Skeptical Environmentalist

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=110 BGCOLOR="#999933" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="040006e0ddwnfv.png"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" ><B>Sage - Oxford's Christian Environmental Group</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFCC" FACE="Arial" ><B>     |    </B></FONT><B> </B><A HREF="index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sage Oxfords Christian Environmental Gr"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>A response to </B><I><B>The Skeptical Environmentalist</B></I></div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=190 BGCOLOR="#CCCC99" TEXT="#080000" background="041bec00esnpes.png"> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=370 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>Skeptical Environmentalist</B></div> <div> A response to <I>The Skeptical Environmentalist</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Karl Wallendszus</B></div> <bR> <div> Bjørn Lomborg's book <I>The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World</I> has caused huge controversy since its publication in English in 2001. Lomborg is a statistician and political scientist at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and in the book he vigorously attacks the environmental movement and environmental scientists. He is not the first person to do so, but I had the sense that this attack was somehow different and more serious than other voices in the anti-green backlash. This article is a brief account of my reading of the book and the surrounding debate.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Lomborg's thesis</B></div> <div> <I>The Skeptical Environmentalist</I> is a reaction to what Lomborg calls “The Litany” espoused by environmentalists. It purports to examine the scientific evidence behind this litany and finds it wanting: Lomborg considers most claims of environmental problems to be hugely exaggerated or just wrong, and based on selective use of scientific data. In the “real state of the world”, while Lomborg acknowledges that problems do exist, the situation is improving in every area that he looks at, including human health, poverty, hunger, energy, water, pollution, biodiversity and climate change. The implication is that most of these problems will sort themselves out if we more or less continue what we are doing.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The scientific reaction</B></div> <div> Lomborg's view is contrary to that not only of environmentalists, but also that of the majority of scientists working in these areas, and many of them have been quick to defend themselves. In January 2002, <I>Scientific American</I> published four responses to Lomborg's book by experts in the areas of climate change, energy, population and biodiversity, all of which were highly critical. Their criticisms tended to fall into a few categories. Firstly, Lomborg has a tendency to construct “straw man” arguments, which he then demolishes. This is something I also felt when reading the book. One example is Lomborg's lengthy rebuttal of the idea that the world is about to run out of oil. It is true that we are not about to run out of oil, but few if any environmentalists (or anyone else for that matter) believe that we are. Environmentalists are concerned about oil primarily for other reasons, notably the associated carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change. Secondly, the scientists point out numerous factual errors or apparent misunderstandings on Lomborg's part, ranging from the proportion of energy produced by nuclear power to the evidence for acid rain causing damage to forests. Perhaps that is due Lomborg's lack of scientific background in these areas. Thirdly, Lomborg is highly selective in the data he cites and the scientists' statements he quotes, often misrepresenting them to support his case. This is, of course, one of the many things he criticises environmentalists for.</div> <div> Lomborg wrote a lengthy rebuttal to these scientific criticisms, and Scientific American then published a rebuttal to his rebuttal - this one could run and run! If you want to follow the details of these exchanges, you can do so <I>via</I> the websites listed below. However, I want to concentrate on a couple of areas of the debate by way of illustration. These are the two environmental problems which I personally think are the most important, namely loss of biodiversity and climate change.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Biodiversity</B></div> <div> Most biologists consider loss of species to be a serious problem because the rate of extinction is far higher now than it would be without human influence, and of course it is irreversible. It is difficult to quantify the extinction rate because we don't know how many species there are yet to be discovered, but it can be estimated based on the loss of habitat. Lomborg draws attention to some very high extinction rates that were estimated by some ecologists in the past, and points out that they have now been revised downwards. The estimate for the current extinction rate that Lomborg accepts is 0.7% of species every 50 years. This does not sound like much, but it is still about 1500 times the background rate, and represents a large number of extinctions. It also does not take into account species that are massively depleted in number without becoming extinct - yet. The chapter on forests is also very superficial. Lomborg points out that the total amount of forest in the world is not declining very much, without distinguishing between old-growth species-rich forest and very much poorer degraded forests and plantations. Lomborg poses the legitimate question of why biodiversity matters, and concludes that in general, it does not matter very much, because most species have little or no economic value. This is a very narrow definition of what “matters”, but is one that typifies Lomborg's approach.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Climate change</B></div> <div> Unlike some “contrarians”, Lomborg does not deny global warming. He accepts that human activity will cause climate change and that this is a serious problem. His view is rather that the cost of doing very much about it is more than the cost of the problems. Climate science is extremely complex and there are large uncertainties, which is one reason why the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to try and develop a consensus view that would be useful to policy makers. When the IPCC makes predictions about, for example, the global temperature rise over the next century, they give a range of possibilities. When estimates of costs are added to this, the uncertainties become even greater, but Lomborg consistently accepts the extremes of the range of predictions that support his view and rejects those that don't. Lomborg is very critical of the Kyoto Protocol, contending that if it were complied with, it would only have a tiny effect on the global temperature. However, even its supporters accept that this would be true if the emission reductions specified by Kyoto were the only measures being taken. Environmentalists regard Kyoto only as a first step, and campaign for much more radical changes in order to have a substantial effect on climate.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusions</B></div> <div> <I>The Skeptical Environmentalist</I> may be a useful reminder to us that if we want to bring about change in society towards a better environment, we need to be accurate with our facts and base our arguments on scientific data. Lomborg is undoubtedly right in criticising some environmentalists for overstating their case. However, for me, these good points are heavily outweighed by Lomborg's failure to heed his own advice. As far as I can see the book is not the impartial search for truth that it purports to be, but rather an argument being made by someone with an axe to grind. The danger is that the attention that the book has achieved in the popular media will not be balanced by the counter arguments - a contrary view is always more newsworthy, but not necessarily more true. As environmentalists, we can point to the views of the experts in the field, but we should be wary of taking Lomborg's scepticism more seriously than it deserves.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Further information</B></div> <div> Bjørn Lomborg. <I>The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. </I>2001, Cambridge University Press.</div> <div> John Rennie. Misleading math about the Earth. <I>Scientific American</I>. January 2002.</div> <bR> <div> <I>Web sites:</I></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.lomborg.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.lomborg.org"><U><U>www.lomborg.org</U></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     Lomborg's own web site, including the first chapter of the book.</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.sciam.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.sciam.com"><U><U>www.sciam.com</U></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     Scientific American site, including exchanges between Lomborg and his critics.</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.anti-lomborg.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.anti-lomborg.com"><U><U>www.anti-lomborg.com</U></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     Site set up by Oxford-based environmentalists.</FONT></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>