Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/science/lovelock_climate_20060706.shtml
Date: 06/07/2006
Event: Discussions around the publication of The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock
Credit: BBC Radio 4
People:
Roger Harrabin: First of all, let me thank you all for coming, this evening. This is a most distinguished panel, and there are, I think, very few people in the climate sphere who would attract a panel like this, other than Jim, who has been massively influential on the debate, is an iconic figure in climate science. He writes interestingly and provocatively, and his latest book has created a genuine storm, when it was published. My feeling was that it wasn't given proper scientific, academic scrutiny at the time, so I'm very grateful that you've all been able to come together, so we can give it the sort of scrutiny that I think it deserves. So we'll start, I hope, with Jim, kicking off with why he wrote the book, in the first place.
James Lovelock: Yes, the - I wrote the book following a visit to the Hadley Centre in January 2004. Sandy and I were both invited - they were most hospitable. We were taken round their wonderful new building and lab, and we talked to a whole group of climate scientists. The ones I can remember - I'm bad at remembering names - were, of course, Peter Cox, Richard Betts and Jonathan Gregory, but I'm sure there were others and I hope they won't be too offended by my not remembering them all.
Each of them showed us what they were doing, in climate science, and in one group we saw the melting of - accelerating melting of floating ice in the Arctic, and now they were talking about glaciers melting around the world. And Richard Betts, of course, and Peter Cox were concerned with the melting of the tropical forests, so to speak, when things got hot, and I tried to input my own concerns about the ocean biota and the consequences of global warming.
And all of us really were telling a very gloomy story. Almost every system one looked at seemed to be in positive feedback and unhealthy. But what struck me most forcibly was that the people talking about the melting ice, although they were aware of the tropical forests going, they didn't seem to factor it into their thinking about the whole picture. And the same was true, generally. And indeed ourselves - Sandy and I - we knew most of the facts that - the general picture that they were talking about - but we never took it all that seriously. I think it almost seemed as if the discussion was about another planet, not the Earth. And it was academic and long-term.
Um, and on the way back to our home in Devon, which isn't far from the Hadley Centre, we both felt that this was far worse than we'd ever imagined. And the visit left us feeling quite gloomy. And we decided we had to do something about it, and as is always the case nowadays, the next thing we wanted to do was hold yet another meeting - process is always so much more important than product. And we organised one at Dartington in June that year, and we brought together the Hadley Centre scientists, also I think it was Stefan Rahmstorf from Germany, and philosophers, economists, civil servants and others, to discuss the whole picture.
And the general feeling of the meeting was that it was indeed an exceedingly bad thing, and I was approached by the Hadley Centre to let them use the speech I gave opening the conference on the atmospheric science letters, as a kind of statement of what it had all been about, what I thought. And it was published, and that, in a sense, was the book proposal. In fact, it was the proposal that was sent to Penguin, and they accepted it as suitable for a book. And it says, more or less, in condensed form, what is in the book.
* * *
Brian Hoskins: So I'm Brian Hoskins, got in to be chair because John Houghton couldn't find a date. Um, mathematician by training, been a professor of meteorology and I tend to get into how the atmosphere works, rather than predicting climate change, but I've been quite involved in climate business, one way or another.
Ron Oxburgh: Ron Oxburgh, geologist, geophysicist by background. Yes, my main climate change exposure comes from having the office next door to John Houghton for about 15 years, in Oxford when we were both a lot younger. Um, but I've recently - I've been much more involved in the energy side, I'm looking at how one can possibly meet the Earth's energy needs without producing too much CO2.
Andrew Watson: I'm Andrew Watson, I'm a biogeochemist, I would say, which is a horrible word - means, basically, just about everything. Um, I was Jim Lovelock's student so basically anything he's interested in, I'm also interested in. In recent years, I've been more a marine scientist and, um, yeah, that's me.
Chris Rapley: I'm Chris Rapley. I trained as a physicist - actually, John Houghton was my tutor at one point, which had the advantage that he was never there, so I never had to do very much, actually, so it was really good... Um, but I spent a lot of my career doing remote sensing of the Earth from space. I then spent some years running the International Geosphere Biosphere programme, which is - was, at the time, one of the two big global change research programmes. And more recently I've run the British Antarctic Survey. I like to think of myself as an Earth system scientist - I've always had a great sympathy for the Gaian view, although I guess I'm a "soft Gaian", not a "hard Gaian" [laughter], discuss that later. Um, and I've always been interested in the systems approach, that's fascinated me, and so this whole topic of climate change is part of that view of how does the Earth work, and what is its future.
Susan Owens: I'm Susan Owens, and I think I'm best described as an environmental social scientist. I'm interested in how particular kinds of science, or other forms of knowledge, come to influence policy - or not, as the case may be. I'm interested in many of the social and political issues that are raised by questions like that of climate change. And I suppose I've been teaching generations of undergraduates in Cambridge about some of these issues, for quite a long time now. So it's very interesting to see how fashions come and go, in that respect, also.
Hans von Storch: So my name is Hans von Storch, I guess I'm the only non-native speaker here, and I'm German. I was trained as a mathematician and physicist, and was, for almost ten years, with the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. And I'm now one of the directors of the Institute for Coastal Research in northern Germany. My speciality, my expertise is in statistical analysis, in modelling the physical part of the climate system. And I'm also very much interested in the problem of how the climate problem is perceived and framed in the public, and which role science is playing, in this concert.
Vicky Pope: I'm Vicky Pope, I was a mathematician by training and I've been in the Met Office for my whole career, and was a founding member of the Hadley Centre. I worked on stratospheric - on the stratosphere during the ozone hole period, so that was a very interesting "policy meets science" topic as well. And more recently - and in fact, Brian was my examiner for my PhD. [Laughs.] I don't know if he remembers, but...
Brian Hoskins: Incestuous world...
Vicky Pope: It's a very incestuous world. [Laughing.]
Brian Hoskins: [Inaudible.]
James Lovelock: Can I just say one thing, is that - well, I would say I was distinguished by having survived 86 years - nearly 87 - and this accounts for why I speak like an Old Testament prophet. People forget that that long ago, in my childhood, we were just marinated in Christianity. Couldn't escape it, it was everywhere. The metaphors, the words and everything - and I love it, I think that - agree with Brigid Brophy that the Book of Common Prayer is probably the best bit of English ever written. And, interestingly, it's got the lowest entropy of almost anything written, which fits in with this thing.
The other thing I would say is, I - the first 23 years of my scientific career were in medical research, which brings up the point that Andy Watson raised, that I'm a bit like an old-fashioned GP, one of the kind that makes house calls. And this came from my 23 years in medical research, which was, much of it was in physiology, which of course is the first system science, in many respects, and is what led me to all of this.
* * *
Roger Harrabin: Let's get people's initial impressions, then, from reading the book. Vicky Pope, would you like to kick off with your initial impressions from reading the book, in just a minute or two - if you could keep it very brief, that would be good.
Vicky Pope: Well, I think it's a very thought-provoking book - it's certainly made me think about the whole subject, rather than just the parts of the subject, and I think that's the point, is that Gaia is very central to what we're doing, as climate scientists, trying to look at the whole system. I think, in terms of the details, we felt - felt, with my colleagues, that it - it perhaps takes the upper end of where we would expect things to happen, but it's by no means outside the realms of possibility. But we felt that it's perhaps not the most likely outcome of the changes that we're seeing at the moment.
Roger Harrabin: Hans von Storch?
Hans von Storch: This book is on a world - or maybe, better, civilisation-saving programme. It is well meant, and it is consistent with what we call zeitgeist. In that sense, it is what some people call a practical theory, namely it is consistent with popular belief, that it will be accepted by wider audiences and it is able to institute action. But climate science is a post-normal science, with high uncertainties and high stakes, and I think this book is a good example for this post-normal setup.
I think the description of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in the book, may turn out to be an almost ironic analogue of the case Jim is promoting here - could very well be that in 30 years' time, we would say exactly the same about him, what he is saying about Rachel Carson. In a sense, this book is similar in character, but opposite in view, to Pat Michaels' Satanic Gases, which was written in 2000 in support of the younger Bush's first presidential campaign in the United States.
Roger Harrabin: Thank you very much. Susan Owens?
Susan Owens: Well, I enjoyed reading the book, I found that I was agreeing and disagreeing with Jim's arguments, in about equal measure and with about equal passion. For me, it raised three large issues. One is that I don't think the global community has ever dealt with an issue on the scale of climate change, at least if Jim's arguments and those of many others are correct. And I didn't find many arguments in the book about the capacity for global governance to deal with problems on this sort of scale. We are making some inroads but the progress that's being made seems minute in relation to the problem.
The other issue that it raised for me was about the concept of technical potential to address some of the problems, as opposed to the social and political potential to address those issues. And I think there the question that's already been raised, about what it is that actually stimulates political action, is a very interesting one. Some of the - the scale of those problems is illustrated by Jim's promotion of nuclear energy, for a country like the UK, and some of the very major social, political and institutional issues that we'd face, if we were to try to pursue the option that Jim sets out.
Thirdly, the specific issue of climate change seems emblematic of a much bigger set of issues, which were raised first of all, probably, in the 1960s and have been maturing ever since, and these are issues to do with the impact that human beings have on the planet and the planet's capacity to withstand those impacts. So I do think it takes us into the territory of population and consumption - both issues are very difficult, politically.
Roger Harrabin: Susan, thank you. Chris Rapley?
Chris Rapley: Yes, I enjoyed the book very much. It's a natural successor to Jim's previous books, which have done a great deal to help the science community step back from being entirely reductionist and specialist and looking at little pieces, and professionally be able to take up a more systematic and systems approach to understanding how the - how the Earth functions. And look ahead to see what problems and dangers may, may lie ahead for all of us. And, in that sense, it filled a gap, it - society recognises that climate change is a problem.
I think I agree very much with Jim that probably all of us still tend to think of it rather academically and find it hard to visualise how bad it might be. And of course many of the climate sceptics try and persuade us that it might be better, but actually their same arguments can be turned around and it might be worse, and if it were, then we need to address that. And so the book raises many scientific issues and airs those, and I think that's important because I find, in dealing with, even with business people who accept that climate change is real, that there's still a lot of confusion and uncertainty as to what the facts are, so it addresses a lot of that.
But it does raise these bigger issues of the institutional blockages that we confront, about how collectively we deal with something which is unprecedented, that is how the aggregate behaviour of six and a half billion people need somehow to be changed - how do you do that? And where is the leadership to do that? So Jim's book, if you like, places a challenge that society can confront, and I think this sort of debate is exactly what we should be having, and it's great that the book has done that.
Roger Harrabin: Thank you. Andrew Watson, your initial views on reading the book?
Andrew Watson: Well, I thought it was quite a scary book. Of course, it's a - it's extremely well written, as with all of Jim Lovelock's books. He's very well informed and he makes a cogent case that we are facing a crisis and we need to do something about it. I think that what Jim is doing here is acting, if you like, as the general practitioner, as a GP for the planet, and he is saying "Look, look, your health does not look good. You need to stop doing things that are, um... that are leading to your poor health" - you know, it's as if you went to your GP and you smoke too much, you're overweight, you've got to try and take this in hand.
And I think that Jim feels that the - that the rather measured discourse that most scientists use for this, for the issue of climate change, is not quite enough to get home to politicians and to policy makers how serious, potentially, this situation could be. So if he takes a view which is, in some cases, a little extreme, a little over the top, it's more or less the same as you might get from your GP saying, you know, "You're going to have a heart attack if you don't stop doing what you're doing."
Roger Harrabin: Thank you. Ron Oxburgh?
Ron Oxburgh: Well, I found it a very stimulating book, but rather gloomy. And I'm sure that was how it was intended. I guess I take the view that no-one can say Jim's interpretation of the future is wrong, but there is a question of whether it is the most probable. All - all the best scientists I know do an awful lot by intuition, and Jim emphasises that this is an exceedingly complicated system with all sorts of feedbacks which are imperfectly understood. And he says that will take you so far, but my intuition leads me to this position. And almost all good scientists work that way. The problem is that the only way you can tell whether people who work by intuition are right, is by waiting to see the outcome. And that's - we don't really have time for that.
The book, in general, at times - and the fault may well be with me - but I was not sure whether he was talking about the globe or about the UK, and it seemed to flip a little bit backwards and forwards, and perhaps a more careful reading would have clarified that. But of course, if we are to tackle climate change, the answer is in the growing economies of India and China, and if it isn't tackled there, anything we do in the UK is really irrelevant. And I think the really interesting question is: if Jim is right, ought we to be doing things very differently from the way that world leaders are, at any rate, trying to do them, today?
Roger Harrabin: Okay, thank you. Brian Hoskins?
Brian Hoskins: As always with a book from Jim, I'm eager to read it and this was no different from the usual. And I totally agree with his analysis, that we're - we're engaged on an experiment which - of doing something really very serious to the climate system, and the implications for our species are really, again, quite dangerous. I thought he did go a little bit over the top from what I would - what I would write down with confidence. And I think one needs to say far less, in order to actually say this is still an incredibly serious problem. And I think the analysis, in terms of population - energy, I would have some nuances that would be different from that - I did get this feeling, again, of slight "Fortress UK" and I wasn't sure about the global implications. But I think, most of all, I felt it was slightly bleak and pessimistic, and - whereas I would like to view the book, I hope we can turn it into a clarion call for positive action, rather than the slightly pessimistic, gloomy view that came over, that I had at the end of it. So perhaps we can end on a positive note.
Roger Harrabin: All right, thank you very much. And one of Jim's main theses is that we look likely to be heading towards abrupt climate change. Brian, can I hand over to you now, to chair the discussion on that. But first of all, Jim, could you explain why you think we're likely to be heading into an abrupt shift?
James Lovelock: Well, we're already in it. If - any change in climate that occurs as rapidly as is occurring just now would by any standards of geological records be considered abrupt. Question is: does it continue at its present pace, or does it stop somewhere and level off? As I think it will.
Brian Hoskins: This is is clearly where we have some problem with the word "abrupt" climate change, because a lot of people interpret that, in terms of the response, is somewhat on a shorter time scale than the forcing. And here we're forcing it on a short time scale, is what you're saying, on a geologic -
James Lovelock: That's right.
Brian Hoskins: Whereas I think the words like "tipping points" etc., came into the discussion, and normally that sort of view, that there's a non-linear system which is perhaps going through a plateau and then suddenly changes to a new regime - but you didn't really mean that here, did you?
James Lovelock: No, and I don't like the term "tipping point", and I've really ever used it in part of the book I mentioned - the "threshold" is much more useful. And when you pass the threshold, you often don't know you've passed it, and I use the analogy of an astronaut falling into a black hole - he goes over the event horizon, he's not aware of it.
Brian Hoskins: But you believe we've passed a threshold...
James Lovelock: I don't know. That's for you all to tell us.
Brian Hoskins: Vicky, do you want to come in on the likelihood of a threshold that we - what do we know about that?
Vicky Pope: Well, I think - we have various different models that can tell us about what might happen in the future, and we have to use climate models for doing this, obviously - we can't tell what's going to happen in the future, otherwise. And one of the, um, problems with the sort of thresholds and abrupt changes that people tend to find in models is often they find them in the simplified models where you're only representing some of the processes that are going on in the atmosphere. And these models tend to have much simpler feedbacks in them, so they tend to switch much more easily from one state to another.
A good example is the collapse of the thermohaline circulation, the Gulf Stream. Some of the simpler models suggest that this could actually happen quite readily, during the next century, but when we've done similar experiments with more complex models, when we've tried to represent as many of the processes as we can in the models, we find that although the Gulf Stream weakens, after about 50 years it actually starts to recover - it doesn't actually collapse. The feedback process actually starts to counteract, and it starts to recover again.
And I think that this may be the case with some of these other abrupt changes, that once you've got all the possible feedbacks into the models, that you actually - you know, all the negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks will start to cancel out and you don't necessarily get this sort of abrupt change.
James Lovelock: Can I comment on that one?
Brian Hoskins: Please.
James Lovelock: Yes, no, again it's - again, I'll come back to physiology. If you look at an animal system, you won't get one much more complicated than that. I would imagine that it's at least as complicated as the Earth. You're quite right, there's numerous systems in operation with negative and positive feedbacks and so on, but abrupt changes can take place. In particular, changes from life to death.
Vicky Pope: Yes. Can I just comment on - in terms of the, the um, complex models. I mean, one of the things that we're trying to do now is to get more of an idea of the uncertainty, because if you're talking about something that's very unlikely but if it does happen it's very, very serious, clearly it's very difficult with a model to actually say how likely that is to happen. So what we're trying to do now is to explore the uncertainty by using - generating lots of models from our model, to get the whole range of uncertainty, and actually try to model some of these very unlikely events, to try and get really home down on the signal, as to how likely those are, you know, and if there's only a 5% chance of it happening, you need to understand that very small possibility, because obviously that - if it's a very serious change - that's important.
Brian Hoskins: Hans, would you like to come in?
* * *
Edward Stourton: James Lovelock, sitting and listening to your peers discussing the session, earlier on, I got the feeling of a group of people who are very sympathetic, fundamentally, to what you're saying and what you're - or the message you're trying to get across, but perhaps, if one can put it in almost political terms, think that you're a little bit guilty of spin, of choosing the worst case scenario, when every one's available. Do you think that's fair?
James Lovelock: I'm not sure whether that's a compliment or a criticism. [They laugh.]
Edward Stourton: Well, I think from scientists it's probably a criticism.
James Lovelock: Well, no, I think, as I explained to them, the book was a wake-up call, and it was addressed to an intelligent layperson in the public, not to scientists. And to an extent, I think, spin is a necessary element in, in that.
Edward Stourton: Even to the extent of saying what you said at the time the book came out - before this century's 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 - which is both very dramatic and very definite.
James Lovelock: I agree. I don't doubt that the probability that billions may die before the end of this century is quite high. And a natural consequence of this is that people will migrate to the Arctic Basin, where things will be a lot more tolerable. Let's hope enough of them are there to carry on.
Edward Stourton: Brian Hoskins, I got a sense, listening to your deliberations, that, while you could see the force of using these extreme and dramatic terms and talking in that kind of very forceful language, you had some concerns that it might be counter-productive, that actually it could put people off.
Brian Hoskins: Well, there's two things. One is taking the extreme side of the distribution, I think, can lead people to say "Well, if you want to attack this, this is easier to attack, as being an outlier". So if someone is a sceptic on climate change, they can say "But this is suggesting temperature rises which are out of the bounds of what most of the models give, or sea level rises which are out of the bounds", and... So, there is a difficulty of laying oneself open, I think, in a situation where I believe if you take just the middle of the road, it is actually so severe, what we're talking about, that you don't have to go to the end, end of the distribution to make it sound apocalyptic, which is what the book does sound.
Edward Stourton: Do you think there's some justice to that, James Lovelock? Does what you've heard today made you question whether the tactic, if you like, was the right one?
James Lovelock: Er, yes I don't agree with it, wholly, because the middle situation, a rise of 3 or 4 degrees Celsius, could well lead to the same dire consequences, the dimension of billions, possibly, dying, and civilisation having to move. It doesn't require the extreme for really serious things to happen. And I certainly haven't anywhere in the book talked about sea levels rising to the point that they represent a major threat to anything. I'm well aware that that's the long-term consequence, that won't be on us for perhaps as long as hundreds or even a thousand years.
Brian Hoskins: Could I input something else? I mean, I think the language I hope would be "This is what might happen if we don't do something", whereas the book tended to say "We - this will happen". I hope what really is the message is that this could happen, if we don't take action, now and in the next few decades.
Edward Stourton: Well, I was coming to come on to that, James Lovelock, 'cause there is this in the book, where we have crossed the threshold - and you meant that, did you?
James Lovelock: I meant it, indeed. I think there is a grave danger that the system has reached a point where it will not go back, whatever we do. And to look at it at its least value, nearly all climate scientists are agreed that if we could stop all fossil fuel burning, magically, today, it will still take a thousand or more years before things got back to normal. We, in a sense, have already changed the Earth far beyond its normal state, and it won't recover for quite a long time.
Edward Stourton: But the trouble with that message , as you transmitted in the book, is that it could be interpreted as a counsel of despair. People could just say "Let's eat, drink and be merry, because we're all doomed anyway".
James Lovelock: Exactly, and - but that is far from my intentions. It's - again, I keep repeating this - a wake-up call, to make people realise how bad things are. I'm not trying to imply there's nothing we can do. I don't know whether cutting back fuel emissions - fuel burning and emissions - will do as much as is often claimed. It may be that we've reached a point - and in systems you do reach a point - where it will just proceed, of its own accord, to a final hot state, regardless of what we do. I don't know - this is a real danger that's there, and we must take it into account, we'd be irresponsible if we didn't.
Edward Stourton: I got the sense, Brian Hoskins, that the other area where you had some doubts about the book was in the - over the scepticism about some of the options for trying to change things, particularly things like wind power - you thought they deserved perhaps a bit more credit than James Lovelock gave them.
Brian Hoskins: Well, I think it depends how you read the book. At the end of the chapter on energy, there is what I thought was a very balanced section saying that we need to consider everything. And nuclear is not a panacea - we need to think of a balanced set of options and move to that. And I would put energy conservation much higher on the list than perhaps was in the book. So there was that section of the book, but I felt before that there was too much of a tendency, for my liking, to dismiss some of the things that I think must be part of that mix or must be looked at, and the technology developed as rapidly as possible, to see what the mix is likely to be, in the future.
Edward Stourton: Do you accept that criticism?
James Lovelock: Well, I accept it now, but remember, when the book was written, it was two years ago, and at that time there was no sign whatever that nuclear power could be used in this country - public opinion and the government were almost entirely again' it. And, if you like, the book is a bit of a polemic in favour of nuclear power, particularly for the United Kingdom, because I think it would be very foolish for us not to use this valuable and safe source of energy.
Edward Stourton: But also slightly a polemic against things like wind power.
James Lovelock: Ah, now there I must admit... [Laughs.] I think culpable. Ah, I -
[James Lovelock and Edward Stourton are talking simultaneously.]
Edward Stourton: David Cameron's got his [inaudible] putting one on his roof.
James Lovelock: I just do not - do not want them in my back garden! Quite literally.
Edward Stourton: So you plead guilty to prejudice as much as anything?
James Lovelock: Oh, indeed I do. Great prejudice.
Edward Stourton: And you think, Brian Hoskins, there's rather more to wind power, perhaps, than...
Brian Hoskins: I believe that wind power must be part of that mix. The modern turbines are getting more and more efficient, and clearly we don't want to put them on the most beautiful hill, as our first option. Who knows what we'll have to do, later on, but we must plan properly. And wind power, I believe, as developing as a technology develops, will become cheaper and it must be part of that mix. The trouble with this game is there is no one solution, and electricity is part of the problem - there's transport as well, and everything. And then when you come to electricity, it's got to be a diversity, and the question "What will be that mix?" we can't really say at this moment, but I'm sure wind power will be part of it.
James Lovelock: I would agree.
Edward Stourton: Ah, well that's a - that's progress, at the end of the discussion. Um, the other point that does strike one is that this book is getting a lot of attention at a time when we are all getting a constant message that says "You can all make a difference" - with small things, whether it's bicycling to work or not using quite as much water as you might like to, or putting a wind turbine on your roof, or whatever it is. And the implication of the book seems to be: actually, it's not in our hands, as individuals, it's in the hands of government - in the hands of decisions over things like nuclear power.
James Lovelock: Yes, that is - you're right, in a way, that is an unfortunate impression but it's not what I have in mind. Um, I think that those kind of gestures like solar panels on the roof and small windmills on the roof are nice ideas but they're mainly for the fairly wealthy middle class. I can't see them being of any use at all, for example in India, amongst the peasant community.
At some point, they'll become cheap enough and efficient enough to do that, but at the moment I can't see it as any more than a gesture that won't really do very much. I'm not against it, because gestures are good - it makes people feel that they are - they are doing something, they're contributing to the welfare of the whole world. So, why not? I wouldn't be really against it, on that ground. But I do think that strong action by governments is needed - it's too much to ask people, off their own bat, to do things.
I remember vividly, in the time of the Suez crisis, petrol rationing was introduced in this country. People moaned like mad at first, but they soon got used to running on very much less than they'd had before. And I'm sure that kind of thing can be done. But it requires a great deal of strength and leadership from government before it can be done.
Edward Stourton: Do you think that's true, Brian Hoskins - we're all being a bit sentimental and self-indulgent by thinking that tiny steps can make a real difference?
Brian Hoskins: Well, I believe that, perhaps - I think Jim does believe in the individual action, but I would put it high on the agenda, that people shouldn't say "This is a problem for someone else to sort out, it's nothing to do with me". So I cycle to work every day and I think that I'm doing the right thing by doing that. But equally, then the individual action should be putting pressure on politicians to actually make sure they do what is, in the end, the essential actions.
Edward Stourton: But if you want to create the political climate in which that kind of thing can happen, you've got to persuade people that they need to make sacrifices over things like transport, over flying, over the way they live their lives, haven't you?
James Lovelock: You do indeed, yes. And this is incredibly difficult. I don't see any simple answers to that one.
Edward Stourton: Do you think your book helps to do that?
James Lovelock: Probably not.
Edward Stourton: That will surely be the opposite of your intention, then.
James Lovelock: Oh, yeah but you're dealing with the detail here. I mean, getting people to stop flying to Spain or somewhere for their holidays every year sets an objective far beyond anything that I had in mind, even though it might be very desirable to do that.
Edward Stourton: What do you think, Brian Hoskins, is the impact of this book on the political climate?
Brian Hoskins: I hope it will add a considerable amount to the pressure that there already is, for action. I mean, I'm much more a believer than Jim was, in this book, in the Kyoto process, etc. I mean, I believe, even though it's a minute action when viewed as the whole system, it was at least an attempt to start something. And I believe we've got to build very strongly on that. So I would hope the pressure really rises, that - okay, Kyoto was a start, it shows we can do something together, but let's now do something that really makes a difference.So I would build on this international action, and that's what's got to happen.
Edward Stourton: Whereas you pretty much dismiss Kyoto, don't you - you say it's like Munich, the Munich meeting before the Second World War.
James Lovelock: I hate to be pessimistic here, but when this kind of thing is discussed, I immediately think of the billions of people in China and India, and I know that the Chinese Prime Minister has said "If we put back the aspirations of our people, even by one jot, there'd be a revolution tomorrow, and even our strong government will be thrown out." So if that's the view of the Chinese - and they're doing more, in the way of renewables, probably, than almost anybody in the world, with their great Yangtze Dam - um, if that's their kind of view, how can we expect the democracies to do better? That's what makes me pessimistic.
Edward Stourton: You plan to bring the book out in the United States?
James Lovelock: Yes - it is already due for publication this month - is it? No, next month.
Edward Stourton: Some scepticism I noticed among your colleagues, about the impact it might have, there - precisely because you state your case in such strong terms that those who disagree, really, with the whole science of climate change might use that as a way of painting you as, sort of, off the scale of serious science.
James Lovelock: Um, I'm afraid so. This kind of thing does happen in America, and it's a kind of almost unpredictable function - it depends who you get interviewed by first, kind of thing. And I wish you were over there doing the interview, Ed [laughing].
Edward Stourton: That's very kind. But, Brian Hoskins, given the importance of influencing opinion in the United States, which I think everyone agrees is absolutely essential, what impact do you think that the publication of this book will have, here?
Brian Hoskins: Well I hope it will be positive. I have a worry that Jim might be marginalised and seen as one of the extremes, and that the very strong coalition that wants to say "business as usual" will be able to just dismiss it and put it there. But there is a - there is a very strong movement in the US to do things on the ground, many cities are really starting to clean up their act, in the US, and saying "Let's act, even if the Federal government isn't". And I do hope that this will help contribute to that. But I do have some worries.
Edward Stourton: Finally, you had a very interesting discussion about the use of metaphor in science, as a mechanism for transmitting messages. Do you think that the Gaia metaphor, if that is the right word for that, is a useful one?
Brian Hoskins: I think the metaphor is useful, viewing the whole planet as this being, and whether this being is well or not, and what is going on in this - I think that's useful. I do have difficulties when, to me, it becomes a bit religious, then, and "Gaia has a goal", is again slightly difficult for me, but I know Jim likes that part of it. But certainly it is a very good way of getting over to people that we're doing something, we're sticking a pin in ourselves, here, and this is going to have more than just a sort of local reaction.
Edward Stourton: Is it - is it simply a metaphor? Perhaps I shouldn't say "simply" a metaphor - is it a metaphor or is it a scientific term, for you?
James Lovelock: It's a bit of both, really. When I say "Gaia has a goal", I'm talking, as here, strictly as a system scientist. You can't have a self-regulating system that doesn't have a goal, and since scientists have largely agreed that the Earth self-regulates, they'd better get it clear in their minds what is the goal of self-regulation. I think it's to sustain inhabitability, and it's done a damn good job, because it's been doing it for three and a half billion years, against all sorts of vicissitudes, far worse than the thing that we're up to, at the moment. So yes, it has a goal. So that's not metaphor. But Gaia itself - the idea of the living Earth, something alive - that's metaphor, and it's a very similar metaphor to that powerful metaphor of the "selfish gene". You could easily attack that and say "How could a gene possibly be selfish? Does it take thought and decide its actions?" - no, and so I - metaphor's important in science. You've got to use it, to get it over to the public.
Edward Stourton: It's been a rivetting discussion - thanks very much to both of you, and indeed to all of those who've taken part, this morning.