The Sceptical Environmentalist - Bjorn Lomberg

Lomborg’s main thesis is that the state of our world is not as bad as it is often portrayed, and that focus should be primarily on long-term rather than short-term trends. In order to critically assess this book we must first outline his main points and then discuss the various commentaries and criticisms of the book.

One of the main targets of Lomborg’s attack is the Worldwatch Institute, and in particular Lester Brown, its' leader. Among the other targets are Greenpeace and WWF. Lomborg begins by telling us about the 'Litany' which we have all been told for the last 20 years at least. This is that "for the last 40 years the earth has been sending out distress signals" (pp. 3) Yet Lomborg quickly points out that we are not in fact running out of energy or natural resources, and that we have done more to reduce poverty in the last 50 years than in the preceding 500. Politics, he says, " that disregards science and knowledge will no stand the test of time." ( pp.5)  In his first chapter Lomborg also makes the point that the process of adding to an existing distortion (he cites soil erosion) is a common error among environmentalists. Using the example of pesticides, he also points out that the costs of stopping an activity can be greater than the gains made without stopping it. Further on in the chapter he goes on to discuss topics such as AIDS, deforestation, the idea of 'modest' change which will actually make us less well off, water problems and global health, most of which are discussed in later chapters and I will endeavour to outline as concisely as possible. Lomborg finally makes the very important point that being told to not voice the opinion that things are  'not as bad as people thought they were' is, in fact, anti-democratic. This point is often not heard and he gives in less space than it deserves.

In the second chapter entitled Why do we hear so much bad news? he discusses research and the media. One of the most interesting points to come out of this chapter is the diagram illustrated on page 35, which shows the huge difference between what people think of the environment in the world in general, in their country, and in their locality. The reason for this is the way peoples fears are communicated through 1) researchers 2) the organisations and 3) the media. Research, he claims, has a built in lopsidness. He uses the example of acid rain and how during the hype there were an “incredible number of theories, partial research and primarily negative explanations.” (pp. 37) Organisations also have their own bias on activities and most of the times are interested in only securing more jobs for themselves. The media gives us a distorted version of reality because it 1)is interested only in incidents and not predictions, 2) it has to be interesting and 3) it focuses on topics I which people can be easily blamed ( radon vs. garbage dumps.).

In the chapter Human Welfare he proves that “mankind’s health situation has improved dramatically”. Also, he is quick to remind us that an increase in some diseases is due to the fact that they hit people harder at an older age. (Since our populations’ life expectancy has risen)

On his chapter on food and hunger he uses fig. 23 to show how our calorie intake has increased by 24% on a global basis and 38% in developing countries. Pointing also to lower food prices and a drop in the number of starving, he concludes that on practically every count mankind is better nourished. The most controversial part of this chapter is the section on whether or not he is right to use relative over absolute values to prove his point. Stuart Pim and Jeff Harvey in Nature review say that 'the absolute numbers of malnourished in the region... are surely inconsistent with   the first-listed 'global trends' in a chapter entitled 2things are getting better".[i] They refer to the population having doubled between 1976 and 1996. Lomborg refutes this using the example of 499999 out of 500000 dying comparing to 750000 dying out of 2000000. In essence it is better from the individuals point of view that they have less of a chance of dying.

The chapter on prosperity challenges the conventional idea that life in the developing world is deteriorating. Incomes in both industrialised and developing nations have tripled over the last 50 years and the distribution of wealth between the rich and poor has decreased. Some other points to remember are the fall in the murder rate and fatal accidents, and a quintupling of the number of people getting a university education. Overall he concludes that “things are not everywhere good, but they are better than they used to be” (pp.86)

In part III of he book entitled "Can human prosperity continue?" he discusses food, forests, energy, non-energy resources and water. Lomborg points out when it comes to forests form a historical perspective 20% of all forest has been lost and that this has not changed much since WWII. Most importantly he states that the demand for paper can be permanently satisfied by the wood production of just 5% of the current forest cover. The issue of the 20% figure was raised in the Critique by the World Resources Institute and the World Wildlife Fund. They attempt to attack the source Lomborg quotes and correct a figure form 7.5 % to 16%. Lomborg replies by showing that the WRI knew of the figure 20% themselves, and the 16% figure clearly backs up his assertion of 20%[ii].

In his section on energy he again criticizes the book Limits to Growth.  Sheikh Yamani said that "the stone age did not end for a lack of stones and the oil age will not end for a lack of oil" (pp.122) Lomborg shows how we are not running out of oil pointing to fig 67 (pp124). Also, he points to the increased efficiency of cars for this argument. He predicts that soar and wind energy will be used as their cost has reduced dramatically. He concludes that the 'Oil age' will end with the availability of cheaper alternatives. There is also no crises with water, he show in the relevant chapter, and emphasising that we should focus on better management, even suggesting water pricing.

In part IV Lomborg concludes that the pollution burden has diminished. While realising that it has increased in some places, the important point he stresses is that it will improve over time. The WRI and WWF also attack this assertion accusing him of implying that additional environmental policy efforts are not needed. However, Lomborg flatly refuted this saying that “pointing out that our most publicised fears are incorrect does not mean that we should make no effort towards improving the environment”[iii]. In the same article he also defends his statements on productivity, in which WRI and WWF claim a 20% increase in the capture of wild fish, whereas the truth was in fact 58.6%.

The problem of eutrophication is one we will have to accept for the time being as it is likely to cost nearly 2 billion should nitrogen be outlawed. Rivers are cleaner, acid rain did not affect forests, and the DDT in human fat and milk has declined by 60% at least. In order to have a true sense of proportion about our waste problem he makes the interesting point that all the waste over the next 100 years would fit into a landfill of 18 miles, also adding that landfills are very safe for groundwater.

A surprising fact that comes out of Chemical Fears is that 99.99% of pesticides are natural while 0.01% are synthetic. The link between pesticides and cancer is very poor (fig 125; Doll and Peto.) The effects of pesticides such as decreased sperm count seem to be very small (pp. 23). Since 1970 no change in sperm count can be demonstrated. Synthetic chemicals do not have a link to breast cancer as was widely believed.

One of Lomborg’s critics Tom Lovejoy complains that in his chapter on Biodiversity, he claims not to know the difference between extinction facts and extinction estimates. But this, says Matt Ridley is precisely Lomborg’s point; [iv]that the estimates are based on a circular argument behind which are few or no data. Lomborg heavily criticizes the 40000 estimate for species extinction and even his critics admit, “Myers did not specify the material of arriving at his estimate” [v]

By far the longest chapter in the book is that of Global warming. What most of his critics forget is that Lomborg admits there is a problem with global warming, but that it is not as serious as it is made out to be, and that the problem will get better, not worse. Throughout the chapter he shows how the Global temperature is not worth the gains made from it. “The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost $150 billion a year…Unicef estimates that just 70-80 billion a year could give all Third world inhabitants access to the basics like health, education, water and sanitation.” (pp. 323)This again concurs with one of Lomborg’s underlying themes; that we must allocate resources where they will be most efficient. “Global warming is not anywhere near the most important problem facing the world.” (pp. 324) Lomborg also questions the effects of Global warming such as the 40 cm (rise in sea level) claim by the IPCC. (pp. 290)

As the economist points out, Lomborg has made statistical errors but he acknowledges them on his website.[vi] Often accused of selective citing of sources, Lomborg flatly denies this. In the case of the cost-benefit analysis of citing CO2 emissions, he is accused by the WRI and WWF of doing this. However Lomborg clearly states that all his economic cost-benefit models reach the same conclusions. Overall they point out 3 actual errors, all of which were acknowledged, and were minor. They fail to justify the claim of “distorted quotations, inaccurate or misleading citations, misuse of data, interpretations that contradict well established scientific work, and many serious errors.”[vii] The economist also says that Green Politics needs to learn that resources are not unlimited.[viii] However in their criticisms of the book they tend to forget the real purpose of the book that is encapsulated in the subtitle “Measuring the real state of the world.” This means that all Lomborg is trying to do is give us a more realistic view of the world and to crush the myths spread by the environmental lobby. He never once says that we should ignore the environment but that we should allocate our resources where they will have the best and most efficient effect.

On finishing the book one realises how amazing it is that the assumptions and assertions of ‘environmentalists’ have not been questioned before. It is also amazing that so many academic studies have either themselves misrepresented the facts or have themselves been misrepresented without counter force coming form the governing bodies of these supposed scientific ‘disciplines’. There should be discipline to ensure that scientific method is respected, but not of course to interfere with any line of enquiry. Academic freedom and academic license are not the same!