Pipe Dreams

08 Apr 2008 Eighty-eight-year-old independent British scientist and author Dr. James Lovelock first made a splash on the environmental scene in the early '70s, when he introduced his then-controversial Gaia hypothesis, named after the Greek earth goddess, maintaining that the global ecosystem behaves like a single biological organism. The theory later made it into "Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth" (1979), a must-have tome for the burgeoning eco-set. Fingers wagged and buzz spread, and the theory was readily accepted by many environmentalists, although some in the scientific community were critical. Thirty years later, his theory is still being discussed and debated, and Lovelock is more relevant than ever.

Yet, Lovelock’s ideas—including his vocal support of nuclear energy as the only realistic solution to what he views as our current 11th hour crisis—still manage to rile up even contemporary Greens. And, he is at it again, blazing a trail of contention with his latest public assertions. In September of last year, he and Professor Chris Rapley, Director of the Science Museum in London, announced their Ocean Pipes project in the British journal Nature.

The proposal calls for thousands, perhaps millions, of specially engineered 200-meter pipes to be placed in our global oceans. These would draw nutrient-rich water to the surface promoting the growth of algae which would ultimately suck CO2 from the air. The idea is highly theoretical, and critics complain the project would have an adverse impact on ocean acidification (killing marine life), or actually release more C02 than it captures. Lovelock and Rapley admit the project brings risks and may not be feasible, but argue the stakes are so high we cannot afford not to try geoengineering solutions.

Kyoto Planet recently spoke to Dr. Lovelock on a range of subjects, both of-this-world and out-of-this-world.

Kyoto Planet: Let’s start with your Ocean Pipes proposal.

James Lovelock: If you work out the cost of trying to pump the CO2 out of the air by chemical or any other means it’s so enormous. But if we can get the ocean to take on the task then it’s a different story, we might have a chance. It rests on the premise that we look at the earth as if it was a living organism. It behaves like one. It’s physiological, which is growing in acceptance in science. It’s been very unpopular until recently.