James Lovelock

In explaining the contours of his life a contradiction emerges. The impression that lovelock has given is that he was outside the mainstream of the scientific world. And yet his autobiography clearly shows that for many decades he was a member of the establishment and that he received a helping hand from many people within the establishment. In particular he never seems to have had a job interview - he always seems to have been invited to take up a post after someone in authority put in a private recommendation for him. The ‘lone’ scientist was not that much of an outsider.

It is perfectly reasonable for lovelock to try and set the record straight about his scientific achievements - especially when he wasn’t given official credit for a discovery. However, it has to be suspected that lynn margulis, often regarded by many gaians as the co-founder of gaia, might find her appearance in this book unduly fleeting. If the correspondence between these two great scientists is ever published it might provide an explanation as to why the co-founder of gaia receives so little attention in lovelock’s autobiography.

Finally, having succeeded in getting gaia recognized as a legitimate scientific theory, lovelock resents those who, having dismissed gaia for so many years, now diminish his achievement by regarding it as just common sense, “In the thirty-five years of gaia’s existence as a theory, the view of the Earth has changed profoundly. (Scientists) have adopted my radical view of the Earth without recognizing where it came from, and they have forgotten the scorn with which most of them first greeted the idea of a self-regulating Earth.”[1]

Lovelock’s autobiography has been written with very little drama to coax the reader through its many boring details. There’s a whole chapter on his illnesses. However, bizarrely, it's one of these illnesses that generates the most dramatic part of the book. To those of us who treasure lovelock’s scientific discoveries we discover the ghastly prospect that his scientific books might never have been written. Lovelock contracted angina in the early 1970s and he wrote his books with this severe, life threatening illness, hanging over him. It now seems somewhat churlish to complain that he hasn’t written a fourth scientific work when he was close to not writing any.

‘Homage to Gaia’ contains no new scientific ideas; no political plans for what oomans need to do to save the Earth’s life support system for oomans; and no philosophical reflections about how planetary beings might live sensibly on a living planet. The book confirms lovelock's scientific genius. The most contentious part of his autobiography is its subtitle, ‘The Life of an Independent Scientist’. Lovelock seems to have tried to give an honest account of his life in his autobiography but perversely it doesn’t create the impression that he was as independent as he thought he was. The great contradiction of lovelock’s life was that, on the one hand, he had a strong desire to be an independent scientist, which is symbolized by the fact that he lives in an area of semi wilderness whilst, on the other, he desired recognition and acceptance from the scientific establishment. From the evidence that lovelock provides, it could be argued he was more of an establishment scientist than an independent one. After all, what is the point of being independent if it doesn’t mean telling the truth and exposing the lies of the scientific and political establishments?

Lovelock is most well known as a scientific theorist on the Earth’s life sustaining processes - what is rather diminutively called a climatologist. It’s a surprise to find from his autobiography that he was also a first class science technician. He did not merely speculate about the evidence obtained through experiments conducted by other scientists - he invented and built a range of scientific equipment that he then used to discover evidence about the world that nobody else knew about or, in some cases, even suspected. When people talk about the environmental dangers posed by chemicals such as ddt, cfcs, and pcbs, etc, they are in effect talking about realities that were first detected by lovelock. His greatest invention was the electron capture device (ecd) - a piece of equipment which detects minuscule quantities of a wide range of chemicals. Lovelock once boasted about this device that if someone opened a jar of chemicals in australia he’d be able to detect it in england. Its capability for discovering imperceptible realities in the atmosphere is on a par with the discoveries made by the microscope or the telescope. The third aspect of his scientific accomplishments was computer modelling. He produced the first computer model of gaia. He regards this model, entitled daisyworld, as one of his greatest achievements, “Daisyworld is the first mathematical model of a world that evolves by darwinian natural selection, and on which the evolution of the environment, represented by temperature and the evolution of the organism, is a single coupled process.”[2]

Lovelock has been described as the father of the environmental movement. He’s initiated all the major green dramas since the start of environmental politics in the early 1960s. The reason for this was the electron capture device (ecd) which, according to lovelock .. “was without doubt the midwife to the infant environmental movement. Without it we would not have discovered that chlorinated pesticides like ddt and dieldrin had spread everywhere in the world.”[3] Great inventions lead to great discoveries which lead to great philosophical and political upheavals - this is as true for lovelock as it was for galileo. Even if lovelock had never thought of the idea of gaia he would still be 'the father of the green movement' because of these discoveries. Given the importance of his gaian theory, it seems incredible to regard it as an additional contribution to the environmental movement. Copernicus’s discovery of the telescope gave rise to galileo’s revolutionary new perspective of the Earth. Just as galileo’s reflections on the realities he discovered through the telescope brought about a cultural shift in the west (from a world dominated by a christian perspective in which the Earth was the centre of the universe, to a heliocentric perspective), so lovelock’s gaia theory is starting to bring about a similarly profound revolution from a technocentric to a biocentric perspective .. "our conception of the Earth and the world of living beings can be divided into two ages: before and after lovelock. Contrary to what one had thought before lovelock, it was not the special conditions found on the Earth which allowed life to develop and evolve: life itself has produced a series of changes favouring the survival of living beings. For a long time we thought that the explosion of life which she harbours was the consequence of the special conditions reigning on our planet: favourable temperatures, suitable proportions of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere; low, but sufficient concentration of carbon dioxide."[4] The ecd enabled lovelock to demonstrate that the Earth was not a static habitat to which all life has had to adapt as best it could. On the contrary, paradoxically, it was life which created the Earth’s habitability and life has continued to change this habitability.

Lovelock’s stature as a scientist becomes apparent from the historical parallel with copernicus and galileo. Lovelock not merely invented a piece of equipment that is as fundamental as the telescope or the microscope, he used it to discover realities which not merely generated political upheavals but helped to create a new scientific theory that transforms the conventional view of the Earth. Any one of these accomplishments would have been an outstanding scientific achievement but to achieve all three is extraordinary. Paradoxicially, however, it wasn’t the ecd which led to the idea of gaia - this came as a result of lovelock’s work with nasa. The ecd provided lovelock only with the evidence that confirmed his speculations.

Lovelock has won many awards for his scientific work. He has won considerable recognition from various sectors of the scientific community. He has been granted honorary degrees from many universities. He has received many awards such as those given by volvo and the japanese atomic industrial forum. Multi-national corporations have frequently asked him to speak as a distinguished lecturer. His advice has been sought on the political front - including a number of invitations to speak with margaret thatcher. The pinnacle of his career was his election to the royal society.

Lovelock was born in england in 1919. After he left school, he worked as a junior lab technician. He then moved to a job at the medical research council. Because of his ability to invent scientific equipment he acquired more and more responsibilities and eventually was appointed as a scientific researcher. He did a spell at the grasslands research institute and, in september 1951, went to the national institute for medical research at the mill hill institute, north london. In march 1961, he started working for the american space agency, nasa, and in the summer he and his family moved to houston. When he finished at nasa in the mid 1960s he moved back to england and worked, as director, at the medical research council’s radiation laboratory at harwell, oxfordshire.

Lovelock's invention of the electron capture device opened up many scientific doors .. “the ecd was a passport that let me across the frontiers of scientific disciplines which otherwise are guarded as jealously as national boundaries.”[5] Just as importantly, it also opened doors to the world’s industrial and governmental research institutes. He was constantly receiving requests from public/private research centres to help develop the ecd or to invent new equipment for a scientific project. In other words, lovelock rapidly rose through the ranks of the brutish scientific establishment. He was never an isolated outsider excluded from the centres of scientific power - he worked at the national headquarters of some of the government’s most prestigious scientific research centres.

In 1961, as a result of his invention of the ecd, lovelock was invited to work for nasa. He was asked to invent experiments, and the equipment for such experiments, that could be used to discover life on mars. However, using already available evidence about the composition of the martian atmosphere, lovelock predicted there was no life on mars. Within nasa he created an ad hoc team to design, on the assumption that there wasn’t any life on mars, an entire space mission to discover more about the planet. He became a high powered manager on the project - very close to being the director of a major scientific mission to mars. However, nasa eventually chose to fund a rival space project organized by conventional biologists. It seems lovelock's project was abandoned on political grounds. Lovelock did not seem to appreciate that sending a multi-million dollar mission to mars was not just a matter of cold, hard, scientific enquiry but had to be a showbiz venture which needed lots of razamataz to win the approval of the american public paying for the project. For nasa the project needed not only glamour, excitement, and adventure, but the enthralling, semi-militaristic, prospect of oomans capturing new life forms from another planet. Scientifically, lovelock's prediction about mars turned out to be an amazing accomplishment. Einstein's status as a great scientist was confirmed when he suggested an experiment which would prove whether light from a distant star bends because of the sun's gravity.[6] However, nasa wasn't going to spend billions of dollars trying to confirm lovelock’s no less dazzling prediction about mars' lifelessness. As far as nasa was concerned, this would have been politically disastrous. Newspaper headlines screaming, ‘Multi-billion dollar space exploration to prove there's no life on Mars’ weren’t going to generate any public excitement at all but they would have raised a lot of questions about the expense of such a scientific mission and the value of nasa itself.

So, nasa ignored lovelock’s prediction and continued with its showbiz/semi-militaristic quest of sending rockets to mars in order to hunt for, and hopefully capture, aliens on mars. Nasa's political propaganda still continues even today - three decades later. In 2000, ed weiler, a nasa scientist was still asking does life exist on mars? [7] It might be asked, 'Just how long is nasa going to be able to continue duping the american public with this nonsense?' The answer, it seems, is a very long time. Nasa continues to reject lovelock's speculations - even though they've found no evidence of life on mars.

It’s also worth noting that whilst lovelock is fond of arguing that space exploration was essential to his discovery of gaia, the fact was that his ideas were produced prior to his work for nasa. Gaia was not the result of discoveries acquired from his work with nasa or the experiments he'd designed for mars. Nasa was important only in so far as it made lovelock reflect on the question as to how it was possible to detect life on another planet. These reflections didn’t need nasa to bring them to fruition.

Having worked for a couple of decades in a succession of the government’s most prestigious research institutes, lovelock gradually desired to become an independent scientist. His work with nasa was his first in a semi-independent capacity. But it was not until the 1970s that he finally made the break - even though, in the end, the decision was forced upon him. Over the next thirty years he was supported by victor rothschild who had worked his way up through the shell hierarchy until he’d become the head of the company.[8] Lovelock states, "I owe a debt to shell, and to lord rothschild in particular, for having been the only agency i associated with that actively supported my scientific work on gaia." [9] Lovelock also became a consultant to yumi akimoto, president of mitsubishi materials corporation.[10] He also provided consultancy for hewlett packard, "I spent nearly all of my 32 years with hp."[11] He points out that, "Over the first fifteen years as an independent, contracts from the american agencies nasa, noaa, the chemical manufacturers association, and from the uk ministry of defence, provided the bulk of my gross income."[12]

One of lovelock’s proudest claims is that he was an independent scientist - there were times when he even proclaimed he was the only independent scientist in the country. This is so untrue as to be false. Lovelock was no more independent than any other british scientist. The only difference between him and other scientists was that he had a small private income - primarily from his patents. But this wasn't enough for him to become independent. If lovelock had earnt millions of pounds from his inventions then he would have had the financial resources to be fully independent but he was never in such a privileged position. He was just as reliant on the scientific and industrial establishments for an income as any scientist employed directly by the government or by the private sector. In addition, politically, he knew, like any other scientist, that if he complained or was too critical then the word would have been spread through the government/industry establishment and he would never have been given any further contracts. The establishment couldn’t sack lovelock but it still had the power to decide whether to offer him a contract or not just like any of its employees. If anything he was even less independent than government scientists who at least had the protection of a trade union behind them. It is true that he had to fight hard to get the scientific establishment to accept him as a freelance scientist but this was more to do with the fact that, in those days, freelancers were rare. Because of his scientific genius, the establishment gave him more room to manoeuvre than most other scientists but he was still on its leash. His independence was the room given to him by the establishment.

Lovelock was a respectable scientist who worked for all parts of the british scientific/industrial establishments both in the public and private sectors. He was a trusted, politically conventional, scientist who was highly welcome in the establishment world. Although he found it difficult to get funding for many of his research projects, just like many other scientists, the scientific establishment helped him whenever it could. For example, he was allowed to sail on a government research vessel to the arctic. He was given a place on a research ship to the antarctic. And he also managed to get permission to conduct experiments on an royal air force flight. If lovelock had been a hard hitting, radical scientist intent on exposing atmospheric pollution, and the health hazards of such pollution, he would have quickly alienated the scientific establishment and it would never have granted him access to such facilities.

Whether accidentally or not, lovelock cultivated an image of himself as an isolated outsider fighting an intransigent scientific establishment. It has to be suggested however that firstly, he spent most of his life within the scientific establishment and secondly, parts of the establishment gave him a great deal of help and recognition. There is always a choice between being a politically conventional scientist inside the establishment, whether employed directly or contractually, or a politically radical scientist outside the establishment. Despite his protestations, lovelock has always been in the former group rather than the latter. His election to the royal society was a confirmation of his establishment status.

Lovelock’s primary goal in his later life was attempting to win scientific credibility for gaia. ... "our objective of achieving scientific credibility for gaia."[13] At times this seemed more important to him than saving the Earth. In his biography he quotes an article by john schellnuber which had been published in ‘nature’. It called gaia .. "the new copernican revolution."[14] The fact that lovelock felt a need to publish this truism shows just how insecure he is about his achievements.

Lovelock often expressed anger at what he perceived to be the establishment’s rejection of gaia. But this was not the anger of a radical outsider challenging the establishment’s intransigence nor was it the anger of an outsider fighting to get into the establishment. It was more like the disappointment of an establishment insider wondering why his colleagues weren’t giving him the recognition he obviously deserved. The scientific establishment did not reject lovelock. Initially, some scientists rejected his ideas but most probably found his ideas too extraordinary to be adopted overnight. Lovelock was expecting them to take on board a new scientific theory which had momentous political and philosophical implications which were far from transparent. It had taken centuries for galileo’s theories to gain acceptability. Much of the establishment may have admired lovelock’s gaian theory but it had to carefully weigh up the political implications of this theory because of their obligations to their political masters.

A major part of the problem lovelock faced in winning recognition for gaia was that the scientific establishment was heavily committed to darwinian ideas which are heavily intertwined with many british political and cultural values. The profundity of lovelock’s work is certainly on a par with that of galileo and darwin. The question which then arises is whether gaia is in conflict with darwin’s ideas and seeks to overthrow them or whether gaia is an extension to darwinian ideas.

Lovelock’s solution to the relationship between gaia and darwinianism is not as clear cut as he believes. Firstly, lovelock himself has stated .. "if daisyworld is valid, then seventy five years of neo-darwinist science will need to be rewritten." [17] This could be one of the oldest tricks in the book - attacking followers as a proxy for an attack on the founder’s ideas. The second problem is much more intractable. It can be suggested that some parts of gaian theory are in conflict with darwin’s views - especially those formulated by margulis who regarded her work as a refutation of darwinianism. Lovelock thus faced a choice between paying homage to margulis or to darwin and, in the end, being the establishment insider that he is, he aligned himself with the latter. Margulis has over-turned many darwinian ideas and, given that her work is on a par with that of darwin, it is strange that lovelock almost ignores her to reiterate his patriotic support for an icon of the british establishment. In praising darwin in this way, lovelock is virtually snubbing the work of his great co-founder.

The reason that lovelock sided with darwin rather than margulis was partly because of his desire to get gaia accepted by the british scientific establishment but partly because he was an insider upholding his loyalty to the establishment. In britain, darwin is a revered as one of the country’s greatest scientists so if lovelock tried to push the establishment into choosing between darwin and himself they would almost certainly side with the former. In america, darwin’s reputation is nothing like as overbloated as it is in his home nation nor is it wrapped in the blood soaked shroud of the british flag, so it is much easier for margulis to challenge darwin’s ideas. Lovelock seems willing to overlook margulis’s fundamental contribution to gaian theory in order to ensure gaia’s acceptance by the british scientific establishment.

Lovelock’s decades’ of work in the scientific establishment’s most prestigious research institutes; his reliance as an independent scientist on government/industry for financial contracts; his vanity in desiring scientific awards from the scientific establishment/industry; and his desire to get gaia accept by the british scientific establishment, led him to acquire a politically conventional outlook. Although he was responsible for creating most of the major green controversies since the start of the environmental movement in the 1960s, he did little to figure in their political resolution. He also adopted a reactionary stance over a whole range of controversial issues. The political costs of his dependence on the establishment have been considerable.

As a child, lovelock loved chemistry. After he left school he worked as a technician and his workplace was full of many toxic chemicals and radioactive substances. He used many of them everyday. He worked frequently with radioactive materials since they were used as measuring devices in many types of scientific equipment. He learnt to understand the different properties of chemicals and radioactive isotopes as chefs endeavour to understand the different flavours of spices. He worked at harwell for many years. Lovelock reminisces about his early childhood at home and school where there were a wide range of pollutants from domestic coal burning, experiments in schools using mercury, mercury dental filings, etc and compares these with worries about today’s toxic chemicals. His proximity to these toxic chemicals and radiation never did him any harm so it is not surprising that he tends to dismiss people’s fears about these materials. Lovelock is quite right that the dangers they pose are far less than other more mundane dangers such as driving cars, crossing the road, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, carrying out diy repairs in the home, etc. But his attempts to try and persuade the public to adopt a more realistic view of these substances were always going to be difficult because he’d been employed in the chemical and nuclear power industries - no matter how much he might claim to be an independent scientist. In his defence, it ought to be pointed out that his views about chemicals and nuclear power were formed long before he accepted money from these industries.

And yet lovelock did take his support for the chemical industry too far. He knew a huge amount about many toxic chemicals but he didn’t know everything about all chemicals especially the huge numbers of new synthetic chemicals being marketed around the world. He was not a physiologist with a scientific understanding of the way that tens of thousands of new chemicals affected the human body. He’d never worked with synthetic pesticides. He knew nothing about them nor the myriad of ways in which they could react with other chemicals in the environment or with the multitude of chemicals in living beings. And yet he was forthright in his defence of the chemical industry.

He is right to argue there are vast quantities of poisonous chemicals in nature, "The most poisonous of all substances are the toxins of micro-organisms and plants: botulinus from bacteria, ricin from the vastor-oil plant and phaloidin from the toadstool, ammanita phaloides, well called the deathcap. Bruce ames has wisely commented that in our normal diets, whether organically grown or from intensive agriculture, natural and just as toxic carcinogens and co-carcinogens are thousands of times more abundant than the products of the chemical industry. Each one of us is as responsible for the damage done, as are the industries that supply our needs and wants."[18] But these toxins are spread around the world in small discrete quantities which can easily be avoided whereas those from the chemical industry are poured often in vast quantities into the environment and are much more difficult to avoid. It is exactly the prevalence and high concentration of poisons being dumped into the environment by the chemical industry that constitutes the problem.

There are exaggerated fears in the green movement about chemicals but this doesn’t mean that lovelock is right to overlook the health threat posed by the chemical industry’s toxic emissions, “One of the several reasons why i regard the green movement with mixed vexation and affection is their obsession with the products of the chemical and nuclear industries. To many greens, if a chemical like methyl iodide or Carbon disulphide comes from some dark satanic mill, it is by nature evil, but if it comes from organically grown or natural seaweed, it must be good and healthy. To me, as a scientist, it does not matter where it comes from; I am poisoned if i eat too much of it.”[19] Lovelock refused to recognize that synthetic chemicals sprayed onto the land, pouring from chimneys, or being dumped into rivers constituted a dangerously high concentration of chemicals which would damage the health of anyone or anything in the way.

In the early 1960s lovelock used his ecd in order to measure the presence of a range of pollutants in the atmosphere. The results of these experiments were picked up by rachel carson who, in 1961, published a book entitled ‘silent spring’ which is widely acknowledged as triggering the formation of the environmental movement. Her book was severely savaged by large numbers of corporate scientists, the public relations departments of multi-national chemical corporations and, quite probably, some of their dirty tricks departments. But lovelock gave her no help whatsoever. True, at the time the media would have no reason to perceive him as anything other than just another scientist so his opinions would not have counted for very much but, then again, it was his equipment that had been used to produce the results from which she had drawn her conclusions so this should have given him a platform in the media to defend her. And yet he did little to challenge the palpable lies, distortions, and misrepresentations, that were piled upon her by the chemical industry.

Lovelock’s reaction is even more surprising since he was in america when the chemical industry was verbally beating her up so he couldn’t argue he was too far away to defend her. At the time he was being funded by shell. He argued, “My experiences with shell left me firmly with the impression that they are neither stupid nor villains. I will not forget the extent to which rothschild, a biologist, was disturbed by the revelations of rachel carson in her book ‘silent spring’. Shell were manufacturers of halogenated pesticides like dieldrin and aldrin and ddt. They made them in response to the demand from farmers for better pest destruction. They were not out deliberately to poison the world; they were filling an industrial niche and receiving a reasonable profit for doing so. When the public think of chemicals as evil, poisonous products of a malign industry, they are reflecting the distorted thoughts of those who in their student days railed against capitalism. We all too easily forget how we hailed ddt as a lifesaver in the 1940s and early 1950s - according to the late kenneth mellanby it saved more lives than any other synthesized substance.”[20]

In addition, his accusation that the chemical industry was the slave of the pharming industry is unrealistic. Pharmers had been using these chemicals for a couple of decades before the scale of the environmental problems they were causing began to emerge. Pharmers wanted to continue using these chemicals because of the increase in crop yields despite the damage caused beyond their pharms. But pharmers couldn’t force the chemical industry to continue producing these chemicals any more than the chemical industry could force pharmers to use them.

In this dispute another issue deserves attention. Whilst lovelock supported the chemical industry he also found himself being confronted by the environmental movement’s own bigotry. The environmental movement has far more pharmers and pharming industry sympathizers in its ranks than it has people from the chemical industry so it has always had a strong bias towards the pharming industry. The animosity that has built up over time between lovelock and the environmental movement is not merely a question of who best understands and defends the health of oomans and the environment - it is a battle of prejudices between those in the chemical industry and greens supporting the pharming industry.

It ought to be pointed out about lovelock that, on the one hand, he defends the chemical industry’s production of pesticides whilst, on the other, condemns the way that parts of the brutish countryside have been turned into a gigantic prairie bereft of Wildlife. Prairie pharming is possible only because of the chemical industry. Since he’d condemned what had happened to the countryside in britain (and in america) he ought to have condemned those responsible i.e. both the chemical industry and pharmers. For lovelock to blame consumers and students rather than the chemical and pharming industries was puerile. But for the environmental movement to blame the chemical industry for the devastation caused by pesticides and other chemicals whilst protecting pharmers was no less unfair.

Today lovelock basks in the glory of rachel carson’s historical role in triggering off the creation of the green movement. He was the scientist who provided the evidence for her book and launched an entirely new political movement. He made a huge scientific contribution to the birth of the environmental movement but his political contribution was non-existent. It is instructive that in america the chemical industry went after rachel carson with a vengeance and tried to ruin her career but they never did the same with lovelock because he defended their views. Quite what rachel carson thought of his lovelock’s silence during her time of being publically reviled would be interesting to discover. Lovelock doesn’t mention any correspondence with her. Lovelock’s indifference to rachel carson was almost as bad as his later dismissive treatment of lynn margulis.

Lovelock is a great supporter of nuclear power. There is undoubtedly a huge amount of green hype surrounding this issue. Lovelock is right to argue that nuclear power is nothing like as dangerous to ooman health as greens make out. Hundreds of thousands of coal miners around the world have died as a result of the work they do and continue to do. The use of fossil fuels is causing smogs virtually all over the third world leading to widescale and severe ooman health problems. And yet people are more petrified about nuclear power. In terms of the damage to ooman health and fatalities this is just stupidity. Even if a nuclear power station blew up year after year, the death toll would still be far less than those killed by the mining and fossil fuel industries.[21] This is another solid example of what could be called spectacularism the focus on a major disaster because, being visible to the media, it can be converted into a spectacular news item whilst routine deaths which take place on a much greater scale are ignored because there is no newsworthy incident to grab media attention. What counts for the media is spectacular events not quiet, unseen, ooman fatalities.

In the case of coal and nuclear power, the fear of a major nuclear explosion killing large numbers of people is far in excess of the fear of coal mining which kills far more people many of whom die quietly from coal mining related diseases. If coal mines blew up whilst nuclear power stations could suffer only melt downs then the popular evaluation of these industries might be reversed. People have an understandable fear of radiation, not so much for their own health but for the birth of their children who might suffer genetic deformities, but the health risks of nuclear power are nowhere near as bad as those arising from coal mining or the use of fossil fuels. So what if a group of terrorists broke into a nuclear power station and stole all the used fuel rods containing plutonium? The amount of damage they could cause creating a nuclear bomb (or using a conventional explosion to spray nuclear material over a wide area) would be small in comparison to the deaths caused by mining and burning fossil fuels. The so-called greens who condemn nuclear power on health and security grounds just make themselves look like cheap propagandists. Environmentalists’ exaggerated and misplaced fears over nuclear power are paralleled by other grotesquely distorted prejudices e.g. environmentalists who complain bitterly about the health effects of cigarette smoking whilst driving around in cars. People who throughout the 1990s insisted that brutish bseef was safe to eat would probably be the biggest objectors to plans for building a local nuclear power station.[22] If greens throw away their adherence to the truth they are never going to win public support.[23]

Lovelock’s attempts to allay the fears of anti-nuclear protestors is unlikely to be persuasive. He argues there has been no upsurge in cancer as a result of a nuclear accident at windscale in 1957 which successive governments kept quiet but which he detected (and kept quiet about) in his workplace 250 miles away, “This incident exposed the people of england to what some would now consider a dangerous level of radioactive contamination. I wonder why we have heard nothing of an epidemic of thyroid and other cancers in the years that followed.”[24] The continued rise in cancers means it would be difficult for anyone to believe that the nuclear power industry had not been responsible for some of these fatalities. If the number of cancers in the country had fallen then it might be credible to believe that nuclear radiation was nothing like as dangerous as the public feared but when nobody knows why cancer rates are high this is bound to raise suspicions about the nuclear power industry.

This is not to imply support for nuclear power. Firstly, all forms of energy need to be assessed in terms of their impact on the Earth's global Carbon spiral. Lovelock seems to believe that fossil fuels are the main cause of global burning and because nuclear power will not release Carbon emissions into the atmosphere then it is the best solution to this environmental problem. But nuclear power will have an impact on the Earth's Carbon spiral e.g. through the construction of nuclear power plants. Secondly, nuclear power will do nothing to combat the other major contributors to the destabilization of the climate such as the exponential rise in the numbers of cars, kids, Cattle, commodities, and carnage. On the contrary, the introduction of nuclear power may just reinforce these other factors. Thirdly, the nuclear solution to global burning will work only if all countries around the world are allowed to build nuclear power stations. After the september 11th 2001 pentagon and new york bombings, america is no longer willing to countenance such an idea. Fourthly, the vast amounts of money which might be spent on developing nuclear power could be better spent on conservation and increasing the scale of Forests needed to stabilize the climate.

Lovelock has said very little about the role of green energy in creating a sustainable planet. This is because of three main factors. Firstly, his support for nuclear power and, secondly, his very negative personal experience of trying to set up a green energy system when he moved into the countryside - for which see below. Thirdly, he placed his faith in companies like shell to introduce green energy and energy efficiencies. He met victor rothschild, the head of shell, for regular meetings but he never mentioned what he said to encourage rothschilds to do more about green energy. Decade after decade he went on believing that shell would go green even though they were doing next to nothing and were even being left behind by other multinational corporations such as bp. "A fair part of my work for shell was on ways to produce energy that were less environmentally damaging. We all, early on, agreed that burning methane instead of coal or crude oil was a good temporary measure.”[25] As far as is known, lovelock never leant his weight to environmental organizations running green energy campaigns.

If there was a hint of contempt in lovelock’s treatment of rachel carson when he allowed her to be trampled on by large numbers of vicious, corporate public relations hacks, his role in the cfc disputes of the 1970s wasn’t much better. There is much to admire about lovelock’s work on this issue but he throws it away and ends up looking like a lackey of the chemical industry. The controversy followed a similar pattern to that of the pesticides’ controversy. First lovelock stumbles on a new form of pollution. His scientific evidence is then taken up by environmentalists and, in the ensuing controversy, lovelock quietly offers support to the chemical industry.

In the 1960s, lovelock noticed a strange haze in many parts of britain and resolved to find its cause. It seemed a fairly innocuous issue - it would have been difficult to imagine it would turn out to become one of the great pollution scandals of the following half century. Perhaps he would have felt different about following his curiosity if he’d suspected it would lead to a global controversy. What makes lovelock’s achievement so remarkable was that this haze, which during his experiments he found in many parts of the world, wasn’t even recognized as a form of pollution by any environmental organization around the world. It was a completely unknown environmental issue. Nobody else seemed to have noticed the problem or, if they did, they hadn’t tried to find its cause. It is amazing to speculate that if it hadn’t been for lovelock’s completely idle curiosity then the discovery of cfcs’ impact on the stratospheric ozone layer might have been delayed for decades.

Lovelock had a hunch that cfcs might be the cause of the haze and so in 1971 he went on a voyage across the atlantic to detect their presence in the atmosphere and assess their connection with this new environmental phenomenon. He produced a paper for ‘nature’ highlighting his discovery. Once again it was his ecd which enabled him to discover the truth about this form of pollution. What lovelock discovered was that these allegedly harmless chemicals were present in the atmosphere in many parts of the world. The discovery led scientists to try and explore cfcs’ impact on the stratospheric ozone layer. This led eventually to the discovery of the depletion of stratospheric ozone layer. It was also discovered that cfcs were boosting global burning - it was as if the Earth was being wrapped in a plastic bag made of cfcs so it is hardly surprising that these chemicals were boosting global temperatures.

Lovelock’s article in ‘nature’ might have earnt him enormous respect from the public and the environmental movement for discovering a problem that no one else on the planet had seemed to recognize. However, his love of chemistry, and his gratuities from the chemical industry, led him into a serious error, “Foolishly, i stated in the paper that the cfcs represented no conceivable hazard. This gratuitous blunder was due to my concern that politically minded greens would seize on the paper as proof that the air we breathed was loaded with chlorine-containing chemicals produced by the multi-national chemical industry, and that we would all be poisoned as a consequence.”[26] This could not be a more blatant example of lovelock going out of his way to protect the chemical industry at the expense of the environmental movement. He had no right to condemn environmentalists for misrepresenting his arguments when he made no attempt to convince them of the validity of his scientific evidence. This is also a good example of what has become a common ailment in modern science - scientists censoring themselves in order to protect the industry they work for.[27]

Lovelock’s explanation for his mistake is disingenuous. He’d just discovered an environmental issue which no one else had even suspected, let alone worried about, so how was it possible for the public to suddenly become anxious about being poisoned - especially when people had been using these chemicals in everyday life without the slightest ill effects? Lovelock’s position on cfcs reveals the depth of his dependency on the chemical industry. His statement was excellent propaganda for the chemical industry especially given that he was a scientist of growing stature. He clearly believed the green movement was a bigger ogre than the chemical industry. Lovelock’s capitulation over cfcs confirms what is just common sense to everyone else on the planet - that independent researchers have no more freedom than the people employed by multinational corporations. And if this was happening to a scientist of lovelock’s stature then the pressure to conform to the interests of multinational corporations must be even more severe on lesser scientists.

Over the following years, as the cfc issue unfolded, lovelock turned his back on the green movement and continued to condone the chemical industry. He’d created another major environmental issue and once again ended up seeking refuge amongst those responsible for the damage. Once again there was no need to blame the chemical industry for deliberately wanting to damage the environment - the pertinent issue was whether it would continue using the chemicals once their destructiveness became apparent.

In 1974 lovelock learnt through the scientific grapevine that two scientists, rowland and molina, would publish a paper on the damage that cfcs were causing to the stratospheric ozone layer. So he set out to find what was happening. It was at this point that he benefited from his position as an establishment insider - a position he'd reinforced through his stance over cfcs. The british government gave him permission to carry out experiments on an raf flight. It is not likely that a radical or renegade scientist would have been given this privilege - imagine richard lacey asking the ministry of agriculture, fisheries, and food, for a similar favour to see if he could discover the real scale of bse amongst british livestock. The results of lovelock’s experiments confirmed rowland and molina’s contention so he sought to spike their publicity by pointing out that many of the chemicals causing this problem were from natural sources. This was the first time this tactic had been used politically to undermine protests over an environmental issue.[28] “I had always suspected that there were natural halocarbons in the air. I had found traces of methyl iodide and it seemed likely that there would also be methyl bromide and methyl chloride from natural sources.”[29] The fact that it was not these naturally occurring cfcs that were causing the problem seemed to be irrelevant to lovelock. As long as he could prove that synthetic chemicals had a natural counterpart then, as far as he was concerned, synthetic chemicals could not be blamed.

Lovelock was quite right to insist there were natural chemicals in the atmosphere but he neglected to point out that they were not responsible for causing the pronounced damage to the stratospheric ozone layer. Over this issue anything he said could justifiably be treated with suspicion because he was on the payroll of the chemical industry, “The financial support for my work in wiltshire and for the running of the adrigole station came solely from the chemical manufacturers association. This is a trade association of the world’s chemical manufacturers ..”[30] It was obvious that, under these circumstances, his views would be perceived as defending the interests of the chemical industry especially when he refused to condemn it for anything.

What made matters worse for lovelock was that he seemed to be avoiding debates even with respectable, scientifically impartial, environmentalists whilst doing all that he could to defend the chemical industry. In november 1972 he was quite willing to attend a meeting about cfcs organized by du pont and, in 1974, he flew to america to defend du pont at a congressional hearing. However, in december that year, he refused to attend a meeting with sherry rowland to discuss the issue. His perambulations clearly reveal where his loyalties lay. He states in his book with complete naiveté, "Sherry rowland was the environmentalists’ champion, and i was in the odd position of being the principal witness for the industry’s defence.”[31] This public perception wasn’t odd. He allowed himself to be put into that position. He even sold his independence as a political means for defending the chemical industry. The desperation of his self-defence reaches rock bottom when he pretends, “I did not ask for a fee for appearing as a witness, nor did dupont offer one. Someone paid my travel and hotel expenses for the hearing; i do not know who.”[32] Didn’t he think it was necessary to ask who it was that who paid his expenses? Did he believe that an environmental organization had paid his expenses? How did he know that he wouldn’t have to pay for these expenses unless someone told him they were going to pick up the tab? Even worse is that lovelock continued to work for, and defend, the chemical industry even when it banned the publication of his research. Lovelock carried out experiments on the atmospheric abundance of halons, “We found about 1.5 parts per trillion in the northern hemisphere and 0.6 in the southern hemisphere. Ici funded the work. Unusually, but as was their right, they persistently refused permission to publish these findings.”[33] This must have made him realize the chemical industry was not in business to be truthful when it banned the work of even ‘independent’ scientists.

Lovelock, however, was right about a couple of matters relating to cfcs. Firstly, about the insignificance of the threat posed to ooman health by the increase in ultra-violet radiation as a result of cfcs’ depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer - at least over the short term which now stretches to thirty years, “Going from northern europe to the equatorial highlands of kenya increases ultraviolet exposure eight times; this is forty times more than the modellers predicted that uv would increase through ozone depletion in the 1970s.”[34]

The implication of this view is that uv radiation was not a threat to life when it first colonized the land, "In short, the widely held belief that life could never have existed on the land before ozone appeared in the atmosphere is a legend based on faith, not science.”[35] His dismissal of the role of stratospheric ozone in protecting life on Earth runs counter to the view expressed in virtually every textbook written on the history of life on Earth. It is almost one of the fundamental axioms of all histories of life on Earth that the land could become habitable only after a stratospheric ozone layer had been created otherwise life would never have been able to leave the oceans and colonize the land.

Lovelock's views on the cfc issue turned a substantial part of the environmental movement against him. He was deemed to be lacking in independence. Many environmentalists had difficulty tolerating his stance over the chemical industry or nuclear power but they couldn’t accept his ‘mistakes’ over cfcs. They may have been reluctant to say he was in the pocket of the chemical industry but it was clear he was doing nothing to oppose its propaganda excesses when defending its interests. Most greens support the idea of gaia because they believe in the notion of an interconnected Earth but they don’t like many of lovelock’s other ideas. This is yet another part of the jigsaw of tragedies pervading the so-called green movement.

Lovelock supported the british oil industry’s demand to be allowed to dump the brent spar oil platform into the north sea, “The real marine biological evidence is that to bury a platform such as brent spar in the ocean is a gift for marine life. Iron is one of the most nutritious elements and the algae, the prime producers of marine life, needed it.”[36] The proportion of iron to the vast quantities of highly toxic waste contained in the structure of oil rigs must have been minimal. Even more amazingly, if someone had come along and suggested dumping huge quantities of iron into the world’s oceans in order to help manage the climate then lovelock would have been the first to denounce such a plan.

It is quite true that the world’s oceans are vast and more than sufficient to absorb considerable amounts of anthropogenic pollution but, in the past, the oil industry had virtually been given the right to dump as much toxic waste as it wanted and the impact on the oceans was becoming noticeable. The governments of the world had spent the last couple of decades trying to reduce the dumping of toxic waste at sea and they didn’t want to go through such a protracted political squabble all over again. Politically, it was not possible to give the oil industry the go ahead to sink the brent spa without setting a precedent opening up further demands from the oil industry as well as the waste disposal industries not only in brutland, the dirty man of europe, but from all other countries around the world. Once again, whilst lovelock may have been correct in arguing that the dumping of the brent spa might not have been much of an environmental problem in itself, his total failure to appreciate its political consequences show his utter political naivety. It’s bizarre that the oil industry does so little to protect the environment and then turns around and expects the public to believe that it supports the dumping option because it wants to help the environment.

Signs of the deterioration in lovelock’s mental faculties become incontestable when he argues .. “the winter sky, even in london, is clear.”[37] From my own first hand experience of standing at the top of shrewsbury park, one of london’s most delightful green spaces, it was quite a regular occurrence to see a layer of smog stretching across the entire london skyline from st paul’s all the way over to rainham marshes.

Since the early 1970s, the most well known distinction in green politics has been that between shallow environmentalists and deep greens. However, in the mid-1970s lovelock introduced a better distinction - that between environmentalists and geophysiologists. This is the distinction between those who put oomans’ first and those who put the Earth first, “I have never been wholly on the side of environmentalists, feeling that its concern was almost always about people and not the Earth.”[38] This is a useful and valid distinction.

It should be transparent by now that despite the validity of this distinction, the founder of gaia doesn’t always live up to his own ideals. It is immaterial that lovelock has never been wholly on the side of environmentalists. It is much more worrying that he hasn’t always been on the side of the Earth. In fact, if anything, it has often been true that he’s been wholly on the side of the chemical, nuclear, and oil, industries. Lovelock is right that more focus has to be given to the Earth than to ooman interests, welfare, health, and rights, but the problem is that he has usually endorsed multi-national corporations rather than putting the Earth first. Lovelock argues, “My heart is with environmentalists but i see their good intentions thwarted by their failure to see that human rights alone are not enough. I share patrick moore’s disenchantment with environmentalism.”[39] Most environmentalists who read this statement believe that what he really means is not that there should be more rights for the Earth but for the chemical and nuclear power industries.

Lovelock’s support for the chemical, nuclear, and oil, industries seems tantamount to support for multi-national corporations and this devalues the concept of gaia. The concept is further devalued by the fact that it is just as waffly, nebulous, and unquantifiable, as phrases such as ‘living in harmony with nature’; ‘treading lightly on the Earth’ etc. It’s only function is a romantic appeal to people for them to ‘look after the Earth’ or ‘take care of the Earth’ - whatever that might mean. Whilst the concept of gaia concerns the Earth’s health, vitality, or stability, it is not in itself a scientific concept because it cannot be used as a measure of the Earth’s health, vitality, or stability. Despite the fact that behind gaia lies the science of geophysiology which, as a science, can measure a broad range of phenomena, and despite the fact that daisyworld is a model that relies entirely on mathematical operations, the concept of gaia does not provide any measure of the Earth’s life support system or any measure which would help to formulate political policies to protect the Earth’s life support system. Put 300 gaians in a room and ask them what an english city council should do to make their city sustainable and you’ll get three hundred different answers.

There are two major trends in lovelock’s life - a growing political conservatism and his increasing desertion of urban life for rural tranquillity. These two trends overlap since it is a common phenomena in britain that the older that people become, the greater their desire to escape the noise, vibrancy, and chaos, of urban areas for the sake of the countryside’s alleged peace, quiet, and security. As far as lovelock is concerned his increasing political conservatism is mirrored by his increasing adoption of rural values.

In the inter-war years the young lovelock was a socialist. As he recognized in his autobiography, it was fortunate that he never joined any socialist organization at that time because this would have limited the sort of work he was allowed to do in later life e.g. working for nasa. As britain moved towards the second world war, lovelock became a conscientious objector. He associated with the quakers and the authorities acknowledged him as a quaker-like conscientious objector - even though he wasn’t in the slightest bit religious. He also avoided conscription by registering as a full time student. Towards the end of the war he dropped his conscientious objections. However, when the military posted him off to the front line, one of his establishment chums came to his rescue by finding a job for him in a scientific research institute in england. It has to be remembered that lovelock lived a charmed life - virtually all jobs came to him through word of mouth invitations from members of the establishment - rather than having to apply for a job and then being forced to fight for it in a meritocratic competition with others. This is not to dispute that he probably wasn’t the best person for these jobs but this method of obtaining employment is indicative of his membership in the establishment’s old boys network.

Elements of lovelock’s socialist past remained with him throughout his life in so far as earnt next to no money for his inventions, “I spent a lifetime inventing without receiving more than a few percent of the value of my inventions, indeed my belief in public service, inspired by the idealism of the second world war, made the idea of profiting from my inventions abhorrent.”[41] This wasn’t the view of just a solitary individual. Prior to the rise of thatcherism, the culture of the british scientific establishment was to discourage individual scientists from profiting from their scientific inventions. This was completely the opposite approach to that taken in america. If lovelock had made his inventions in america, or during the reign of thatcher in britain, he would have become seriously rich. Given the vast amounts of money he could have made from his inventions, his dedication to public service is of the highest degree.

Sad to say, the older lovelock got, the more politically conservative he became. He became one of the vast hordes of the politically conventional who resent anything new - especially alternative culture or anything to do with political correctness. In britain, the politically conventional, many of whom belong to the inter-war generation, believe that oomans are superior to Animals and, rather laughably, that oomans are more intelligent than Animals; they believe in roast bseef - especially on sundays; that everyone ought to stand on their own two feet (except those in the house of windsor, the house of lords, the landowning elite and their national heritage funded countryside houses, and the country’s pharmers); that british police are the greatest in the world; that alcohol, nicotine, and prescription tranquillisers, are entirely safe and that marijuana is the most dangerous Weed on Earth; and that everyone has the right to own a car, and drive it wherever and however they wish.

Born in 1919, lovelock was brought up in one of the country’s most highly urbanized areas, brixton - which was then roughly equivalent to what we would now recognize as a village. As a schoolboy he’d go for long walks and cycle rides through the surrounding countryside. After his marriage he bought a holiday home in the countryside and, over the decades, came to spend more and more time living there until he was commuting to work in urban areas. After living for a while in america in the early 1960s, he and his family moved back to england and once again took up residence in the countryside. The move to the countryside was a little odd. Although he loved being in the countryside he had no interest in contributing to it either by living a self-sufficient good life or becoming a pharmer.[42] In fact, he didn’t even like gardening. “I was no gardener at all; indeed, i detest gardening.”[43] Of course, once living in the countryside, he had to face up to the consequences of living there without any local means of employment and minimal services whether banking, postal services, health, shopping, etc. This meant having a car. Even if he had the luxury of living close to a rail station he still needed a car to obtain all the other services he and his family needed. The less services provided by rural villages, the greater villagers’ dependence on cars to get them to the nearest places still providing such services. Here was an individual who was well aware of the damage that cars were causing around the world and yet he put himself in a position where he had to have a car in order to provide himself and his family with basic services.

It is not known what lovelock’s views were about Fox hunting before he moved to the countryside. Whilst his mother’s family hated hunting, his father loved it.[45] Lovelock was physically squeamish about inflicting pain on Animals so it might have been logical to conclude he wouldn’t support such a barbaric activity. However, living in the countryside helped him to overcome his natural revulsion and he adopted his father’s attitude .. “a true countryman, knew that the cruelties of hunting, perceived by city people who knew nothing about it, was as nothing compared with the daily cruelty of farm life. I am ambivalent about the hunt.”[46] Most Fox hunters justify what they do by arguing it is a part of nature and the survival of the fittest but lovelock’s justification derived from pharming. It surely is pretty barmy to justify the violence of Fox hunting because it isn’t as bad as the larger amounts of violence that pharmers inflict on their Animals. Wouldn’t he have been on sounder ground denouncing pharmers’ violence especially given the role that pharmers play in boosting global burning? He denounced the tepid efforts made by the mcblair government to ban Fox hunting, "In England, the hatred of the hunt is somewhat hypocritical, and its emotional drive comes more from class war than from compassion for the fox. As i write this, it astonishes me that the british parliament is wasting its time voting for a bill to abolish hunting with dogs."[47] These are the archetypal views of a ruralite and landowning elitist not an independent scientist who supposedly puts the Earth first. Although lovelock recognized the contribution that pharmers were making to global burning he refused to criticize pharmers or the pharming industry. The divorce between his rural, politically conventional views and the radicalism of his gaian theory could hardly be greater.

The impression that lovelock gives in his autobiography is that he met a member of the landowning aristocracy, got on well with him and decided this was reason enough to support not only the entire landowning elite but the house of lords to boot, “The aristocracy was then, and even more now, like a species of endangered, brightly plumaged birds. I shall be sorry to see them go from the house of lords and cannot believe that either an elected or an appointed second chamber will be as fair and as representative as is our jury of hereditary peers. Biodiversity is a natural state and a better one than the featureless monoculture of egalitarianism.”[48] It has to be feared the virus of political conventionality is proliferating through lovelock’s blood. The house of lords was an institution almost entirely made up of senile, white, landowners and contained virtually no representatives from other classes let alone britain’s multi-cultural groups. It was one of the many monocultural institutions which had politically disfigured the country for centuries. Even the freemasons possessed a wider cross section of society than the house of lords. Lovelock’s views only serves to show his crass political stupidity which underlines the positions he took in the disputes over pesticides, cfcs, and the brent spa.

Lovelock confirms through the use of his ecd that chemical pollution has spread around the world to such an extent that, “Even organically grown vegetables and fruit, even wild vegetation, contains measurable levels of pesticides, so sensitive is the device.”[50] What he’s implying is that people ought to eat the pesticide soaked crops produced by multi-national corporations because all food is now contaminated. His dismissal of zero tolerance to pollution because he believes that ‘the poison is the dose’ is acceptable but discrediting pesticide free crops is just going to encourage pharmers to use increasing amounts of pesticides.

Being the originator of a completely new way of seeing the Earth it might have been thought that lovelock would support greens with a compatible political perspective but it seems as if his political conventionality was a more decisive factor when determining his green heroes, "He (Jonathon porritt) stands far above what is to me, a confused and babbling community of green politicians and philosophers.”[52] He mentions satish kumar but did not praise his work. He greatly admires crispin tickell. He doesn’t mention amory lovins. Quite surprisingly he doesn’t mention of charles windsor - but then again prior to the publication of his book, lovelock hadn’t received any recognition from buckingham palace.

Lovelock expresses his solidarity with his neighbour, “A great comfort during these bad times was the presence of teddy goldsmith at withiel, not far from coombe mill. Teddy had more influence on my thinking than i think he knew. His strength and consistency made him for me a touchstone on green affairs .. Teddy and his wife kathy lived in a manor house where they lived a life consistent with their principles, even to the extent of using earth closets inside the manor house.”[53]

Early on in his life, lovelock supported the idea of terraforming. According to ben matthews, “Lovelock went on to propose suggestions for bringing Mars to life, by first creating CFCs using energy from nuclear reactors, and by the resultant greenhouse effect melting the icecaps which contain water and frozen CO₂. More subtle manipulation would follow, and eventually seeding by algae and bacteria. Lovelock did not expect that his proposal would be taken seriously ..”[54] Now, however, lovelock is vehemently opposed to terraforming .. “the abominable transgression of terraforming - the conversion by technology of another planet into a human habitat. What is so bad about terraforming is its objective to make a second home for us when we have destroyed our own planet by the greedy misapplication of science and technology. It is madness to think of converting with bulldozers and agribusiness the desert of planet mars into some pale semblance of the Earth, when we should be improving our way of living with the Earth.”[55]

Lovelock supported the space race which led to an almost complete neglect of Earth sciences. His main justification for the space race was the development of a planetary perspective, "Their view of it from space led them to see the planet itself as their home. Home was not the nation, or the town, or the streets, or their house."[56] And this is virtually all that he has stated about developing a political outlook which is compatible with seeing the Earth as a whole.

Lovelock’s support for the chemical, nuclear, and oil, industries have been highlighted above. He continually defends multinational corporations and seeks to shift the blame for pollution onto consumers - despite the fact that it is multinational corporations which create and market these products, “We forget too easily that we as individuals are the principal agents of pollution. It is our home heating and our car that adds to the greenhouse burden of carbon dioxide, not the oil or coal industries alone.”[57]; “Each one of us is as responsible for the damage done, as are the industries that supply our needs and wants.”[58]; “Multinationals exist to provide the products we demand, and they do so with impressive efficiency. So much so that in some dry parts of the world gasoline is cheaper than water. We share equally with these companies the blame for corrupting the air. How many green activists walk or cycle rather than drive their cars.”[59] The degree of marketing determines the dominance of multi-nationals over livestock consumers.

After the second world war, lovelock worked for the grasslands research institute where he played a part in destroying what he loved, “What we were doing at the grassland research institute (gri) was providing essential information to the civil servants of the maffia and the farmers. They then used it to plan their campaign to replace the old english countryside with an efficient agribusiness operation. .. i played my small part in the destruction of the english countryside.”[60]

Lovelock supports economic growth.

One of the most surprising discoveries in his autobiography is the scale of lovelock’s travels around the world. He constantly mentions his flights across the atlantic to the united states, his flights across the united states, and his flights around the rest of the world. It would not be at all surprising to discover that lovelock and edward goldsmith constantly bumped into each other at airports around the world whilst en route to save the Earth meetings. Perhaps airports around the world ought to consider providing green travellers with special lounges where they can yap endlessly about the need for the conservation of energy and glass recycling. Lovelock’s personal Carbon debts must be colossal.

When the lovelock family moved to coombe hill in devon, he needed to instal a central heating system. His house was miles away from other dwellings could not be connected to the national gas pipeline system. Given his green credentials he tried first to install a heating system which ran on local, renewable, resources i.e. Grass. But this turned out to be impractical because he didn’t have the spare time to cut and prepare the Grass, let alone feed it into a burner. He then tried to use a log burning system but this required the purchase of a tractor (presumably fuelled by the logs as well??). Unfortunately, one day, whilst he was moving some logs the tractor keeled over trapping him for many hours until he was eventually rescued. The accident damaged his kidneys and he later discovered one of them had stopped functioning. In the end, lovelock was forced to install gas in his home.

The real moral of the story is that if greens move to the countryside, and zak goldsmith is the latest in a long line of greens to make such a move, they will need a car and they will have a considerable number of problems generating their own energy. This will almost invariably force them to rely on transporting supplies of gas to their homes thereby causing much more pollution than if they lived in an urban area like most other people. The real problem is not the heating system, as lovelock and the other pseudo greenies have argued. It is greens who put themselves first and ignore geophysiological realities by going to live in rural areas. Then, when they are bitten on the bum, they turn around and denounce green politics. Lovelock didn’t seem to reflect in the slightest on the fact that his favourite form of energy, nuclear power, would not have solved his central heating problems either.

During his career lovelock carried out a number of Animal experiments - although he gives no indication of the scale or severity of such experiments. He worked at the national institute for medical research (nimr) at mill hill, north london, where he was employed in chemical research, “It was a wonderfully well-equipped institute with a first class library and a spacious lecture hall as well as having mechanical and electronic workshops and a vast Animal house.”[63] To give an example of Animals’ fate in these torture centres: lovelock stated that the manufacture of scrub virus vaccine required the construction of a plant “to grow this deadly disease in cotton rats on a near industrial scale.”[64] Some of lovelock’s experiments involved freezing Animals - although he doesn’t indicate whether they were alive or dead whilst they were in the process of being frozen .. “we moved on from freezing blood and spermatozoa to freezing whole animals.”[65] Lovelock admits he was squeamish about Animal experiments and argued, “The experimental biologists at mill hill were tough and unsentimental about animal suffering. This was, i think, the usual attitude of almost all scientists who used animals in the 1950s. I soon found that i was made of softer stuff and was repelled by what i thought were cruel animal experiments.”[66]

Later in his life lovelock came to condemn Animal experiments but he did not advocate a ban, “The frigid and unemotional face of science is that of reductionism, the taking apart of everything to find out how it works. It reached its nadir in biological vivisection, so prevalent until recent years. Vivisection, i feel, is something that we should do only when the need is paramount, and then done with that respect for life shown by a good countryman when reluctantly he cuts down a tree. Animal experiments, as we do them now on a massive scale, are not only amoral, they are a foolishly inefficient way of doing things.”[67]

Lovelock was a carnivore. His autobiography provides plenty of examples of the types of Animals that lovelock has eaten. But he also believes the Animal exploitation industry is the main contributor to global burning and supports the idea of a ban on meat eating, “Gaia requires us to live sensibly with the Earth, and this would require that we restore the natural habitats we have destroyed to feed people. This requires politically difficult choices, such as giving up meat eating or reducing our numbers to a third or less.”[68] Lovelock, however, is far too rural and politically conventional, to make a political issue out of such views.

Lovelock supports economic growth, nuclear power, and multi-national corporations. But, what is the point of lovelock demanding a reduction in the ooman population when he ignores the environmental damage caused by these factors?

Despite his claims to being independent, lovelock is an establishment insider. He has some considerable green hypocrisies, and his views on many political topics are politically conventional. Lovelock initiated virtually all the major green controversies since the 1970s and those who did not know him might find it difficult to judge whether he was being ruthlessly fair, objective, and scientific, during these controversies. The fact that his political views are so conservative, even reactionary, suggests that his role in these disputes may not have been so scientific as he believed. In many ways his increasing conservatism and dependence on establishment support casts considerable doubts over his scientific objectivity in these environmental disputes the most blatant example of this being his denial of any dangers posed by cfcs. This was not a case of a radical scientist with strong progressive views who finds himself forced by scientific facts into reaching objective, scientific conclusions which are unpopular. Lovelock was an establishment insider, with illusions of independence, who defended establishment values through his scientific work. The fact that during the cfc controversy he could travel around the world on behalf of du pont whilst refusing to meet a respectable scientist such as sherry rowland is indicative of his bias.

Over the last twenty years of his life one of his main criticisms of contemporary scientific practice has been its departmentalism - scientists who acquire an expertise in one area or subject and do not stray into what are regarded as the domains of other scientists. It’s a form of intellectual trade unionism. In stark contrast, lovelock has sought to explore all scientific fields related to his work. The broad scope of his scientific exploration has produced remarkable achievements. But he imposed boundaries on his life - he was completely unwilling to stray beyond science into politics. Lovelock is not a renaissance man because he has little interest in philosophy or politics.

Lovelock is a scientific genius who has radically transformed our way of looking upon the Earth. But, on the other hand, he is a political disaster. The reasons for his aversion to politics are profuse. He was basically an establishment insider who towed the establishment line. After he’d discovered gaia, he didn’t want to do anything which might deter the scientific establishment from recognizing this new theory so he avoided all the radical political implications in his work. One of lovelock’s strongest desires was for independence. However, what he wanted was not political independence but scientific independence i.e. the scientific freedom to carry out more of his own experiments. But during the time of his independence he remained dependent on the chemical, nuclear, and oil, industries for an income and was a supporter of multinational corporations. The more he ignored politics, the more politically naive he became. His political naiveté is striking - it’s as if he knows next to nothing about the political world around him. It almost seems as if he’s suffering from a politically conventional malady - he seems to believe that all of today’s social problems are caused by political correctness. His political ignorance probably also contributes to his green hypocrisies. He accuses greens of being hypocritical but such an accusation coming from such a gross polluter is also hypocritical, not to mention farcical. The older he became the more politically conventional he became. Increasingly through his life he grew closer to the rural values that are the cause of the problems he denounces. In his early days he regarded himself as a socialist. He temporarily became a pacifist, which conveniently enabled him to escape fighting in the second world war. But increasingly he has become a puerile conservative trotting out the most dire politically conventional views.

The older he became the more unwilling he became to risk the validity of his scientific ideas by drawing radical political conclusions from them. He has locked himself into a set of views from which politics based on his understanding of the Earth is virtually possible. Although he’s expressed some gaian views on vivisection, Wildlife, Wilderness areas, meat eating, he’s avoided making a political stance over these issues. What is so striking about lovelock is that although he is the father of the global environmental movement, he has played such a miniscule role in trying to shape the direction in which it should go. Whenever he has got involved in the political process he has almost invariably reverted to the most bland, politically conventional, stances.

It has to be feared that many people are going to be alienated by what lovelock exposes about himself in his autobiography. His establishment credentials and his support for multinational chemical/nuclear power/oil corporations, Fox hunting, vivisection, and his political hypocrisies, will alienate a lot of people from taking an interest in gaia. However, it is necessary to insist that no matter what people might think about lovelock’s reactionary politics, his science of geophysiology is still invaluable.

Lovelock deserves the utmost praise for his scientific work but he has to be criticized for not attempting to explore its political and philosophical implications and for failing to provide any political leadership. He has sat by and allowed events to take place and said little about them. In his autobiography, lovelock announces his retirement from the world as if he has said all that he wants to say. He didn’t use this opportunity to finish with a flourish by exploring the political implications of his work and demanding the radical policies needed to combat global burning. Correspondingly, he has politically neutered gaia so that it provides no prescriptions for action to save the Earth. The contrast between his scientific ideas which are full of originality and radicalism contrasts markedly with his political attitudes which tend to be almost completely reactionary. This book is about protecting and enhancing lovelock’s scientific reputation rather than saving the world. It is a surprising vanity publication from such a self-effacing person, let alone one of the world’s great scientists.

[1] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.263. I well remember my own bewilderment when i listened to his ideas for the first time on a horizon programme.

[2] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.253.

[3] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.181.

[4] Richard Guerrero Medi Ambient no date p.87-92.

[5] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.181.

[6] Einstein’s experiment to show that gravity causes light to bend rather than travel in a straight line took place in 1919. He predicted that light from a distant star would bend when the sun crossed its path. However, it was not possible to see this far distant star and the sun together because the sun was too bright. The far distant star could only be seen when there was a total eclipse of the sun. Einstein compared the position of a star when the sun was crossing it in the sky, to its position when the sun was not in line with the star. The experiment showed that as the sun moved across the star, the star’s position seems to change because light from the star bent around the sun. The success of this experiment gave a considerable degree of validity to einstein's theory of relativity.

[7] Ed weiler, one of nasa's science chiefs stated, "We also plan to 'follow the water' so that in the not-too distant future we may finally know the answers to the most far reaching questions about the red planet we humans have asked over the generations: Did life ever arise there and does life exist there now?" (Tim Radford Guardian 28.10.2000 p.16). Radford reports that nasa is hoping to take oomans to mars.

[8] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.x

[9] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.159.

[10] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.xii.

[11] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.176.

[12] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.266.

[13] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.260.

[14] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.263.

[15] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.253.

[16] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.251.

[17] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.250.

[8] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.293-294.

[19] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.293.

[20] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.154.

[21] It would also be less than those killed by driving cars, or eating meat and dairy produce.

[22] Most bseef eaters who regard the consumption of brutish bseef as a patriotic duty, whether it contains bse or not, tend to be the same people who support nuclear power. However, when it comes to building such power stations in their own back garden their opinions change significantly.

[23] This should not be taken to justify the use of nuclear power. The same principles apply to all forms of energy. First assess the amount of damage they do to the Earth’s life support system i.e. the stability of the Earth’s climate. If two forms of energy have the same impact on the climate then determine their impact on ooman health.

[24] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.136.

[25] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.157.

[26] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.203).

[27] Richard southgate had censored himself about the threat that bse posed to oomans which led him to declare that oomans were safe. It is not the job of scientists to censor their own work. They must be allowed to determine the truth and it is then up to politicians to make a decision about what needs to be done.

[28] Lovelock also used the same tactic when attempting to protect brutland’s fossil fuel burning power stations which scandinavian countries believed was causing acid rain across their countries.

[29] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.205.

[30] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.206.

[31] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.206-7.

[32] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.207. He mentions the antartic ozone hole in one sentence (p.215).

[33] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.215.

[34] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.208.

[35] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.208.

[36] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.153.

[37] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.191.

[38] James, Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.xiii.

[39] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.3-4.

[40] The Measure of Gaia.

This is not the place to explain how to rescue gaia from this limitation. It should be pointed out, however, that such a rescue is feasible in order to prevent people from dismissing the science of geophysiology because of lovelock’s political naivete. The last thing this beautiful planet needs is for people to throw away the science of geophysiology, which is their only chance of creating a sustainable planet, because the creator of gaia has severe political flaws or because they don’t like the chemical or nuclear industries - especially when their own opinions are often distorted by sentimental attitudes towards the pharming industry.

The theory of Carbonomics argues that everything on Earth is measurable in terms of the Earth’s Carbon spiral. When assessed from this perspective it becomes apparent that the nuclear power industry and large parts of the chemical industry are adding to the destabilization of the climate rather than stabilizing it. There is no place for a global nuclear power industry on a sustainable planet. In other words, greens should not condemn the nuclear power industry in terms of:-

Lovelock’s sentiment that oomans have got to put the Earth first is an essential pre-condition for ooman survival but his failure to do precisely this as regards the chemical, oil, and nuclear power, industries is a gross political liability because it threatens to pollute the concept. Carbonomics would enable geophysiologists to condemn the nuclear power industry and major parts of the chemical industry without ditching the science of geophysiology. Ultimately, there is the worry that gaia is a politically dangerous concept because it could be expropriated by multi-national corporations.

[41] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.180.

[42] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.149.

[43] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.301.

[44] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.360.

[45] Lovelock believes his grandparents were jewish and repeats this connection through the book. The third reference is on p.59.

[46] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.172.

[47] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.172.

[48] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.364.

[49] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.44. See also, ‘Our tribal nature affects science as much as any other human activity." (James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.169); "I wonder if the evolutionary biologists will assert that there is a genetic basis for tribalism." (James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.294); "We are still evolving animals, tribal carnivores." (James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.388).

[50] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.189.

[51] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.304.

[52] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.320.

[53] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.254.

[54] Ben Matthews ‘Climate Engineering. A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context, and possible impacts’ November 1996.

[55] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.389.

[56] James Lovelock putting words into the mind of jim lovell in ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.xv.

[57] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.207.

[58] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.293-294.

[59] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.154.

[60] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.99. See also, "Hedgerows are linear forests that act as fences between farmers’ fields and serve to provide a habitat for birds and for numerous species of plants and insects. They are the refuge and reservoir of bygone ecosystems but since 1946 we have lost 150,000 miles of hedgerow, and i regret to say i played a small part in this act of national ecocide. I loved the english country scene passionately, yet i was as thoughtlessly responsible for its destruction as was a greedy shareholder of an agribusiness firm or a landowner out to maximize the return from his broad hectares. I am ashamed and now regard myself as part of the unconscious vandalism that has all but destroyed the beauty of my country." (James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.97).

[61] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.169.

[62] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.303). (He also wrote the greening of mars with allaby).

[63] James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.102. "The mrc was an unusual governmental body in that it was responsible directly to the crown through the privvy council. This gave it an independence from political meddling and, more importantly, from the treasury." (James Lovelock ‘Homage to Gaia. The Life of an Independent Scientist’ Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000 p.67). The national institute for medical research (nimr) was established by the mrc in the 1920s.

James Lovelock

Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh.

The Price of Independence is Dependency.
Walking away from the World:
The Worldlessness of Gaia.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

James Lovelock

Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh.

The Price of Independence is Dependency. Walking away from the World: The Worldlessness of Gaia.

The Price of Independence is Dependency.
Walking away from the World:
The Worldlessness of Gaia.