There seems to be a lot of resistance to lovelock's theory...i can't tell if it's because he's right and people are unwilling to accept such a distinct change in our concept of the environment or because he's just wrong. lovelock is interestingly pessimistic about existing green technologies (and the green movement in general). i disagree with his pessimism, especially concerning the futility of solar power. considering there is approximately 6000x as much sunlight on the surface of the earth as would be needed to meet the total power needs of the human population (human population needs 16 terrawatts, amount of sunlight= 120,000 terrawatts. National Geographic, 9/2009), i do not think nuclear power is our only means of sustainable energy. i do not know enough to properly evaluate his theory, but because i have reason to disagree with one of his statements i am especially inclined to be suspicious of anything he advocates(though i admit i am not justified in doing so).
Great question Chris has there, is Lovelock right or is he just a cranky old man who wants to disagree? In his review, Tim Flannery did a wonderful job at trying to explain to readers who Lovelock is, and has been for years. He has always seemed to disagree with relevant popular hypotheses, which is why I am going to lean towards the fact that he may be a bit pessimistic in his outrageous views about the green technologies and so on. Interestingly written, this review will bring many to read Lovelocks books if they have not already.
2 comments:
There seems to be a lot of resistance to lovelock's theory...i can't tell if it's because he's right and people are unwilling to accept such a distinct change in our concept of the environment or because he's just wrong.
lovelock is interestingly pessimistic about existing green technologies (and the green movement in general). i disagree with his pessimism, especially concerning the futility of solar power. considering there is approximately 6000x as much sunlight on the surface of the earth as would be needed to meet the total power needs of the human population (human population needs 16 terrawatts, amount of sunlight= 120,000 terrawatts. National Geographic, 9/2009), i do not think nuclear power is our only means of sustainable energy.
i do not know enough to properly evaluate his theory, but because i have reason to disagree with one of his statements i am especially inclined to be suspicious of anything he advocates(though i admit i am not justified in doing so).
Great question Chris has there, is Lovelock right or is he just a cranky old man who wants to disagree? In his review, Tim Flannery did a wonderful job at trying to explain to readers who Lovelock is, and has been for years. He has always seemed to disagree with relevant popular hypotheses, which is why I am going to lean towards the fact that he may be a bit pessimistic in his outrageous views about the green technologies and so on. Interestingly written, this review will bring many to read Lovelocks books if they have not already.
Post a Comment