Whats the difference between James Lovelock environmental scientist and inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, and Andrew Bolt Herald Sun columnist and inventor of such useful terms such as red mist, green gods and compassion industry? Well… less than you might think.
James Lovelock, in a recent depression session with Guardian reporter Decca Aitkenhead sees many of the things people are doing to address global warming as empty gestures
He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. “Carbon offsetting? I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you’re offsetting the carbon?
Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? “No we don’t. Because we can’t.” And recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”
So does Andrew Bolt
I haven’t seen such pointless pain in a holy cause since Silas strapped a barbed cilice to his leg in The Da Vinci Code to prove his piety…….all over the country we have global warming believers slipping on their designer hairshirts so they can itch for Gaia. Sweat for Nature. Puff for planet Earth.
Lovelock is no fan of renewable energy – especially Wind Power.
You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”
Ugly, expensive and next to useless.
Lovelock is pro-nuclear
We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear – the one safe, available, energy source – now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.
Bolt is pro-nuclear waste
WE need to dig this hi-tech dump of Bob Hawke’s, and not just to bury nuclear waste. We need it also to bury the green unreason which has held up great ideas like this for far too long.
There are differences though. Lovelock says were doomed
Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.
“It’s just too late for it,” he says. “Perhaps if we’d gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don’t have time.
Bolt, although not conceding that there is any such thing as global warming, reckons that Chinas contribution to it is so great that we Australians may as well give up, We have no control.
In fact, China is now the world’s biggest emitter and by 2020, Garnaut estimates, it and other developing countries will pump out more greenhouse gases on their own than the entire world dare emit if we want to stop what Garnaut assumes will be potentially catastrophic warming.
We can fiddle, but what’s the point when China will burn, burn, burn? We can make all the sacrifices we like – closing our coal mines and banning cars from our cities – to make us seem “exemplary”, but none of it makes sense unless our pain persuades China and developing countries to slash their own gases too.
The Chinese are in charge, and not even the sweat from the brow of a Trinity boy will persuade them to take their slippers off the accelerator.
So it appears that the key difference between the Lovelock and Bolt views is that with Lovelock we have no future, while with Bolt our future is in the hands of the Central Committee of the Peoples Republic.