The Skeptical Environmentalist

-cman- writes: "The issue of human impact on the global environment is one -- if not the most --important and divisive issues of our generation. There are two key questions involved; is human activity having a major impact on the climate of the Earth? What, if anything should be done to minimize that impact? It is within the lifetimes of most of Slashdot's readers that we begin to get answers to these questions. We will either begin to make policy and economic changes to protect the environment or we won't. And towards the middle and end of this century we will begin to see real-time data to validate some of the predictions being bandied about by environmental scientists. Amid all the uncertainty that the above two questions generate comes a new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist; Measuring the Real State of the World.." Read on for the rest of -cman-'s review.

The Skeptical Environmentalist
author	Bjorn Lomborg
pages	540
publisher	Cambridge University Press
rating	8
reviewer	-cman-
ISBN	0521010683
summary	This book takes a careful look at existing environmental data, with some surprising conclusions and resulting controversy.

The book has caused quite a stir in the circles of environmental activism. Bjorn Lomborg, coming from a green background, has thoroughly reviewed much of the work in the field and raised some concerns about the quality of the consensus analysis and conclusions. Sample chapters and further defense of his work can be found at www.lomborg.com

Disclosure Statement: I am a small 'g' green. I am a member of the Viridian Design Movement if not of the Green Party USA. I hold as a matter of fact that dependence on hydrocarbons is unsustainable for both the developed world and as a path to long-term growth for the developing world. I strongly believe that it is a moral imperative for humanity to preserve as much of the planet's natural beauty and habitat as possible. My general impression with the state of climate studies is that human activity is probably having an effect on the global climate. To what extent is a matter still open for debate in my opinion. But hey, its OUR PLANET we're talking about, so why take chances? That said, I also consider myself to be just as rabid an empiricist. I detest being led about by phony data or false conclusions, and I will not support any cause that cannot bring itself to tell the truth to the public about its data and agenda. If the current data does not fit my model of how life should be, I know that I shouldn't blame the data or the messenger. So, I am trying to be as objective as possible here, but I am coming from the green end and analyzing this work in that light.

Lomborg is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhaus in Denmark. His specialty, indeed his only other major academic paper, is in the field of game theory. Lomborg -- once upon a time a deep green himself -- set out in 1997 to debunk the claims of economist Julian Simon, a environmental degradation doubter. He found that much of the data had a tendency to support Simon. This lead him to a thorough review of much of the major scientific work in four major areas of "the environmental litany" (Lomborg's words).

• We are depleting a finite supply of natural resources.
• The human population continues to grow, threatening our ability to feed the teeming billions.
• Species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, deforestation is accelerating and fish stocks are collapsing.
• The air and water are becoming ever more polluted.

The result was The Skeptical Environmentalist. In each of these areas, Lomborg looks at a broad swath of the scientific work done to date to support these claims and finds them wanting. He gets very specific and points out numerous errors of omission as well as slanting of the data and just plain making up results to fit the hypothesis. Lomborg accuses environmental scientists of behaving more like lobbyists trying to put the best possible spin on an issue by manipulating the facts. He also takes to task a credulous media for swallowing this tripe hook, line, and sinker, as it were. Sadly, in some key areas Lomborg has -- either through ignorance or purposefully -- committed errors of omission and selective data use to make some of the same mistakes in analysis, and this very much reduces his credibility.

The first thing that sets the book apart from almost all nonacademic works in the area is the completeness and openness of the research. The book is copiously footnoted. Because of this it is clear from some of the attacks on Lomborg that his critics have been unable to muster the stomach to give it a thorough read, as many make totally false claims about Lomborg's inclusion or reference to specific studies and specific cases. If for no other reason, this completeness makes The Skeptical Environmentalist a valuable resource for anyone interested in environmental science. It is a very complete bibliography of the current work in the field. There are over 2,900 end notes in this 500 page book.

The thing that makes the environment such a slippery public policy subject is its uncertainty. Although the state of our understanding of climate and ecological complexity grows each year, it is still unable to predict with any certainty future events. The only thing that will prove a particular set of data is the future. At which time, of course, it is impossible to take preventative action.

It is probably quite understandable that environmental scientists would take great umbrage at both Lomborg's cheek and his conclusions; seeing how they pose a threat to a consensus of opinion about the state of the global environment and the degree of risk human activity poses. These are people with years of interest vested in their research and in using that research to try and get through to public and politicians who show a lot of reluctance to take on the problems and potential threats of human impact on the environment.

Lomborg quite correctly points out in his chapter on pollution that the worst pollution effects are the results of the early and middle stages of industrial development. Here he states that things are getting better in the developed world and as technology advances, the environmental impact of human activity will be reduced. He acknowledges that something must be done to help the developing world find a different path of development than that already taken by the developed nations. Lomborg takes the green movement to task here for trying to do everything at once; forcing developing nations to spend on "clean" technologies while spending on health and economic development for the poor nations. After wading through what must have been a mind-numbing torrent of cost-benefit analysis data, Lomborg says that choices must be made, political and financial resources are finite and some levels of protection cost more than they are worth. However, one must deeply fault Lomborg's cost-benefit analysis for not making a good attempt to elucidate the cost of environmental degradation per se but instead focusing on pure human property and health costs. What price does one put on the stability of the Gulf Stream currents? What is the actual opportunity cost of one barrel of oil considering it comes from finite supply for which the actual amount is unknown and the burning of which causes environmental costs we can only approximate? These questions have vexed economists for decades, but the answers are surely not zero.

Lomborg's big picture of the general shape of the global climate and of biodiversity is one that debunks most of the more extreme forecasts. In this he has produced valuable analysis. But by his own admission he has skipped over local trends and impacts that have profound social and economic implications. For example, while stating that the actual rate of species extinction over the next 50 years is more likely to be 0.7% rather than the 20-50% numbers bandied about by the World Wildlife Fund et. al., he misses the threat of local species crashes such as that of Atlantic Cod that nearly ruined the fishing industry Eastern North America and Northern Europe in the 1980s and the resulting threat to previously unfished stocks as industrial fishing operations switched to roughy and so on.

The big picture and long-term focus also misses the boat on another key issue. Recent analysis of deep-ice core samples at the poles and in Greenland have shown that in the past, the climate has changed very sharply and very rapidly; on the order of several degrees of average temperature in a decade or less. These changes are probably due to snap changes in the ocean currents caused by salinity levels and minute temperature deviations that, when they go over a certain level "trigger" such events as the mini-Ice Age of the 1500s to mid-1800s. Lomborg completely bypasses addressing the fact that even the minimal human environmental impact he says the data supports could be enough to tip the balance in these areas. And should such evens occur, even Lomborg would admit they would be economically and politically devastating. Perhaps it is his rigid attention to what is measurable that prevented him from addressing this issue. There is too much uncertainty involved to begin to assess whether or not we even can prevent such "trigger" events and thus begin to make cost-benefit analysis of preventative measures.

The most shocking thing about The Skeptical Environmentalist is not its heretical views (in the eyes of greens) however, but the reception it has received among the environmental movement. Instead of praising its depth and using its own errors to show the way forward the community has -- in the grand tradition of the left eating its young -- gone after Dr. Lomborg with a furious anger. Recently, when Dr. Lomborg showed up at Oxford university, the author of an environmental study with a competing view shoved a pie in his face. In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American devoted 11 pages (electronic copies are US$5.00) to attacking the book, its author and his conclusions.

Not surprisingly, the free-market loving Economist has taken up the defense of Dr. Lomborg with both a lead opinion piece and a feature in the February 6th issue. In addition, the magazine had Lomborg pen a "by invitation" piece in August, 2001, a rare honor. The New York Times has also come to his defense with a "Scientist At Work" puff piece in November, 2001.

But by attacking the book and the author so shrilly, the environmental community risks its own hard-won credibility. It acts just as Lomborg accuses it, like lobbyists with an axe to grind, not cold-eyed, empirically-minded scientists. Lomborg's study has its flaws, as does any environmental study. But those flaws should be attacked on their merits alone. At its worst, The Skeptical Environmentalist merely muddies the waters of scientific and public consensus on global human environmental impact. At its best it provides a crucial reality check for those who seek profound social and economic changes in the name of preserving environmental sustainability.

---

You can purchase The Skeptical Environmentalist from Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Re:Let me save you the suspense

[Wire Tap]

I hate to sound nihilistic, but in the end, we're just another species on this planet that will eventually go extinct.

EXCUSE ME???

I fail to understand why any sentient being would take that perspective on life... are you complacent with the statement you made? Do you WANT to fade away? Do you wish that on your race? Your species? I certainly do not. Personally, I want to see us soar into space, settle on as many planets, planetoids, moons, asteroids, space stations, comets and suns as possible. While there are many who are skeptical about humans eventually migrating from the homeworld, I'm not one of them. I think we can do it. I believe we WILL do it. Wheter we conquer our problems on Earth first, is, of course, another story. Perhaps Earth will be damaged beyond repair, and it will be essential for all but a few humans to eventaully leave the planet, lest they be ravaged by disease, hunger, or any of a multitude other plights which may face our descendants.

We won't live forever.

While some transhumanists may disagree with you there - I see your point, but, you are wrong. We will continue to grow, change, adapt, evolve to the situations which the cold universe presents to us, but, I have strong reservations about the human race dying out. In thousands of years from now we will, to be sure, be an entirely different and perhaps unrecognizable species - or maybe even more than one species - but, we will still exist, in one form or the other. Even if it is simply the human spirit living inside a wholly different organism. We will live on.

So let me save you the suspsense, pack your shit folks, we're all going away.

No, I don't think so. Why don't you do us a favor and go away yourself, so you won't get in the way of those of us who truly aspire to peace and progress for humankind.

Re:Let me save you the suspense

[TrollBridge]

An excellent post sir.

The problem with radical environmentalists is that they often have a financial agenda. These groups don't protest, bully, and lobby the government for the sake of reform that most likely wouldn't affect their lives.

The fact is that there is alot of money to be harvested from government programs. Money that we really have no way of knowing is being spent on actual environmental improvement, let alone spent wisely. When the government proposes less environmental programs (subsidies), that means less money for these interest groups.

Don't be fooled, most of these groups aren't about positive environmental change. They are about lining their own pockets by wresting government subsidies away from corporations into their own coffers.

Re:Better safe than sorry...

[FatRatBastard]

Lets use that "better safe than sorry" arguement for EVERYTHING.

There's a billion to one chance that a asteroid will crash into the earth. Let's spend billions and billions of dollars on an asteroid defense system.

There's a 1000 to 1 chance that the SDI/Star Wars defense system will work as advertised. Let's just give all the Gov't contractors all the money that they want anyway.

...

Better safe than sorry works well when there's little or no cost involved. Its a big waste of cash otherwise.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[PHAEDRU5]

I subscribe to Mother Jones *and* the American Spectator, basically to see what the extremists at both ends are saying.

Since I became a subscriber I know, based on my junk mail, that my name has been sold to donor solicitation lists of the left and the right.

So, every month I get mail from Jerry Falwell, etc., about how the Homosexual/Abortion/Socialist lobbies are destroying the U.S. These compete with mail from NARAL, NOW, PFAW, etc., about how the Heterosexual/Anti-Abortion/Capitalist lobbies are destroying the U.S.

(Aside: now that I think about it, I do get a lot more mail from the left than from the right. More religious fervour, I guess.)

My point is that the only way these people can raise money is by scaring the bejesus out of those who can be scared.

The environmental lobby is no different: it scares to raise money.

What's great about this book is how it demonstrates the lies in the propaganda.

Of course, he'll never be forgiven for that. And my guess is, from a survey of my junk mail, that there will be a lot more people out to trash him than to support him. Poor sod.

even one died out species is too much

[raistlinthegreat]

even if only one species would have been diet out because of human stupidity it would be too much. but we extinguish every day!!! dozens of animals ans plants. maybe things are not as bood as some may claim. but the animals also have a rigth to exist on this planed. every sperm whale, every golden eagle and everything else has the same right to exist. why do we thing we have the right to change this??? mankind is the first species which will extinguish itself. and their leader is George W. Bush.

Cheek, etc.

[gowen]

It is probably quite understandable that environmental scientists would take great umbrage at both Lomborg's cheek and his conclusions

Scientist don't take umbrage at his cheek or (directly) his conclusions. They take umbrage at his science. Basically, he isn't very good at it. His research is full of errors, (sometimes very basic ones. At one point he quotes an absolute figure as a percentage because he is unfamiliar with the different conventions for decimal places between the US and Europe). He selectively quotes (and misquotes) source material to support his claims. Frankly, he's a self publicist, and if his pseudoscience reduces the amount of research into the very real possibility of irreversible, catastrophic, climate change, a very dangerous one.

As an aside, lets just apply Occam's Razor. Here are the two possible alternatives:

1. Lomborg is wrong
2. There is a massive (indeed, worldwide) conspiracy of scientists, suppressing their real knowledge, intent only on scare mongering to preserve their funding

(Full Disclosure: I am a Geophysical Fluid Dynamicist, so I could be part of the conspiracy [TINC] myself)

What I keep in mind

[Reality Master 101]

There are two reasons why I remain firmly skeptical until I see some real evidence:

1) Scientists and environmentalists make their money by predicting doomsday. No global warming == no grant money to fund study after study.

2) Most of the evidence is manufactured by people with an interest in the outcome. This IMO worthless evidence is known as "computer climate studies". Trying to understand climates with our level of technology is like a caveman trying to understand nuclear physics.

first, do no harm...

[supernova87a]

OK, fine. As a scientist and reasonable person, I must admit the possibility that our activities are having absolutely no effect on the environment, and the measurements of climate change are just part of the small natural oscillations in our system. I must admit this possibility, because we don't have enough evidence yet, and to dogmatically cling to a belief without evidence does us no credit, and is the mark of a different ideology.

But on the other hand, look at the problem from a practical perspective. Suppose that global warming is "false" (ie. we're not causing it). Then our actions now have no effect and by reducing emissions, curbing pollution, we do nothing (except improve our own cities, etc. a little bit). But if the phenomenon is real, and our actions now make it better or worse, then by continuing on our present course, we are making the problem worse.

Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway?

Do some people not understand this logic??

Re:Lombord has been thoroughly rebuttaled

[Phanatic1a]

The rebuttals posted at that site aren't really very good. The ones I read before I gave up in disgust were mostly arguments by assertion, with little concrete evidence given to support them, no footnotes or references to studies or data that I could see, and laced with a strong flavor of ad hominem, as in Devra Davis's "rebuttal," which she leads off by saying:

"You know what they say about people who become statisticians? They lacked the personality to become accountants."

That's not the dispassionate and unbiased practitioner of science speaking; that's someone with an axe to grind.

I'm not defending Lomborg's research; indeed, I haven't read the book. But what's utterly disgusting is the means by which the established viewpoints have chosen to attack it. Scientific American even went so far as to claim it was "defending science" against Lomborg's claim.

That's a repugnant attitude to take. Science is a method, a process of determining what is true, and if Lomborg's arguments are faulty, his analysis shoddy, and his conclusions flawed, than the proper application of science will demonstrate that and we will all be the better off for it.

But if, as Scientific American seems to think, science is something that takes a position of advocacy on complex issues, then science is far less likely to be useful as a process for examining that issue, and everybody loses.

Shame on SA. The Spectator has a nice piece on the controversy at:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table =old& section=current&issue=2002-02-23&id=1602

The Planet's Fine, We're At Risk.

[Genus Marmota]

Picture humanity as a group of monkeys sitting on a high tree branch, with a hungry lion waiting paitiently below. A small group of monkeys is sawing furiously away at the branch they all sit on. "We need more lumber!" they shout. Another other group is in a state of panic, shouting "Save the tree! Save the tree!" But most of the monkeys are doing what monkeys generally do: scratching, having sex and looking around for food, completely uninterested in the other two groups.

Sigh.

On my office cube I have a graph of the ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica. The graph of mean planetary temperature change looks like a roller coaster. Goddess sure does like to mix it up. What's striking about it is that for the last 12,000 years or so, we've had an anomalously stable and warm trend. Just about the time humans figured out how to grow wheat and live in villages.

Did humans cause global warming? Well, I don't think there were that many campfires back in the paleolithic. How bout the other way round? Maybe the stable, warmer temperatures made possiblee the "stupid human trick" of huge cities based on domesticated crops?

My unscientific take on it is that the climate is a big 'ol complicated chaotic system. If you're betting your civilization on linear trends persisting very long in any direction, then you're lookin to get spanked. And you haven't looked very hard at the data. I'm as green as the next bumper-sticker-sporting, recycling vegetarian. But I think we're just clever monkeys in the end.

Re:Cheek, etc.

[Alomex]

His research is full of errors,

This is an overstatement of the facts. Many rebuttals take shortcuts in what would otherwise be hard work: debating each of Lomborg points. Those rebuttals overemphasize minor gaffes that are bound to appear in a research piece encompasing such a large subject. (By that count The Evolution of the Species by Darwin has more errors per page than Lomborg).

Reality is the majority of the basic facts are right, it is the interpretation of those basic indicators that needs to be discussed.

Your average environmentalist assumes a priori that the environment is deteriorating. Lomborg accurately points out that prima facie the data is not there.

Btw. this would not be the first time that environmentalists were wrong in something that they took for granted, as they were when they predicted humanity would run out of oil by the mid 90s.

The interpretation of the facts requires further debate though.

A frightening thought...

[rcs1000]

There is no doubt that the Skeptical Environmentalist contains many errors. But it contains a lot that is useful, and it does not pretend to be a book about science. It is a book about the statistics used by certain people to support certain arguments.

Sometimes the stastics used are dubious: the Economist themselves ran a story on how the world's figures on fish production were flawed because of massive misrepesentation from China. (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_I D=885936) As a result of this, one whole chapter of the book is glaringly wrong.

*BUT*

The reaction to the book does the environmentalists great disservice. Rather than rationally approaching it from the point of view of the statistics, and admitting that - in a few cases - statistics used to back up a points were wrong, the environmental movement has reacted hysterically. Normally sensible people have attacked Lomberg as an agent of big business, the oil companies, etc.

This is wrong. Attack Lomberg for his errors, do not get caught up in some hysterical conspiracy theory.

And talk about statistics. The book is about statistics, not about global warming. It may well be that global warming is worse than expected, but attacking him for having a different point of view (and that alone) is wrong.

Just my $0.05...

*r

Re:TANSTAAFL (was: Re:C'mon

[revscat]

TANSTAFFL applies equally to energy use: We don't get to spit out carbon emissions 24 hours/day for ~70 years without an associated cost. The question is which costs more: cutting emissions now, or cleaning up later. (Or, for some, whether anything needs to be done whatsoever; I personally reject this viewpoint as being Pollyanna-ish.)

To all those who say "We can't take a chance..."

[ericlj]

I would say "Everything is a weighting of cost/benefits. Do you stay at home, not moving, not eating, never doing anything -- because of the possible danger of any action? No, we go about our lives having weighed the risks versus the costs of avoiding them. Do you really believe that we have the power to destroy the environment? That is ridiculous. We have the power to change it a little. Also remember that many studies have shown that for every place that is damaged by a measurable increase in global temperatures (if it occurs and is not a statistical blip) there are just as many that will be improved. Some places may get drier, but others will bloom."

Try actually studying some of the research (and analysis by both sides and neutral, if you can find them, observers) instead of sticking to the USA Today headlines. The comments I have read have mostly demonstrated that the shrill cries of the big-business, big-money environmental lobby have managed to overpower all calls for an objective study of these issues.

One libertarian's perspective

[dada21]

My views on the environment are fairly anti-libertarian in many ways, but I believe 100% that the libertarian solution carries the only solution to it.

When land is owned publicly, it is treated badly. When you want to find the worst perpetrators of the environment, you'll find commercial businesses polluting on public land that they lease.

By taking the libertarian road, and privatizing all land, you're now give businesses and people a vested interest in keeping the value of the land high, not low. Just like a renter of an apartment takes generally worse care of the place than a condo owner, the same is true of a company or an individual who may one day want to sell the land for its value.

If everyone owns their land rather than leasing it from a public entity, you now have civil protection against someone polluting your land. Some big industry pumps poisons into their river that end up in your groundwater? Now you can sue. Currently, when a business pollutes on leased government land, who do you sue? The government? These are the same guys that leave loopholes in the law so that their buddies CAN pollute.

The people who think that there is no way that pro-environmental scientists aren't harboring a conspiracy are nuts. Every science I've had the ability to witness has some "global" conspiracies that are used in order to keep people "needed" that business. The environment is no different.

The worst polluters in the world are socialist governments. That's a fact. The most pristine forests in the world are on private land. That's a fact. Some of the forest preserves in Central American that are privately owned are so much cleaner than the public land residing next door to them that its scary that people really want our government running the forest preserve system.

If you want to protect or preserve some land, find others who agree with you, and set up a private land trust. Its happening more and more around the world, AND IT WORKS.

If you want the air cleaner, then get government out of the air regulation. End the EPA. If a business is pumping chemicals into the air, its up to the third party watchdog groups to monitor it, and let people know. When there is legal evidence that a company is harming land or individuals off of their property, then a civil lawsuit can entail. End of story.

Sure, there are flaws in my "world," but the flaws in today's world are obvious: environmental protection laws hurt small individual landowners, as the large business either lease their land from government, or get such amazing loopholes granting to them in the laws, that they actually can pollute more, not less.

Re:Better safe than sorry...

[Archie Steel]

When dealing with environmental issues it's very difficult to arrive at conclusive proof. But I'll take the question from a different angle: at what percentage of probability will you be convinced that global warming is a real threat that requires a change in our energy-consumption habits? 1%? 10%? 50%? 100%?

My point is that the effects of global warming are potentially so grave that even a small probability requires us not to take any chances and begin to change our habits right now. If it turns out to be wrong, well at least we'll still be using cleaner energy. But this is just not any question: the survival of humanity could be at stake in the long run. Even a 1 in 1000 percent is too much to risk that happening, IMHO...

Re:The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[rho]

"Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents... Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without a belief in a devil."

-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

Re:Scientific American review & thoughts

[FatRatBastard]

Nope... my beef was with the statement "indisputably might be" true, which is true in all cases except when the thing in question is definitely false. My point is that the phrase "indisputably might not be" true is equally correct in all cases except when the thing in question is definitely true.

Thus, if you're going to argue "Personally, I am of the opinion that we need to enforce much stricter emission, land development, and recycling standards not because I believe that these activities are damaging the environment, but because they indisputably might be damaging the environment" then its just as valid to make the arguement "Personally, I am of the opinion that we need to throw out stricter emission, land development, and recycling standards not because I believe that these activities are not damaging the environment, but because they indisputably might not be damaging the environment."

Basically, you're saying you'd do something because something else *might* be true (and throwing the "idisputably" in there to make something that is vague sound concrete). If that's the case, then its equally valid to say you'd do something becase something else *might not* be true.

As for the pregnancy analagy, its not flawed. The point I was trying to make is that someone could go to a doctor, ask if they were pregnant, and the doctor could say "you indisputably might be," and be perfectly correct, logically. They would also be grossly incompetent. Which is what I'm implying about the "but because they indisputably might be damaging the environment" logic.

Re:Lombord has been thoroughly rebuttaled

[dhogaza]

Actually SA didn't indicate that "science is something that takes a position of advocacy on complex issues".

They simply published a series of rebuttals by experts that pointed out factual and analytical errors in the book.

It's not that science should take a position of advocacy, but rather that science shouldn't be misinterpreted in order to strengthen a position of advocacy.

And that's exactly what Lomberg's done - he's misinterpreted science in order to push his own beliefs.

Re:Lombord has been thoroughly rebuttaled

[Phanatic1a]

They simply published a series of rebuttals by experts that pointed out factual and analytical errors in the book.


The rebuttals published by SA pretty uniformly acknowledged that Lomborg had his facts right; they attacked his person and questioned his conclusions.

Then SA refused to publish Lomborg's answers to those criticisms. Then when Lomborg posted his answers to those criticisms on his web site, SA threatened to sue him for violating its copyrights because he reproduced the criticisms in his answers.

Again: Shame on SA.

Re:How do you measure opportunity costs?

[snarfer]

Regulations have costs. Lower economic growth translates into less science, medicine, culture, opportunity for the less fortunate of the world.

Instead of mindlessly repeating Republican Party slogans, how about explaining how regulations lead to lower economic growth?

Regulations lead to lower profits for some campaign contributors, like Enron.

But please explain how having more energy efficiency LOWERS economic growth? Sure, it brings in less money to oil companies. But if we are spending less on gas, and less to heat and cool buildings, and less to power our industry, and less to purchase oil from the Middle East, how does that LOWER economic growth???

Re:even one died out species is too much

[envelope]

Um, no. Every species does NOT have a right to exist.

What every species has is a right to compete.

Those that can adapt and overcome, survive. Those that cannot, die out.

This is the way it has worked since the first lightning bolt awakened the primordial sludge.

Excellent Review

[SimonK]

Thank you. I've been wanting to write one for ages, and now you've done it for me, and written pretty much exactly what I would have done. Now, if you'd just post it to kuro5hin, that would be even better :)

A couple of random points: Are you sure that Lomborg's cost-benefit analyses ignore costs to the extent you imply ? My understanding is that he's included all effects that could impact humans, but ignored those that only impact the natural world. Of course, such analysese are tricky, and arguable completely worthless, so there's no guarantee he has got it right. However, in principle, if the lesser-spotted fenge cricket of outer mongolia has no known impact on human wellbeing, it seems quite defensible not to consider its loss a cost.

I agree that catastrophic changes, such as switching ocean currents, or positive feedbacks, are very serious possibilities. These kinds of things, where the probability is low or unknown, but the potential consequences are catastrophic, are the hardest issues to deal with. I cannot buy into the "precautionary principle", that we must avoid possible problems, even if there is no evidence that there really is a problem, because it seems to undermine out standards of evidence.

I agree absolutely about the treatment Lomborg has received. It is a disgrace. The number of scientists who have butted in merely in order to dismiss his credentials, or complain at even having to respond, and then obviously failed to even read the book is appalling. It is equally appalling how many people on the "other side" have picked up Lomborg and equally misrepresented him as being completely opposed to all environmental controls. Unfortunately all these misrepresentations, which oddly enough turn out to be very similar, show up in the comments here. On that note:

Lomborg does not claim everything is fine. Nor does he claim all environmental research is fraudulent. Indeed, he cites lots of it. Although many of his critics have accused him of abusing statistics, very few such claims appear to be supported (one or two are). Its just easier to snicker "lies, damned lies, and statistics" than it is to engage in a serious argument. A few serious errors in the book have been spotted by various people, but these do not, in fact, damage the book as a whole.

To see that, you have to understand the skeleton of the argument being made. This breaks up into bits. The first "big picture" claim is that most people believe things that are just plain wrong about the state of the world: that population is growing out of control, or that disease is more prevelant now than ever before. Lomborg refers to this broadly eroneous picture of doom as "the litany". Environmentalists tend to play on this, even though they often know it to be incorrect, because it helps their cause. Lomborg takes them to task for this.

However, Lomborg also makes a series of other, largely unconnected, claims about the scientific consensus in different fields. For instance, he disagrees with many biologists about species extinction rates, and with the IPCC about the Kyoto treaty, but agrees with the UN about population growth. These various claims stand or fall alone, and although they reinforce the overall case that most people have an exaggerated idea of how bad environmental problems are, attacking one does not destroy the whole thesis of the book. In different fields, Lomborg is either with the consesus, but that consensus has failed to penetrate the media and acitivist organisations (population), differs only slightly from the consensus, but believes the political action being taken is wrong (global warming), or opposes the consensus because he believes it to lie on statistically shaky foundations (species extinction).

No

[SimonK]

Lomborgs claims are well within the remit of science. It behooves anyone who believes him to be wrong to reply as a scientist, not as a high priest trying to cast the impostor out of the temple. Its not like he's claiming the invisible sky pixie is going to save us or something.

Um, no.

[Watts Martin]

Greenland got its name as a joke from its discoverer (Erik the Red, IIRC). He found both Iceland and Greenland and reversed their logical names deliberately, to steer others away from the one that was actually green.

And, no, global warming would not be good for us. The ocean currents on the planet would shift radically, and weather patterns would follow. This would Really, Truly Suck. And we haven't gotten to coastlines receding, but as someone who lives in a coastal Florida city, I can assure you it'd bother me.

There's an old joke abut George Bernard Shaw being bothered by a female fan at a party, until he asked her, "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" She repliced, "Of course." "Then," he asked, "would you sleep with me for ten?" She was offended, saying, "What kind of woman do you think I am, Mr. Shaw?" He replied, "We've already established that, madam--we're just haggling over the price."

I think of this a lot when I listen to the debate on global climate change. The majority of the scientific community recognizes that there is a trend to global warming and that human activity does affect climate. The debates now are--or should be--establishing just what the correlation is between the two.

The problem is that at least in some models--which seem to be supported by empirical evidence--ecosystems absorb a lot of abuse until they're overloaded and collapse abruptly. This means that dire warnings can always be put off--look, things obviously aren't that bad, the sky hasn't fallen, you Chicken Little!--until the catastrophe the Chicken Littles were warning about happens. And, like the Y2K problem, public health and airport security, spending on preventive measures definitionally appears to have no effect: success means things continue as they are without catastrophe. You only see failures.

Re:Better safe than sorry...

[Psion]

The problem is, if you don't know exactly whats going on, your best, well-intentioned efforts to correct a possible problem might cause worse problems. Suppose, for example, that the fears in the 70s that we were about to enter into a new Ice Age were accurate, but anthropogenic global warming (assuming there is such a thing) is preventing that from happening.

Or suppose the cost of preventing global warming with efforts like the Kyoto Protocol (which is admitted to be only a first step) severely outweighs the cost of simply adapting?

You're advocating an action for the simple sake of doing something, without an understanding of the costs or consequences of that action.

Wrong

[SimonK]

Go and read the book. Now. Or at least look at it. Creation scientists are basically at odds with the whole edefice of scientific naturalism. Lomborg is just saying that some of the claims often made about the environment are wrong. In most fields he is not contradicting the scientific consensus at all, just pointing out how it has been misrepresented. On some occasions, he does point out that claims made by scientists (biologists get a hard time) are not supported by empirical evidence, but you do not need to be a specialist to make such a judgement. Indeed, as a statistician, he has the qualifications required.

He is also eminently reasonable. If you go and read his website, you'll see several admissioms to errors in SE (seen Henry Morris do that ? thought not), and several serious efforts to answer his critics.

Now stop propogating slanders and go an learn what you're talking about.

Re:Total gov burden is inversely related to growth

[snarfer]

There have been thousands of studies on this: taxes + regulation = total gov burden. The higher the total gov burden, the lower the economic growth.

Those are slogans, not "studies".

Here's a simple study for you to try. Go look up the periods if highest taxes on the rich and corporations and place that over a chart of economic growth rates. You are in for a big surprise.

After you see the results of that simple study - ask youself WHO benefits from feeding the public slogans saying less public oversight of businesses is good for them.

To lay your examples at the feet of "greenies"--

[schmaltz]

isn't very honest. My recollection about HCFCs (the replacement for CFCs used in compressed aerosol cans) was it was presented by industry.

Bezene? Environmentalists' choice? Another example of industry's reaction to the environmentalists. Even if, but the correlation between leaded gas use and childhood lead-related disease complex is strong and proven. In countries where leaded gas is still used (most of the rest of the world), urban urchins have higher lead blood serum levels -South American cities are an excellent example.

"irrational attitude" -ad hominem attacks are certainly a sign of rational thinking!

"Emotional action without fact checking or a reality feedback loop almost invariably produces either a random disaster, or the exact opposite of the intended action. Environmentalism is no exception."

As a "reality feedback loop", try living in countries where environmental controls don't exist: again, Latin America, where beaches are so polluted with raw sewerage that you can't go there for risk of typhoid and other feces-transmitted diseases. Try living on the shores of the Rio Pinheiros or Rio Tamanduates in Sao Paulo, Brasil, which are essentially open sewerage canals!

Re:C'mon

[jazman_777]

Even if we AREN'T damaging things as badly as some say, it cant HURT us to be more eco-friendly.

Example: the health nuts (not the environmentalists) went crazy over asbestos. So asbestos was not able to be used in the WTC, and it melted down pretty quick...some people think asbestos, which is quite inert and harmless until you decide you need to rip it out (or you worked in an asbestos plant, R.I.P.), would have given the buildings more time, because the replacement stuff just doesn't work as well.

You know, most of the stuff we do has a cost and a benefit. We do those things because of some benefit. You just can't _stop_ doing stuff that harms the environment, because everything we do effects it in some way. So you have to do cost + benefit. You can't focus on one to the exclusion of the other. Industrialists will fixate on the benefit, and the environmentalists will fixate on the cost. If either wins, we are screwed.

Re:first, do no harm...

[mesocyclone]

supernova87a states: "Given these choices, in the absence of information, isn't it more logical to bet on the second? Isn't it safer to assume the worst case scenario? I.e. let's stop doing the things that people suggest may be harming the environment, because if they actually do, we'll be screwed in 50 years? And if they're not harming the environment, we did no harm anyway?"

In fact, this principle is starting to be used by environmentalist to justify all sorts of policies that they otherwise cannot support with evidence.

The problem with this principal is that in an uncertain, complex system, your actions to mitigate harm may themselves cause harm. Environmentalists have a narrow definition of harm - for example they rarely recognize that their actions may harm or even result in the death of those people who are at the edge of existence economically. The banning of DDT is one example - with the death rate from maliaria around a million a year now, when it was much lower before. Did anybody do a "least harm" analysis there?

Furthermore, it is unscientific in the sense that it is really saying "We don't have proof of X, but we are going to act as if X is true, and take actions that force people to change their behavior as a result."

For example, if in fact the costs of CO2 mitigation are high, they may lead to significant damage to third world economies. This would lead to increased environmental damage in the third world areas as those people are more desperate and less able to import what they need... so they strip more forests, overfish more fish, etc. They also have more kids - the greater the uncertainty of survival of kids, the more kids people have. The result: population growth.

The correct thing to do is do a cost benefit analysis (a phrase detested by environmentalists), and to account for these uncertainties.

The other important thing to realize is that we have greatly reduced the amount of most pollutants (with the exception of CO2 if one buys the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis). But environmentalists are pushing for zero pollution (which means zero technology which means zero population).

The biggest problem with the environmental movement is that it is not satisfied with success. You don't need to go to "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to find out that pollution in many areas is vastly decreased from previous levels. Another problem is that the environmental movement invariable sees progress and capitalism as the villain. As a result it is blind to the fact that increased prosperity leads to decreased birth rate (one of the main goals of environmentlaists), and that it leaves society with the option of considering environmental choices without killing people in the process

Another problem with the environmentalist movement is that much of it has been hijacked by extremists who use it as a weapon against capitalism. Thus we have every project obstructed by these "environmentalists." For example, here in Arizona there was a project to build a toxic waste incinerator (a *good* thing for the environment since it would destroy most of the toxicity). Greenpeace sent agitators down to block the project, and it was ultimately shelved. That incinerator would have been out in the middle of the Sonoran Desert ( a *good* place - far from people).

Finally, I would comment that most environmentalists in this day and age cannot do a good job of answering the question of "why preserve the environment?" Or more directly, "why preserve this particular aspect of the environment?" One tends to get answers that imply that it is an absolute good (essentially in a religious sense) to preserve the environment. But that sort of reasoning gives no guidance as to how to do that (other than the mass elimination of the human race - also advocated by some environmentalists). Also, the *good* that can come from environmental change is always discounted. I have friends who research the beneficial effects of increased CO2 on plants. They have trouble getting funding due to the politicization of the global warming issue. Nobody wants to find good outcomes!

Nor can they define what a desirable environment is. Some want us to go back to the hunter gatherer days (ignoring the fact that those hunter gatherers caused major species extinctions and major environmental change). Some simply want us to freeze and preserve the current environment in whatever state it is (ignoring Darwin essentially). Others want man to have no impact on the environment. A few want to preserve the environment for the future (I would call the more reasonable of these "conservationists" as opposed to environmentalists).

Almost none recognize that man *is* part of the environment and the actions of *man* are by definition "natural." Recognizing that allows more rational choices to be considered. It leads us to force a definition of goals for the environment, and that can allow us to do benefit/harm analysis (called cost-benefit analysis technically but that term is hated by many environmentalists, probably because of both their anti-capitalist feelings and their absolutism).

Re:Well meaning but deadly

[w3woody]

Well, and how many recycling plants first brought on-line in the 70's and 80's are now on the EPA's superfund list?

In theory recycling is a good thing, but until more companies start buying unbleached post-consumer recycled cardboard boxes and shipping product in them, we're going to continue bleaching the recycled paper with toxic bleeching products. And all that toxic waste has to go *somewhere*...

Do recycle aluminum, however; the same process used to refine aluminum ore is used to recycle aluminum cans--it just take a lot less energy, which reduces the cost of producing aluminum, and less power means less emissions from electric power plants.

(I once told the story about bleaching recycled paper to a green, who actually had the gall to reply that the toxic waste wasn't important; what was important was that we were doing *something*...)

Re:Cheek, etc.

[Daniel Quinlan]

Here are the two possible alternatives:

1. Lomborg is wrong
2. There is a massive (indeed, worldwide) conspiracy of scientists, suppressing their real knowledge, intent only on scare mongering to preserve their funding

You claim to be a scientist, but the first thing you do is present an either-or fallacy? There are countless other possibilities. Just a few:

1. Lomborg has made some minor mistakes which are exploited by his critics, but is generally correct. (I mean, I can't write several pages of code without making errors, why is statistics different, especially such a long and comprehensive work?)
2. There is no conspiracy, but most environmental scientists are left-leaning so they all tend to be wrong in the same direction. After all, they generally are supported by the government, advocacy groups, etc. and not private enterprise.

Re:Total gov burden is inversely related to growth

[dachshund]

This is not a zero-sum game, of course. Regulation can be beneficial to many industries, allowing them to avoid tragedy-of-the-commons scenarios, and to access certain resources that they might not otherwise be allowed to.

In the most basic case, simple law and contract enforcement is an example of government regulation at work. I don't know too many libertarians who argue that we'd be better off without these things. Instead we look to strike a balance between necessary, helpful regulation, and unnecessary, damaging regulation. That balance can be hard to strike sometime, but blanket anti-regulation sentiment often goes too far, and forgets about the need for an intelligent balance of regulation... in favor of "throw the baby out with the bathwater" scenarios.

Misquotes: verifiable and annoying, so go research

[geekotourist]

In general, if complaints about a study/ article / book include "misquoting," you can verify if the complaints are true. Good authors don't misquote, instead they give an accurate quote and then demonstrate why the quote is wrong.

I haven't read the book, and only a few of the reviews in Scientific American / other mags, but now I'll have to find the time. Of all the accusations, the one of misquoting is the worse one. Anyone can be bad at science or statistics and write about it- peer review will reveal the weaknesses and a good scientist will admit their mistake and go on. But misquotes makes someone else look bad- you've tied them to a strawman and they have to prove they aren't the strawman's maker while simultaneously demolishing it. You're forcing them to look defensive, even though, in fact, they have no reason to be defensive, because the misquote isn't their real argument.

A good review of quotations and misquotations used in arguments is in the proposed talk.origins (creation evolution) Misquotations FAQ [mmcable.com].

completely wrong - being eco-friendly can KILL

[Preposterous Coward]

Yes, it absolutely CAN hurt us to be eco-friendly. In some cases it can literally kill us.

Consider malaria. Malaria infects 300-500 million people annually and kills around 2 million of them. (source [www.idrc.ca]) The single most effective way to kill mosquitos and to reduce the incidence of malaria is DDT. Unfortunately, DDT has potent negative effects on the environment, so your naive "it can't hurt us" position would argue that we should totally ban DDT. Unfortunately, that's literally a death sentence for thousands if not millions of people living in tropical nations.

This is a somewhat dramatic example, but my point is that eco-friendliness DOES have very real consequences in some cases, and we need to be careful about weighing those consequences against the benefits. If we're talking about recycling paper and plastic in a developed country, well, yeah, the benefits are reasonably large and the consequences are probably trivial. But don't assume that's true for every environmental problem the world faces.

More information here [bbc.co.uk].

Malaria, DDT, and parachuting cats

[loose_change]

The concerns about DDT use aren't from environmental "fears", but from demonstrated environmental catastrophe.

In the 1950s (iirc), the World Health Organization wanted to wipe out malaria in Borneo. They sprayed liberally with DDT to kill the mosquitoes. The DDT also killed a parasitic wasp that laid its eggs in the caterpillar that ate the thatch used for roofing. Without a predator, the caterpillar population grew, they ate their natural food, and the people's roofs fell. The WHO replaced the thatch with tin roofs, and so all seemed well until the locals began to get typhoid and sylvatic plague.

It happened like this:

• Lizards ate the bugs laced with DDT.
• Cats ate the lizards and were killed by the pesticide.
• Without a predator, the rat population grew, and the diseases spread.

That's right, the plague, brought to you by the World Health Organization.

In order to get the rat population back in check, cartons of stray cats were dropped into Borneo by parachute.

Great! Now privatize the atmosphere.

[hey!]

Given a certain discount rate (that is to say assumptions about the time value of money), it is often economically rational to liquidate the land, for example in many kinds of mining operations. Likewise, farming or fishing practices that may not be sustainable over a twenty year or longer horizon may be economically rational based on their increased immediate productivity to the individuals making the decisions about how to exploit a resource.

In theory, as land is degraded, the marginal value of the remaining undespoiled land goes up, providing a disincentive from despoilation. Except that there may not be any mechanism for a land owner to recoup this value. The land owner rationally bases his exploitation decisions based on excludable benefits and costs -- that is how he will benefit as an individual and pay as an individual -- no matter how affected he his by the costs of exploitation and benefits of preservation on a global scale.

The tragedy of the commons shows that, in absence of an effective means of rational cooperation between people, private ownership and exploitation is more productive and sustainable. However, in many respects the commons is inescapable: we live on one planet, in one biosphere, dependent on one hydrosphere, drawing all our our biological wealth from a common pools of biota and environmental systems. So, duly considered and democratically adopted limitations on the exploitation of these common resources would be good thing.

I'd just like to point out one fact

[njdj]

A fact which may not be apparent to people aged under 55: the cleanliness of the environment in developed countries has improved enormously in the last 50 years. I grew up near an industrial city. The rivers were filthy, the air was filthy (you blew your nose, and what came out was black - sorry to be disgusting, but it's true). The word "smog" originally referred, I believe, to London fogs which were so thick that visibility was about one meter (cause was smoke from burning coal). Using the same word for the thin haze from automobile exhausts is a bit of a joke.

It was worth cleaning the place up, and it is worthwhile to continue to clean it up. But the trend over the last 50 years has been one of vast improvement. People who claim otherwise sound either dishonest or unobservant to me.

SA "review" was a hash

[Merovign]

I've found that recently, SA has taken the same dark, dingy, stupid path that Discover took a few years ago... down, down, down into the depths of politically correct balderdash.

The fact that they denied him the right to respond to his critics, then harassed him when he tried to respond on his own website (which is now 404'ing, unfortunately), is a red flag.

No, I haven't read the whole book, and yes, I did read the SA articles. They were sour grapes and it showed to anyone who didn't reflexively agree with the prejudices of the authors. Data and quotes were few, accusations and anger was high. The cover of the magazine should have read "How Dare You Question Us!?!"

Unfortunately, there are many areas of "debate and discussion" in the modern world where the BS Index is so high that anyone who tries to find out what's actually going on either gets burned out trying or marginalized if they think they did find something interesting that doesn't fit into anyone's agenda.

This is one of those areas. I doubt the situation will improve. It is glaringly clear that major environmental shifts have occurred throughout history and prehistory, and it is also glaringly clear that we have only a sliver of an idea how we interact with that system.

Are tugboat cars going to cause global warming? Or will they delay global cooling (we are, after all, in an unusually long interglacial period - how much longer do we have)?

But the serious attempt to get a grip on what the likely future is and how we might productively interact with it is hamstrung by all these agendas.

And to all those worshippers who think people become magically objective when they put on lab coats: I wish you were right, but you are dramatically wrong.

There are a few people committed to the truth, but not enough to form a lobby, and there's no money in it. Yuppies don't get hot and bothered and send donations when a politician or academic lies on TV, you don't have a magazine or research center. And if you expect government grants to find the truth, well, you know the rest...

Without the truth, you never know what to do next. And the truth is a difficult thing to get hold of even when people aren't lying to you.

I leave you with this thought: How much would the political document called Kyoto cost if it were implemented by everyone, with its silly concentration of banning plant food (CO2) and less emphasis on possibly more dangerous "system inputs"?

And how much would it cost to bring irrigation and potable water systems to every region on the face of the planet that currently lacks it?

I hate to sound politically correct, and I really hate race-baiting, but could it be because pale europeans are worried about sunburns and swarthily-complected children are dying because they don't have sanitation (or pest-killers)?

Re:We've already failed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect example of the type of pseudoscience the green movement uses.

Hint:

• What is the average temperature in NYC at this time of year over the last 200 years?
• What is the upper range of `normal' temperatures in NYC at this time of year over the last 200 years?
• What is the general pattern of temperatures this observation is part of?

Do you know the answers to any of these questions? Do you have any evidence that this observation is unusual in the context of the historical record?

Or are you just shooting your mouth off?