A Conversation With James E. Lovelock By ANDREW C. REVKIN Few scientists have elicited such equivalent heaps of praise and criticism as James E. Lovelock, the British chemist, inventor and planetary diagnostician who has long foreseen a clash between humans and their planet. His work underpins much of modern environmentalism. The electron capture detector he invented in the 1950’s produced initial measurements of dispersed traces of pesticides and ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons, providing a foundation for the work of Rachel Carson and for studies revealing risks to the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer. His conception in 1972 of the planet’s chemistry, climate and veneer of life as a self-sustaining entity, soon given the name Gaia, was embraced by the Earth Day generation and was ridiculed, but eventually accepted (with big qualifications), by many biologists. Dr. Lovelock, honored in 1997 with the Blue Planet Prize, which is widely considered the environmental equivalent of a Nobel award, has now come under attack from some environmentalists for his support of nuclear power as a way to avoid runaway “global heating” — his preferred alternative to “global warming.” In his latest book, “The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back — and How We Can Still Save Humanity” (Perseus, 2006), Dr. Lovelock says that any risks posed by nuclear power are small when compared with the “fever” of heat-trapping carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In a review in the current edition of American Scientist, Brian Hayes, a senior writer, says the book contains “something each of us can admire and embrace, and also something each of us can disdain or ridicule.” He adds, “For me it’s pretty nearly an even mix.” Opponents of nuclear power have started a counteroffensive to Dr. Lovelock’s call for a new nuclear age, arguing that mining uranium and building nuclear plants releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and that the danger from accidents or terrorism is too great. In an interview during a stop in Manhattan last week with his wife, Sandy, Dr. Lovelock, still fit and feisty at 87 and seemingly relishing his role as provocateur, said that such objections were baseless and dangerous. He also offered a daunting prescription for avoiding utter catastrophe, while adding that something just short of that was clearly already under way. Q. Why do you call it global heating and not global warming? A. Warming is something that’s kind of cozy and comfortable. You think of a nice duvet on a cold winter’s day. Heating is something you want to get away from. Q. What’s your perception of where we’re headed with even conservative predictions for growth of both populations and energy use? A. I think we’re headed straight back to the Earth’s second stable state, which is a hot state that it’s been in many times before in the past. It’s about 14 degrees warmer than it is in these parts of the world now. It means roughly that most life on the planet will have to move up to the Arctic basin, to the few islands that are still habitable and to oases on the continents. It will be a much-diminished world. Q. Can you explain why you think nuclear power is so vital? A. The really bad thing we did way back when was starting to burn things in the atmosphere to get energy. We started with fire, just cooking food, and probably could have gotten away with that. But once we started burning forests to drive the animals out as a cheap way of hunting, then we started on our downward course. What we’re doing now with fossil fuels is just as bad. We live in a nuclear-powered universe. We’re the oddballs by getting energy from burning carbon. My justification of nuclear power is that we’ve reached a stage now where the dire things that threaten us are so great that even the results of an all-out nuclear war pale into insignificance as unimportant compared to what’s going to happen. Q. You seem to say we have to get over the idea that renewable energy sources — wind, solar — in the short run, are a useful way out of this. A. I feel they’re largely gestures. If it makes people feel good to shove up a windmill or put a solar panel on their roof, great, do it. It’ll help a little bit, but it’s no answer at all to the problem. Q. What is it about this issue that you think fails to capture adequate public or political attention? A. I think it’s mainly because scientists, and I include myself amongst them, have not really understood what was going on until very, very recently. And also scientists tend to look at things much too academically. What really got me to write the book was going to a meeting at the Hadley Center, a big climate lab near where I live, and talking to all the people there. And Sandy came with me, and we both got the impression that they were talking about the Earth as if it was another planet, not something they were actually standing on. And they’re all talking about their own separate little bit. One was talking about glaciers melting, another about tropical forests in trouble. But they didn’t put it together as a whole-planet phenomenon. And when you did that, then each of their gloomy stories together became a devastating thesis. Q. You say in the book that sustainable development is a fantasy, essentially, and you have a different notion for what needs to happen, of “sustainable retreat.” A. At six-going-on-eight-billion people, the idea of any further development is almost obscene. We’ve got to learn how to retreat from the world that we’re in. Planning a good retreat is always a good measure of generalship. Q. If you could take any facet of society — elected officials, doctors, writers — and show them one thing that you think could motivate the scale of change you’re talking about, any idea what you might do? A. I would take them on a trip to the parts of the world where the changes are now maximum, and that is the Arctic. For example, not many years ago explorers were walking with dogsleds all the way to the North Pole regarding it as a great adventure. It’s only a matter of perhaps 30 years when they’ll have to go there in a sailboat. Q. You seem to have two messages at once. One is sort of a hopeful sense of the innovative and adaptable aspect of humans, and the other is that we’re going to need all those skills. A. The human species has been on the planet for a million years now. We’ve gone through seven major climatic changes that are equivalent to this. The ice ages were shifts in climate comparable with this one that’s coming. And we’ve survived. That series of glaciations and interglacials put the pressures on us to select the kind of human that could adapt. And we’re the progeny of them. And we’re just up against a new and different stress. Maybe we’ll come out better.

Indigenous communities of the Peruvian Amazon are stepping up their campaign against oil companies, as the BBC's Dan Collyns reports from the capital, Lima. Peru's Amazon state, Loreto, takes up almost a third of the entire country. A vast expanse of rainforest divided by tributaries of the Amazon river, even its main city Iquitos is only accessible by boat or plane. But its inaccessibility has not discouraged oil companies from hunting for black gold, and they have been doing so for the last 35 years. During that time, the Achuar people, who have lived in harmony with their environment in this part of western Amazon for thousands of years, say their way of life has been systematically violated. The Federation of Native Communities of the Corrientes' river (FECONACO) says that for every barrel of oil there are nine barrels of contaminated water produced as a by-product - a total of more than a million barrels a day. The water contains high concentrations of hydrocarbons and heavy metals, like lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. The Achuar people say it is destroying the fragile eco-system in which they live, killing the fish and wildlife, contaminating their water source and seriously damaging their health. Health problems Geanina Lucana is a nurse who has been working with indigenous communities in the area for six years. She says the contamination affects every part of the human body, causing a chronic breakdown of the immune system. "The toxins affect the central nervous system, causing a complete mental and physical breakdown. I've seen a person die but the doctor was not able to determine a single cause of death," she said. It is widely acknowledged that high levels of heavy metals, hydrocarbons and chlorides can cause serious physical and mental health problems, including cancer and genetic deformities. A survey carried out by Peru's Ministry of Health in May found that cadmium levels in the blood of more than 98% of the Achuar exceeded safe levels. The oil companies, with the complicity of the state, are systematically violating our human rights Robert Guimaraes, vice president of AIDESEP And more than 66% of children had levels of lead in their blood which exceeded the maximum permissible. Yet despite the evidence of its own health ministry, the Peruvian government has been slow to act. Different worlds Last week, Achuar leaders, with the help of two not-for-profit groups, brought their fight to Peru's capital, Lima. At one end of a large boardroom table, two apus - or community leaders - sat dressed in western clothes but with their traditional head-dresses. At the other end of the long table sat three suited officials from Peru Petro - the state-run body which issues licences to foreign oil companies. For a short time these people from different worlds inhabited the same space, while the community leaders from the jungle spoke of their outrage in their own Achuar language. "I represent 31 communities and we all say we don't want more oil companies on our land," said Cesar Dawua, leader of the Providencia community. "You live happily here in Lima working for the Peruvian state," he told the state officials. "We too want to live happily in our community of Rio Corrientes - but we can't because of the contamination. "That's why we've come to say to you loud and clear that this is the last opportunity that we have to try to resolve this issue - you can't allow this to drag on any more." The issue was not resolved, however, despite the appeals of the community leaders. Extreme poverty Both FECONACO and the Inter-ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (AIDESEP) have appealed to their government to make the oil company, in this case Pluspetrol, re-inject the contaminated water back into the earth. Pluspetrol say they plan to be able to re-inject 20% of the waste water by 2009. However, Peru's vice-minister for energy and mines, Pedro Gamio, says the government is pressing Pluspetrol to re-inject 100% of the contaminated water by that date. He added that the oil company stated this would be impossible because it lacked the correct equipment to carry out the work. Mr Gamio went on to say he could not order them to stop production because this would affect the country's economy and in turn a portion of the company's royalties, which are returned to the Corrientes region. The region provides 60% of the oil consumed in Peru. At the same time it is also officially registered as a zone of extreme poverty. The Peruvian government says the oil and mineral companies are bringing wealth and helping development in the country. But those representing indigenous communities say they pay too heavy a price. Robert Guimaraes, vice-president of AIDESEP, says: ""The Peruvian state is incapable of imposing sanctions on those who pollute our rivers and our land. Where is the justice?" Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5337802.stm

In his mind-changing book Words That Hurt, Words That Heal, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin makes a powerful case for the old adage, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." He says most of us say hurtful things about others much more often than we realize, and he challenges readers to go 24 hours without saying an unkind word to or about anyone. I failed. Wounding words -- including confidence-crushing criticism, nasty sarcasm, demeaning nicknames and careless gossip – can inflict deep and lasting harm in the form of hurt feelings, negative self-images, damaged reputations and destroyed relationships. Sadly, the victims often are family and friends. Forget "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Telushkin says unless you've been a victim of physical violence, chances are the worst pains you ever suffered came from words. Grounding his views in Scripture, Telushkin says we have an ethical duty to be fair, respectful and careful when we talk about others. What we say about a person affects attitudes and dispositions and shapes reputations in ways that indelibly define that person. Observing that we choose our clothes more carefully than we choose our words, he urges us to use our words as we would a loaded gun. Telushkin is especially hard on gossip. That's a hard one for me. A lot of my conversations involve talking about others. The problem is, such conversations often include unfair, unkind, insensitive or outright malicious digs, jabs and judgments. The crucial message: Be more conscientiously kind and careful in what you say. Emphasize the positive, avoid remarks likely to cause pain or other damage and say nothing you wouldn't want to get back to the person you're talking about. This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts. To receive my commentaries by e-mail at no charge, visit www.charactercounts.org.

New York Times By HEATHER TIMMONS LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue. The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on the issue. There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society. The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with “one or two professional contrarians” who disagree. Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon Mobil, are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that it is difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be attributed to human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do not share. In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or dispute this.” Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from its operations. In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was “very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.” The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with the society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the society considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has stopped. In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward said, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy Network and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do not speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and messages, Exxon Mobil said.

By PHIL DAVIS, Associated Press WriterMon Sep 25, 2006 The news from Indian River Lagoon was too familiar: another dolphin gravely injured because of human action. But marine scientist Steve McCulloch immediately saw this rescue was unique. The baby bottlenose dolphin lost her tail, but perhaps her life could be saved. McCulloch, director of dolphin and whale research at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, decided to channel his anger into a solution. The solution for the dolphin — dubbed Winter — may be a prosthetic tail. If the logistics can be worked out, Winter's prosthesis would be the first for a dolphin who lost its tail and the key joint that allows it to move in powerful up-and-down strokes. "There's never been a dolphin like her," said Dana Zucker, chief operating officer of the Clearwater Marine Aquarium, which is now Winter's home. A dolphin in Japan has a prosthesis, the first in the world, to replace a missing part of its tail. Winter was a frail, dehydrated 3-month-old when she came to the animal rescue center in December. A fisherman found her tangled in the buoy line of a crab trap in Indian River Lagoon near Cape Canaveral. The line tightened around her tail as she tried to swim away, strangling the blood supply to her tail flukes. "It looked like paper," Zucker said of Winter's tail. "Bit by bit over the weeks it just fell off." Winter was left with a rounded stump. A team of more than 150 volunteers and veterinarians spent months nursing Winter back to health. Zucker and her family cuddled with Winter and fed her a special mix of infant formula and pureed fish in the aquarium's rescue pool. Winter learned how to swim without her tail, amazing her handlers with a combination of moves that resemble an alligator's undulations and a shark's side-to-side tail swipes. She uses her flippers, normally employed for steering and braking, to get moving. Winter can't keep up with wild dolphins that can swim up to 25 mph with strokes of their tail flukes. She will be a permanent resident at the aquarium, even if she gets a prosthetic tail. In the tank, she swims and plays with another dolphin, rolling and diving and surfacing to demand belly rubs and fish from her caretakers. Zucker has formed a team to discuss the prospects of designing a tail for Winter. It has been consulting with a diving gear manufacturer, a tire company and the Navy, which has experience attaching items to dolphins for military research. It's uncharted territory. Fuji, an elderly dolphin who lives at an aquarium in Okinawa, Japan, had part of his tail remaining on which to attach a prosthesis. Winter doesn't. Both her tail flukes and peduncle, a wrist-like joint that allows a dolphin's tail to move up and down, were lost to necrosis. It is not clear how the prosthetic tail would be attached to her stump, but it would need to be tough. "The dolphin's tail fin is the most powerful swimming mechanism Mother Nature ever designed," McCulloch said. "When you see how much pressure they put on their flukes, the prosthesis is going to take a marvel of modern engineering." Veterinarians are unsure if a prosthesis will be beneficial or harmful in the long term. Swimming without a tail may ultimately wear on Winter's spine. She would need at least three tails as she grows. She is now about 4 feet long and weighs 110 pounds. When she is full grown at age 15, Winter will be twice as long and four times as heavy. The cost of the prosthetic tail is unknown. "All I know is Fuji's tail cost $100,000 — and that was in 2004," McCulloch said. That's equal to the entire monthly operating budget of the Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Zucker said. The small animal hospital relies mostly on volunteer workers; its roof leaks in heavy rains. "We're a mom and pop shop," Zucker said. "It's a labor of love." She expects the design cost of the tail will be underwritten by the company that creates it. It's the cost of the long-term care of Winter — and the other injured animals in her care — that worry her. Winter is a living reminder for humans to be careful about what they leave in the water. "The kids get it right away. It's the adults, more creatures of habit, who take more persuasion," McCulloch said. "You can't outlaw fishing line, but you can educate a fisherman not to use careless techniques such as tossing out line." Clearwater Marine Aquarium: http://www.cmaquarium.org/ Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution: http://www.hboi.edu