The politics of the environment raises many questions, not least of \nwhich is what the facts are about the state of the planet and how they \nshould be interpreted. Is capitalism on an unsustainable course in terms\n of its use of natural resources? If so, will this inevitably continue?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Prominent in the current global debate on these issues is Lester \nBrown of the Worldwatch Institute. He offers a stark warning, published \nin his new book Eco-Economy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“our economy is slowly destroying its support systems, consuming its \nendowment of natural capital. Demands of the expanding economy, as now \nstructured, are surpassing the sustainable yield of ecosystems.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bjorn Lomborg, a former Greenpeace campaigner, in a controversial \nbook, The Skeptical Environmentalist, takes on what he sees as the scare\n mongering by environmentalists like Brown. So how is it that two \nresearchers can arrive at such different conclusions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first reason is to do with the use of factual research. There are\n many examples where Lomborg attempts to find holes in the factual \nassertions made by organisations such as Worldwatch. For example, he \nrejects the widely cited claim that 40,000 species per year become \nextinct. Similarly, he is dismissive of talk of the risk posed by \npesticides, an issue which has gained a notable amount of coverage in \nthe British media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second reason is to do with the way conclusions are drawn from \nthe facts. For example, in the issue of water resources, Brown’s \ndiscussion focusses upon particular areas where there are shortages, \nnotably the Middle East and North Africa. Lomborg acknowledges these \nlocalised shortages but chooses to emphasise the potential global \nabundance of water, given improved cooperation and efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Selective references? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Since The Skeptical Environmentalist was published other environmentalists have hit back, accusing Lomborg of exactly the kind of selective references to scientific research of which he accuses them. The World Resources Institute (WRI) point out that his use of statistics such as for the global fish catch which masks the importance of the distinguishing between different species of fish, many of wihich have seen drastic falls in stocks(see www.wri.org<\/a>). The Union of Concerned Scientists say that he misleadingly refers to the rate of tropical deforestation as 0.46 percent per year, where as this statistic is the percentage of the total area of all types of forest. Lomborg is dismissive of the implications of tropical deforestation for the preservation of biodiversity and does not consider the ecological difference between recently grown forests for timber production and long established rainforests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even without reading the counter-charges of environmental \norganisations, The Skeptical Environmentalist is noticeably selective in\n the use of research. In discussing endangered species, Lomborg queries \nthe statistics on the number of species that have become extinct in the \nrecent past, providing what he claims is evidence of past exaggerations.\n His dismissal of other environmentalists’ concerns about possible \nfuture extinctions is inferred from this\u2014implying that exaggeration \nabout the past is evidence that we need not be concerned about the \nfuture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The optimistic picture offered by Lomborg is bolstered by his \ndiscussion of pollution, where the advanced industrial nations of the \nNorth, have seen an improvement in the past fifty years. Lomborg \nstresses how these improvements have been achieved while economic \nactivity has expanded. A more critical interpretation would, of course, \nquestion whether the air pollution they experience is yet acceptable and\n whether much of it is a consequence of the profit-first necessity of \ncapitalism\u2014a question that is not addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n