Polar cities are now being dubbed “Lovelock cities” in honor of James Lovelock, who has said that in the future human populations will likely be reduced greatly by global warming and only “breeding pairs in the Arctic” will keep the human species going. This is where the idea of polar cities germinated from.

Now, after blogging about polar cities for almost 2 years, and getting a little ink here and there, mostly in the blogosphere (and almost nothing in the mainstream media) I have decided to dub polar cities as “Lovelock Cities” in honor of James Lovelock, and also to help reporters and editors and readers understand better that these so-called polar cities at NOT at the poles per se, but merely in northern areas of the world; some Lovelock cities might be situated in Colorado, Switzerland and Britain, in fact. New Zealand and Tasmania, too. Patagonia, too. None at the North Pole because the North Pole will be underwater (or is that under water?).

At any rate, you heard the term first today here: LOVELOCK CITIES. May they help preserve the human spirit and the human species in the far distant future, IF WE NEED THEM. Let’s hope we never need them. Remember, this is all a “just in case” scenario. A “what if” scenario.

Here’s a timeline for Lovelock Cities:

2008-2050 : business as usual; meetings, conferences, talk talk talk

2050 – 2080 : preparations finally get underway

2100 : first mass migrations to Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Britain, Tasmani, New Zealand, Patagonia begin

2200 : second wave of mass migrations bring more people north from India, Africa, Asia and the Americas — and south to Tasmania and New Zealand

2300 : World Government Body (WGB) set up first officially sanctioned polar cities for breeding pairs in the Arctic, also known as Lovelock Cities

2400 : major climate disasters worldwide with scarce food, fuel, power, and other resources (coupled with overpopulation) begin reducing world population from 9 billion people to 1 billion people

2500 : world population declines to just 200,000 “breeding pairs” in the Arctic (and southern extremes as well, including Antarctica) in 100 to 30 Lovelock Cities situated in those regions and administered and governed by the World Government Body or some such entity, perhaps the IPCC. [Mad Max conditions outside these Lovelock Cities, aka polar cities, last for 1000 years... until 3500]

4500 : The human species has made it through the Great Interruption, intact but greatly reduced in numbers. Full recovery possible beginning in 4500. Hope springs eternal.

Note A: children born in Lovelock Cities (aka Polar Cities) are mixed DNA humans of combined Caucasian-Asian-African-Hispanic-Arab stock, creating a new “race” on Earth

Note B: a new religious perspective develops before, during and after the Great Interruption to help humans cope with and understand what has happened to them

From our point-of-view, they must be the first to go or we are all doomed. It is debatable whether we have time to save civilisation-as-we-know-it; certainly the sooner and more decisively we get moving, the better the chances. However, for that to happen, those in power need to step aside, or be removed. It’s that simple, and that blunt.

Our current system rewards people with an arrogant worldview, and we can no longer afford this arrogance. We need wisdom, but the CEOs and top politicians and union bosses will not step aside. They will stall and fight and attempt to divide us every step of the way.

“I no longer care much about the science of global warming. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world’s total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world — all 6.6 billion of them — to use less energy? The short answer: we can’t. The developed countries of the world can talk forever about the virtues of solar panels and windmills, but what the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline” –Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of ‘Energy Independence

Cutting emissions and waiting for a damaged Earth to remove the excess CO2 from the air is a weak (and expensive) mitigation strategy.

Dr James Hansen of NASA says that any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing CO2 from the air.

I suggest the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of biosequestration. Read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information.

“But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write: Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure.” (New York Times, Oct. 1)