For the first time, Germany has to defend its climate inaction in court

by Rodrigo Estrada
 Angela Merkel showed up to the negotiations of the Paris Climate Agreement
four years ago with the commitment to cut her country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2020. Round numbers, good speeches and photo ops aside, is the German government really working to protect the climate?

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, speaking at the COP23 in Bonn. © Bernd Lauter / Greenpeace

The short answer
from these ecological farmers in Germany is a resounding no. And that is why the Blohms, the Lütke Schwienhorsts and the Backsens are bringing a climate case against the German government. 
This is the first time ever that a German federal administration will have to defend climate inaction in court. Germany is falling short in meeting the climate targets that Merkel’s government wrote. Instead of increasing governmental actions to meet those goals and to live up to the responsibility to halt global heating, the German government simply abandoned them
. 
And that has had a very real impact on these families from Hamburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and Brandenburg.
The Blohms have noticed it in their increasingly reduced annual yields of apples and the fact they had to chop down all their four hectares of cherry trees because of pests moving north. “The changes in the climate also mean changes for us,” according to Claus Blohm. 
The Lütke Schwienhorst family are similarly committed to organic production, and have created a staple family business in their community. But it’s now under threat from the cost of dealing with climate impacts like extended droughts. 
“This year the weather in the summer was especially extreme,” said Heiner Lütke Schwienhorst. “The early summer drought never came to an end.”
They are familiar with hardship, but the climate emergency is pushing them beyond their limits.
That’s also true for the Backsens, who live on Pellworm island in the North Sea. With rising sea levels, they face the challenge of whether their century-old family farm could remain a viable way to make a living for this and the following generations. “Can we continue to do this at all, if things change so much?”
Rising temperatures are impacting agriculture around the world, not just in Europe. These three farming families, committed to organic and local food production, are just a small sample of what’s happening to people in similar situations in Germany and in many other parts of the world. 
You can support these families and many other communities in their calls for justice. Add your name here

and join the global movement to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate emergency.
Rodrigo Estrada is the communications lead for the Climate Justice campaign

What Lies Beneath: Blackwater & The Sargasso Sea

by Katie Camosy

How do you make people care about a place they’ve never heard of? This summer I joined the Greenpeace ship Esperanza as it set sail for the Sargasso Sea, a vast ocean patch in the North Atlantic. Our mission was to show why the Sargasso Sea must be protected under the Global Oceans Treaty.
As the Visuals Lead for this leg of the Pole To Pole expedition, I brought along underwater shooters Tavish Campbell
and Shane Gross to capture the splendour of this unique ecosystem.
 The Sargasso Sea is teeming with wildlife, yet as I looked out at the preternaturally clear waters from the ship, I could see only an occasional seabird or flying fish. To document its biodiversity, we would have to go a little bit deeper.
Blackwater photography

is an emerging art form in which photographers dive into the open ocean, at night, completely untethered. It’s not for the faint of heart.
Shane and Tavish dove down 30 metres over a depth of more than 4,000 metres. At each new layer of depth, they encountered incredible creatures – some larval, others fully grown. Many of these creatures migrated up from the mesopelagic-zone.

A flying fish at night in the Sargasso sea. © Shane Gross/ Greenpeace

A Sargassum crab at 30 feet at night. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


A larval stage lobster at 13,000 feet of water. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


A blackwater image of a jellyfish. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


Species to be identified in the Sargasso Sea. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


A blackwater image of amphipods in the Sargasso Sea. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


A blackwater image of an octopus in the Sargasso Sea. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace


A flying fish near the surface. © Shane Gross / Greenpeace

‘Cattenom Nine’: Activists face jail for sounding the alarm bell on nuclear safety

by Daniel Simons
 In the early hours of 12 October 2017, eight people sneaked inside
the grounds of the Cattenom nuclear plant in northern France. Without much difficulty, they reached the foot of a spent fuel pool – where the still highly radioactive fuel rods are stored after use.

Greenpeace France activists enter the perimeter of the nuclear power plant in Cattenom, Moselle, and set off a fireworks display, close to the spent fuel storage pool. © Vivien Fossez / Greenpeace

It was a scenario Greenpeace France had been warning about since 2001 through numerous reports, letters and speeches. France’s aging fleet of reactors is poorly protected, and not designed to withstand big impacts, such as an explosion set off by terrorists. A loss of water from the spent fuel pools – protected by walls only 30cm thick – could lead to a massive release of radioactivity.
Fortunately, the eight intruders turned out to be peaceful activists from Greenpeace France; they set off some fireworks to demonstrate their presence and then allowed themselves to be led away. The ease with which they had penetrated alarmed the government
of Luxembourg, which lies just north of Cattenom. It also finally spurred the French authorities into action; a parliamentary investigation into nuclear safety was announced the following month.

Greenpeace France activists enter the perimeter of the nuclear power plant in Cattenom, Moselle, and set off a fireworks display, close to the spent fuel storage pool. © Nicolas Chauveau / Greenpeace

It’s a textbook example of the role of non-violent direct action (NVDA) in a democracy, much like the recent climate strikes. When the authorities are sleeping at the wheel, and not responding to polite arguments, citizen action is needed to wake them up. In this case, it did.
A happy end? Unfortunately not. In a classic case of shooting the messenger, prosecutors have pressed for stiff penalties. In February 2018, a court in Thionville sentenced the ‘Cattenom nine’ – the eight activists and a Greenpeace France employee. It imposed a 2-month jail sentence on two of the individuals, and suspended sentences on the rest. It also ordered Greenpeace France to pay €50,000 to the power company, EDF as ‘moral damages’. 
Send a message of support for the Cattenom activists now.
 

Mobilization of support in Thionville ©Greenpeace

These are almost unprecedented sanctions for Greenpeace activists. In 2013, 30 Greenpeace activists spent 2 months in pre-trial detention for a protest against Arctic oil drilling; Russia was later ordered to pay compensation by an international tribunal for detaining them unlawfully. We have to go all the way back to 1987 to find another example that comes close; in that year, Hans Guyt and Willem Beekman were sentenced
to three months in jail by an English judge, for protesting the discharge of waste from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant into the Irish Sea. They were released after 6.5 weeks, however. 
An Australian court took a very different approach
to a very similar action back in 2002. The trespass charges against 46 activists who entered a nuclear facility were dismissed. The judge agreed that protesting outside the front gate wouldn’t have been as effective to demonstrate the inadequate security measures. She added that the “right to protest and the right to express publicly one’s political views, albeit in the form of direct action, is one which is to be valued and protected in the context of a modern democracy.”
On 30 October, the Court of Appeals in Metz will have a chance to set the record straight and show that France indeed values and protects this right. The ‘Cattenom 9’ will be presenting their appeal, arguing the action was justified by a ‘state of necessity’ – a present or imminent danger threatening lives or livelihoods. 

Il y a 2 ans, nos militant·es dénonçaient les failles de sécurité de la centrale #nucléaire

de Cattenom lors d'une action non-violente. Leur procès en appel aura lieu à Metz le 30 octobre. Ils et elles l'ont fait pour nous : soutenons les #9deCattenom https://t.co/h2fZ6AhNMc pic.twitter.com/qyTrvABMJn

— Greenpeace France (@greenpeacefr) October 12, 2019

The activists will need all the backing they can get. You can add your voice of support at https://cartesoutien.greenpeace.fr
, or tweet a message using #9deCattenom.

Daniel Simons is a Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defence with Greenpeace International

5 reasons we’re taking the Norwegian government to court

by Erlend Tellnes
 Norway is a country with a deep connection to nature and the environment. From its snow-capped mountains and ancient forests to its stunning network of fjords, this is a country defined by its natural beauty. Norwegian people too, have a deep respect for their environment. 97% of plastic bottles sold here are recycled, and by market share, Norway is by far the biggest adopter
of electric cars in the world. 

Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior lies moored in Bergen, Norway © Greenpeace/photographer

However, Norway is also a massive exporter of oil.
While the rest of the world is joining forces to battle the climate crisis and to end the age of fossil fuel dependency, the Norwegian government continues to explore and drill for more oil. This is not only unconscionable in the midst of a climate emergency, but we’re also convinced that it’s a violation of the Norwegian Constitution.
You might remember that in 2017 Greenpeace Nordic and our co-plaintiffs, Nature and Youth
, took the Norwegian government to court. This year, we’re appealing the case. We won’t give up the fight to keep Norwegian oil in the ground. And this is why.

1. It conflicts with Norway’s Constitution and the Paris Agreement

Ice sculpture engraved with Article 112 of the Norwegian constitution outside the Oslo courthouse. © Edward Beskow / Greenpeace

Article 112 of the Norwegian constitution states:
“Every person has the right to an environment that is conducive to health and to a natural environment whose productivity and diversity are maintained. Natural resources shall be managed on the basis of comprehensive long-term considerations which will safeguard this right for future generations as well.”
Drilling for oil is clearly incompatible with this fundamental right. In the first round of the lawsuit in 2018, the Court agreed that article 112 confers a right to a healthy environment that the government has a responsibility to uphold and that is enforceable in the courts. Absurdly, though, the Court supported the government’s justifications for drilling for more oil. 
Furthermore, continued oil drilling is in direct contravention of the Paris Climate Accord, of which Norway is a party.

2. Out of sight, out of mind – Norwegian oil is burned outside its borders

The government has adopted an out of sight, out of mind philosophy, where they argue that they are not responsible for the emissions from the oil they drill, because the oil is not burned in Norway.
But no matter where oil is burned, it fuels climate change. 
This is the essence of the Norwegian oil problem –  Norway is an oil giant and the 7th biggest exporter of climate-wrecking emissions on the planet
, yet it refuses to take responsibility for its role in the global climate emergency and its commitment to the Paris Agreement.

3. We’ve already found more oil than we can afford to burn

Activists from Greenpeace Nordic and Greenpeace Germany protest a Statoil oil rig in a fjord in northern Norway. © Will Rose / Greenpeace

We are at a critical point in history. What we already see unfolding is a climate crisis. But companies like Norwegian Equinor are still exploring for new oil, literally drilling us deeper and deeper into this crisis. The science says
: we have already found more oil than we can afford to burn.

4. Climate change is made in Norway

Forest Fires near Irkutsk Region in Russia © Igor Podgorny / Greenpeace

Extreme weather events are becoming larger and more difficult to control and predict. In 2019, hurricane Dorian
spread death and destruction over the Bahamas, while unprecedented wildfires devastated large parts of Siberia , the Amazon and Indonesia , threatening lives and destroying the very forests that help mitigate the worst effects of the climate breakdown. 
Norway, one of the richest countries in the world, can no longer ignore that its role as a major oil and gas producer is contributing to the death and destruction which is hitting vulnerable communities the hardest.
5. We have to fight for climate justice 

The plaintiffs and supporters of this landmark court case standing outside the Norwegian courthouse in Oslo. © Christian Åslund / Greenpeace

With this historic lawsuit, a new generation is stepping up to hold the politicians accountable and stop oil companies from destroying our future. A win in court would mean that these drilling plans get cancelled, potentially preventing the pollution from millions of barrels of oil, and this could also set a precedent to stop other illegal fossil fuel projects.
This case is part of a wave of people stepping up for the climate, and right now there are more than 600 active climate lawsuits
– charging governments and corporations – in 28 countries.  
What would you say to the governments and oil companies who are justifying their climate-wrecking actions with absurd excuses? Support the case by adding your name as evidence in court and writing a statement

. Speak your heart. We’ll use your writing to make our case even stronger.
 Erlend Tellnes is an Arctic Campaigner with Greenpeace Norway

Did you know there are enormous mountains under the sea?

by Helena Kowarick Spiritus

Seamounts are large submarine volcanic mountains, formed through volcanic activity and submerged under the ocean. Though they were once seen as nothing more than a nuisance by sailors, scientists have discovered that the structures of seamounts form wildlife hotspots. The steep slopes of seamounts carry nutrients upwards from the depths of the seafloor towards the sunlit surface, providing the sea life with nutrient-rich food. 

Divers near a wall with mucilage at Pier 4, Island of Santo Stefano, Ventotene. © Lorenzo Moscia / Greenpeace

We are currently on an epic journey, sailing from the Arctic to the Antarctic. We are stopping along the way to do research that will help us understand the complexity of the massive amounts of water that surrounds us. Our next stop is the Mount Vema seamount and here are four things you need to know about it:
1/ Mount Vema is as high as 767 giraffes piled on top of each other

Greenpeace together with the CNR-IAS and the University of the Marche region carry out a tour in the Tyrrhenian Sea. © Lorenzo Moscia / Greenpeace

The Vema seamount was discovered in 1957 (some sources say 1959) by an Oceanographic Research vessel with the same name. From the ocean floor, it stretches 4 600m high. That is 4,5 times higher than the iconic Table Mountain in South Africa, or as high as 767 giraffes piled on top of each other .   Which also means that the peak of Mount Vema is just 26m below the ocean surface, so it will be possible for Greenpeace to go there with human divers and show the amazing biodiversity of the region. 
2/ The first explorers of Mount Vema were on a hunt for diamonds

Greenpeace together with the CNR-IAS and the University of the Marche region carry out a tour in the Tyrrhenian Sea. © Lorenzo Moscia / Greenpeace

The discoverers initially hoped to find large diamond deposits on Vema. Instead they found another kind of wealth: the Tristan rock lobster or Jasus tristani, a lobster species that is otherwise found only on the Tristan da Cunha archipelago about 1,000 nautical miles away. This kind of lobster enjoyed great fame among seafood lovers and sold for a good price, before it became virtually extinct at Mount Vema due to overfishing. The population of Tristan lobsters still hasn’t recovered to this day
3/  Mount Vema is littered with abandoned fishing gear

A ghost net found drifting through the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Many fish were attracted to this net including chubs and jacks. © Justin Hofman / Greenpeace

Now, instead of Tristan lobsters, surveys in the area only find old discarded fishing equipment, a deadly trap for numerous animals. Abandoned fishing gear, called “ghost gear” continues to catch sea creatures as if they were still being used, snaring and entangling species that cannot free themselves and end up dying. This damages both marine life and the fisherman who lose part of their potential catch.
4/ A Global Ocean Treaty could help protect this place

Greenpeace together with the CNR-IAS and the University of the Marche region carry out a tour in the Tyrrhenian Sea. © Lorenzo Moscia / Greenpeace

Seamounts like Mount Vema are often found miles from countries’ national waters, far out on the high seas. That makes it difficult to give them proper protection, as the gaps in existing regulations can be easily exploited by destructive industries. This is why we are campaigning for a global treaty to protect the high seas, so that unique ecosystems like Vema’s can finally be protected effectively. 
Greenpeace is going from pole to pole to show the biodiversity, threats and possible solutions to protect our oceans, and Mount Vema is the next stop!
Joins us to cover our planet in ocean sanctuaries.

Helena Kowarick Spiritus is an oceans campaigner with Greenpeace Germany

Join Global Refill Day to stop plastic pollution on November 6!

by Jen Fela
 Your voices are being heard—loud and clear—in the fight against plastic pollution. To date, more than 5 million people around the world have joined us to tell companies to reduce their production of single-use plastic
. Thanks to your demands for change, corporations like Nestlé know they need to act. And the best way to keep pushing them right now is to demonstrate the systemic change we wish to see.
Join thousands of people around the world in a Global Refill Day on November 6!

How to join Global Refill Day? It’s simple! Take your reusable container to a supermarket, cafe, or restaurant, and ask for it to be filled with the food or drink of your choice. Take a photo before and after you asked. Was your container filled or not? Share the photos on social media using #ReuseRevolution and #BreakFreeFromPlastic and be sure to tag the company praising or shaming (and also tag @greenpeace so we can share)! 

We need companies to focus on refillable and reusable systems instead of throwaway packaging. The Reuse Revolution is the real solution to the plastic pollution crisis, and people everywhere are leading the charge to ditch single-use plastic for good. There are private and public initiatives to implement reusable systems, like the Zero Waste Living Lab in Indonesia—just one of many inspiring examples around the world! From new innovations to “old school” ideas, from refill stations to zero waste cities
, and even rock stars committing to refill , the energy to shift away from the throwaway culture is on the rise! 
We need to show companies the world is moving toward reuse with or without them. It is time to come together and show that a small act, multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.
If Global Refill Day has you feeling inspired and you want to do more, be sure to check out the Break Free From Plastic Global Week of Action page
for even more ways to take action with our allies this November. Just this past month, Break Free From Plastic

engaged more than 70,000 volunteers in 51 countries to conduct 484 brand audits that identified Coca Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mondelez International, and Unilever as the top plastics polluters. 

We’re not letting these companies off the hook or trusting their false solutions. Join Global Refill Day and help lead the way toward the future we want.
–Jen Fela is the Global Engagement Lead for the Plastic-Free Future Campaign at Greenpeace USA

Greenpeace realiza sobrevoo em Abrolhos

por Greenpeace Brasil
 O objetivo do sobrevoo foi monitorar a região de Abrolhos e verificar hipóteses sobre aproximação de manchas de petróleo na região

Foto realizada durante sobrevoo no arquipélago de Abrolhos © Marcelo Laterman/Greenpeace

Na tarde desta quarta-feira, dia 30, o Greenpeace realizou um sobrevoo até a região de Abrolhos com o objetivo de buscar evidências concretas de uma possível mancha de óleo detectada por pesquisadores da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) a partir de imagens de satélite. A equipe do Greenpeace analisou as imagens e, diante das suspeitas, organizou este monitoramento para verificar se de fato a mancha era uma ameaça de petróleo na região. Após cinco horas de sobrevoo, não foram encontradas evidências de petróleo na superfície. 
O sobrevoo percorreu uma área de cerca de 3.300 km² no Parque Nacional Marinho de Abrolhos, iniciando pelo arquipélago de cinco ilhas e seguindo por seis pontos identificados nas análises espaciais. Ainda assim, o fato de o sobrevoo não ter conseguido localizar manchas na superfície não significa que a região esteja livre de ameaças, já que o óleo tem aparecido na superfície apenas quando está próximo das praias.
“Felizmente não identificamos no sobrevoo a suposta mancha de óleo que havia sido detectada nos satélites e que teria impacto enorme e irreversível sobre Abrolhos. Mas o santuário e as reservas extrativistas do entorno continuam sob ameaça e é necessário que haja um esforço de monitoramento para evitar que o óleo que está atingindo a costa do Nordeste brasileiro chegue também a Abrolhos”, afirma Marcelo Laterman, da Campanha de Clima e Energia do Greenpeace.
A análise espacial é um recurso importante para a prevenção e alerta de possíveis novas manchas, porém a validação no local é ainda mais precisa, conforme indicam os pesquisadores. Assim, diante do conflito de análises entre órgãos oficiais e pesquisadores, o Greenpeace atuou de forma independente para buscar evidências dessa possível mancha que poderia afetar a região que abriga a maior biodiversidade marinha conhecida em todo o Atlântico Sul. Continuaremos considerando todas as alternativas que possam ajudar a mitigar os impactos da mancha de óleo no Nordeste e impedir que elas cheguem a novos lugares.
Enquanto isso, continuamos exigindo que o governo assuma sua responsabilidade e atue de maneira mais eficaz no combate às manchas que continuam aparecendo e trazendo prejuízos para as pessoas e o meio ambiente. Até que esta tragédia seja equacionada de forma definitiva e seja comprovado que o Brasil é capaz de lidar com desastres dessa magnitude causado pelo vazamento de óleo, o governo deve suspender todos os leilões de petróleo no Brasil.

Praias contaminadas, população em risco

por Greenpeace Brasil 

 Casos de intoxicação pelo petróleo cru nas praias do Nordeste confirmam nossa preocupação e reforçam o alerta para a necessidade de proteção

Em Recife, algumas praias estão restringindo a limpeza do óleo apenas aos voluntários que possuem Equipamentos de Proteção Individual. © Mariana Oliveira / Greenpeace

Assim que o óleo apareceu nas areias e mares do Nordeste, a população rapidamente reagiu e colocou sua vida em risco para limpar as praias e salvar os animais. Nós, do Greenpeace, procuramos alertar para a necessidade de que isso fosse feito por pessoas capacitadas, ou seja, com os devidos equipamentos de segurança, pois as substâncias do óleo são tóxicas. No entanto, na tentativa de nos atacar e causar distração, nossa fala chegou a ser tirada de contexto para ser usada como a justificativa de que não iríamos colaborar na contenção das manchas, quando na verdade estávamos cobrando que a responsabilidade deste serviço deveria ser do governo, em função dos riscos envolvidos. Agora, infelizmente, os casos de intoxicação que começam a surgir comprovam tanto a nossa preocupação quanto a omissão do governo em garantir a segurança das pessoas.
Na região do Litoral Sul de Pernambuco já apareceram 17 casos de pessoas contaminadas pelo contato com o petróleo
, seja com manifestações cutâneas pelo contato direto ou manifestações respiratórias pela inalação do gás por ele liberado. Como a reportagem do Intercept apontou , ao denunciar que voluntários estavam sendo explorados pela inação do governo, “o material encontrado nas praias é petróleo cru, rico em hidrocarbonetos cancerígenos. Também pode causar asfixia em altas concentrações. A curto prazo, gera problemas dermatológicos e respiratórios. A longo do tempo, pode gerar problemas neurológicos e alguns tipos de câncer, como leucemia”.

Criança mostra o contato com óleo em praia de Fortaleza. © Pedro Tavares / Greenpeace

Em função disso, agora, em muitas praias só pessoas com os equipamentos de proteção individual (EPI) têm sido autorizados a atuar diretamente na limpeza de óleo na areia ou no mar. O equipamento inclui botas, luvas, macacão, máscara e óculos. Nós do Greenpeace estamos distribuindo os EPIs aos nossos ativistas e voluntários para que os riscos à saúde sejam minimizados. Exaltamos o trabalho de mobilização que realizam, seja por necessidade ou indignação, na tentativa de reagir a essa destruição do petróleo, mas é fundamental que isso seja feito com segurança. Em muitos lugares, no entanto, são as próprias pessoas e organizações, que vêm providenciando esses equipamentos, para suprir a omissão do governo.
Muitos especialistas vêm tentando alertar a população como podem. A professora Soraya Giovanetti El-Deir, da Engenharia Ambiental da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, gravou um áudio pelo Whatsapp com várias recomendações para as comunidades locais em praias do Recife: “Precisamos suspender a alimentação de qualquer pescado marinho neste momento, e monitorar as pessoas que atuaram como voluntárias e que não estavam com EPI (Equipamento de Proteção Individual) correto. Se houver alguma alteração como insônia, dor de cabeça, mal estar ou tontura, isso significa que houve um reflexo da contaminação. O recomendável então é tomar bastante água, leite e, se os sintomas persistirem, ir até o hospital”. 

Pescador volta do mar com equipamentos sujos de óleo em Japaratinga, Alagoas. © Mariana Oliveira / Greenpeace

Quer saber como ajudar? Estamos dando apoio aos nossos times de voluntários que realizam atividades em várias cidades afetadas.  Acompanhe em nosso site e junte-se a eles.

Gaia: everything on Earth is connected

by Rex Weyler

In Greek mythology only Chaos precedes Gaia. Gaia was the Greek goddess of Earth, mother of all life, similar to the Roman Terra Mater (mother Earth) reclining with a cornucopia, or the Andean Pachamama, the Hindu, Prithvi, “the Vast One,” or the Hopi Kokyangwuti, Spider Grandmother, who with Sun god Tawa created Earth and its creatures. 

Planet Earth from space. © NASA / Greenpeace

James Lovelock, the British independent scientist, turned 100 this year. His seminal book, Gaia, published 40 years ago, helped shift popular perceptions about the Earth.
The book proposed a hypothesis developed by Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis, that life on Earth self-regulates its environment to create optimum conditions for the additional advancement of life. Living organisms concentrate useful elements, compounds, and nutrients, and redistribute them into the water, soil, and atmosphere where they stabilize climate, feed other life forms, and influence the environment in which they evolved. 
Margulis had studied symbiosis in early organisms and formulated the proposal that eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei) had evolved as a symbiotic union of primitive cells without nuclei – an example of how life creates conditions for more advanced life. In 1978, Robert Schwartz and Margaret Dayhoff demonstrated
that mitochondria descended from bacteria and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria, providing experimental evidence for Margulis’ theory.
In the 1970s, while working with the US space program, Lovelock developed
methods for determining whether a planet supported life. He focused on the fact that living organisms naturally change a planet’s atmosphere, described how life changed Earth’s atmosphere, and developed the idea that Earth’s sulfur cycle provided an example of how biological life could create the conditions for more life. Lovelock also pointed out in the 1970s that humanity was changing Earth’s atmosphere, with dangerous implications. 
Together, in 1974, Lovelock and Margulis published
“Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis”. They proposed that, “early after life began it acquired control of the planetary environment and that this homeostasis by and for the biosphere has persisted ever since.” 
Not all biologists agreed with the premise. Others pointed out
that many of life’s evolutionary pathways may occur by chance (asteroids, radiation effects on mutation, and so forth) or in chaotic fashion (landslides, eruptions) and that life’s influence did not really “control” the environment. Some critics objected to Lovelock’s statement that life “manages” its environment, as a mechanistic metaphor that implied some sort of collective intention. Nevertheless, life’s concentration and distribution of compounds did create conditions for new life forms to arise. 
Soil, for example, is a product of growing, dying, and decomposing life forms, mixing with geological minerals, some of which are separated from rock by other life forms, another example of how life creates the conditions for more advanced life. 

Soil with worms. © Greenpeace / Vivek M.

The patterns that connect

Many concepts developed in Lovelock’s Gaia, were not new, of course, although some of the science to support these ideas was new. Over 2,500 years ago, Taoists considered
the natural patterns of Earth and living beings as primary, and that “all creatures lived together in mystic unity,” co-evolving and feeding each other. 
Many Indigenous cultures understood that they were part of, and lived within, a larger living community of life that included air, water, soil, and fire. The North American Lakota term, Mitákuye Oyás’in (all our relations) recognizes this fundamental kinship among all beings. 
In the 1940s, while writing his Ph.D. dissertation
on “The Biogeochemistry of Strontium in the ecosystem,” American ornithologist Howard Odum development a scientific description of this relatedness, systems ecology, Earth’s biosphere and geology as one great ecosystem in which all life forms co-evolve. 
Meanwhile, anthropologist and ecologist Gregory Bateson extended systems theory and cybernetics to the social and behavioral sciences. Bateson often repeated
the observation by 18th century naturalist George-Louis Leclerc that “all divisions are arbitrary.” For the convenience of discourse, we speak of a “tree” “soil” or an “atmosphere,” but none of these exist as they are without the others, and they all exchange molecules and compounds continually. Our language is noun-verb based, but we observe nothing in isolation. Science describes relationships among dynamic, co-evolving processes. Bateson urged ecologists to look for “the patterns that connect.” The survival unit in nature is not an individual, not even a species, but “a species in an ecosystem.”
In 1945, the physicist Erwin Schrodinger pointed out
that, from an energy transformation perspective, any life form functions as “a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment, emitting high-entropy outputs.” Translation: Living organisms consume concentrated energy and nutrients, and emit dissipated energy and waste. 

A Borneo langur, in Antan Kalang village, holds the hand of a villager. © Greenpeace / Ardiles Rante

Economist Herman Daly reminds us
that, “the same statement would hold verbatim as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is that an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products.” All organisms require other organisms to metabolize their waste. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen; we breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. The system survives together. Ultimately, all divisions prove arbitrary. 

Dynamic equilibrium

Rachel Carson showed, in her 1962 book, Silent Spring, that when a single species grows dominant and scatters its waste throughout its environment, the system can tip out of balance.
Evolution’s earliest example occurred about three billion years ago when certain sulfur-based anaerobic bacteria evolved to absorb carbon dioxide and solar energy, emitting oxygen. Within another half-billion years, these photosynthetic organisms combined to develop nuclei in their cells, as described by Lynn Margulis. They reproduced so quickly and became so successful that they filled the oceans and atmosphere with oxygen, which to them was a poison. Earth’s first major extinction event followed, as many species perished in the poisonous oxygen environment they had created. 
Within another half-billion years, oxygen-metabolizing bacteria evolved, cleaned up the oxygen, and emitted carbon dioxide. Plants and animals have mutually balanced Earth’s atmosphere ever since. Until recently. As we are all too painfully aware, the success of humans has again unbalanced Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Humans are not “the only animal that fouls its nest,” as we sometimes read
; all organisms emit waste products, in which they cannot survive. We must, rather, accept limits to growth and protect species diversity, to metabolize our waste. 

Close up of fungus, moss and lichen in the Boreal forest. © Markus Mauthe / Greenpeace

In the 1970s, Russian chemist, Ilya Prigogine
, won the Nobel Prize for his description of the connection among evolution, organic chemistry, thermodynamics, and “dissipative structures,” living or non-living systems that transform energy. The larger meta-system, Prigogine concluded , does not sustain species, but rather sustains relationships. Everything co-evolves, and no part of the system can “manage” or “control” the myriad layers of embedded systems and sub-systems. “Sustainability” in ecology is “dynamic equilibrium,” a system of sub-systems that maintains regenerative patterns through feedback mechanisms. Such living systems involve tipping points, chaos, complexity, and random characteristics. Our understanding of these systems involves biophysical and neuro-psychological interfaces and the vagaries of communication among communities and individuals.  

Rough Ride

Lovelock and Margulis stitched all of this science and tradition together with the metaphor of “Gaia,” the mother of all life. The living Earth gives rise to everything that follows and it operates as a whole. Living systems do not require “intention,” to find a path through chaos and happenstance. What is sustainable endures, what is not, perishes. 
We know that living forms grow into each other and compete for resources. We’ve seen the thorns on blackberries and the claws of predators. Humans are no more guilty than blackberries for reaching out and growing into any available space. However, at a deeper level, living organisms must cooperate to endure. 
The growth of humanity on Earth, even the overgrowth, is itself natural. Wolves and algae also overgrow their habitat. Everything does. But eventually, every living organism – systems within systems – must form an alliance with the biophysical ecosystem in which they live. 
In 1988, nine years after the Gaia was published, Lovelock wrote a sequel, Ages of Gaia, which pointed out that humans, like all species, do not get a special exemption from these evolutionary demands. In 2006, he published The Revenge of Gaia lamenting that biodiversity collapse, disrupted nutrient cycles, depleted soils, and other ecological challenges were limiting Gaia’s capacity to mitigate the effects of global heating. He predicted a collapse of civilization as we know it. 

The remains of a Peary Caribou (Rangifer tarandus pearyi) in the Canadian High Arctic. © Greenpeace / Steve Morgan

Three years later, in 2009, he backed off the apocalyptic vision in The Vanishing Face of Gaia, suggesting that human society could reduce carbon emissions. Lovelock alienated many environmentalists and peace activists by suggesting
that, “only nuclear power can now halt global warming.” His proposal failed to adequately answer the persistent challenges of nuclear power: the real carbon costs, health effects, meltdowns, weapons proliferation, radioactive waste, and the sheer scale of humanity’s energy demand. In that same year Lovelock promoted Population Matters acknowledging that the growth of human numbers posed ecological challenges.  In 2014, Lovelock wrote A Rough Ride to the Future suggesting that efforts to reduce carbon emissions were failing, that political solutions appeared impossible, and that “sustainable retreat” or “adaption” to a changing world would be necessary. 
Lovelock struggled as much as any of us to arrive at a prescription for shifting industrial, consumer society toward an ecological society. Nevertheless, Gaia reframed the popular picture of Earth, as a single, living system, and helped launch the modern ecology movement.  

---

References and links: 
Lovelock, J. E.; Margulis, L., “Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis”. Tellus / Wiley Library
. 26: 2, 1974.
By RM Schwartz, R.M; and Dayhoff, M. O., “Origins of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, mitochondria, and chloroplasts, Science
, Vol. 199, Issue 4327, 1978. 
Lovelock, J. E.; Maggs, R. J.; Wade, R. J. (1973). “Halogenated Hydrocarbons in and over the Atlantic”. Nature
. 241 (5386): 194. 
Charlson, R. J.; Lovelock, J. E.; Andreae, M. O.; Warren, S. G. (1987). “Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate”. Nature
. 326 (6114): 655
Howard Odum: 1953, “Fundamentals of Ecology,” with Eugene P. Odum
1983, Systems Ecology : an Introduction.
Gregory Bateson: 1972: Steps to an Ecology of Mind
: collected essays; 1979: Mind and Nature : Systems, complexity, co-evolution; Film: Ecology of Mind , by daughter Nora Bateson; summary of Bateson’s work. 
Edwin Schroedinger, ” What is Life?”: Cambridge University Press
; 1992. 
Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, “Order Out of Chaos;” Bantam Books
; 1984. 
Prigogine, G. Nicolis, “Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems,” Wiley; book
, and abstract and preview at Springer . 
“James Lovelock reflects on Gaia’s legacy,” interview with Phillip Ball, Nature
, 2014.
James Lovelock, “The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth,” Oxford University Press, 1989; W. W. Norton
, 1995.
James Lovelock, “The Revenge of Gaia,” Basic Books
, 2006, and review in The Guardian . 
James Lovelock, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia,” Basic Books
, 2009, and review in The Guardian , 2009. 
James Lovelock, “A Rough Ride to the Future: The Next Evolution of Gaia,” review by Tim Lenton, Nature

508, 2014

about the author

Rex Weyler

Rex Weyler was a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation, the editor of the organisation's first newsletter, and a co-founder of Greenpeace International in 1979. Rex's column reflects on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter

or visit his personal website

.

L