His views on nuclear power are interesting. He thinks that nuclear is the only real solution to climate change.
http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green...
http://www.jameslovelock.org/nuclear-power-is-the-only-green...
I'm an expert at automation. That means I have an excellent sense of what tasks can be automated and how soon, and of a lot of the societal consequences of technological progress, but that doesn't automatically qualify me to choose the best public policy to prevent the associated loss of jobs or help the people who get unemployed as a result.
In any case, one thing climate scientists know better than anyone is the urgency of the problem. Consequently, they only want to fix the climate, as quickly and directly as possible. A lot of other people seem to use climate as an excuse to push for other goals.
Scientist that he is, I very much doubt that he didn't factor it in. (You may disagree with his conclusions).
I see it as a well-understood technical problem with well-reasoned technical solutions. But the politics of "what so we do with the waste?" are basically self-sustaining now.