects.

This was a discussion that was had on the ABC “Science Show” recently, with well known scientists and commentators supporting the view that we are facing change and it is only the degree of change that remains to be decided.

And so In a year when people in NSW face two elections, for state and federal leadership climate will and should be a major consideration for electors. As Andrew Watson from University of East Anglia said during the science show;
Andrew Watson:

Democracy is not particularly effective at these kinds of problems. But like Winston Churchill said, it’s the worst solution but the only solution, the only type of government that we have. This is why it’s so important to pressurise governments. Individuals have to be concerned about this so that they are not only doing their own individual things to lower carbon emissions but they are making it so difficult for governments to govern unless they do something sensible about this.

If governments do not take this on, there will not be governance in 100 years time.

and Peter Cox, Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics Exeter University UK;
Peter Cox:

One of the things we have not got to yet, certainly not in the Western democracies, people are not yet voting on environmental issues, me included. And until we do that we won’t be using our ultimate leverage as individuals in democracies, which is to actually choose governments based on what they do and how they act with regard to the environment, and that to me is the key. We have to vote with our feet in that sense.

More on the Gaia hypothesis:

The really urgent idea behind the Gaia theories is not that the Earth is “smart.” This kind of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo only serves to pit the theologians against the scientists again and again. To appreciate what Gaia means for mankind, one does not have to view the Earth as a living being…the Earth’s corporality or sentience is really of no consequence to the most compelling implications of Lovelock’s theory.

Whether or not the Earth is alive, there are moral implications to the Gaia Hypothesis—namely, in terms of biodiversity, that the short-term gain of a species over its competitors may not be as important as the long-term gain offered by increased competition and biodiversity. As the only species smart enough to realize this, humanity has a special role in the ecosystem that is unprecedented in its history.

The idea is that humanity has undertaken all of its industrial progress without due consideration for the possibility that the by-products of our activities may be influencing a delicate ecological balance that is responsible for our ability to exist in the first place.

For simulators of the Gaia hypothesis – James Lovelock’s original Daisy World and other interesting ecology, population and mathematical modelling simulators visit gingerbooth.

But most importantly in the lead up to the election ensure that you are actively working to make sure that the continued economic development we all want will be achieved in ways that protect the environment from tipping over like a see-saw.