[1] The Skeptical Environmentalist (by Bjørn
Lomborg) is a copiously-referenced (2930 citations!) assessment of
global environmental health by a professor at a Danish university
trained as a political scientist and statistician. Lomborg's
principal thesis is that the vast majority of environmental
problems are either overstated or non-existent. Lomborg refers to
tendency to exaggerate as "The Litany"- a gloom-and-doom perception
of the state of our environment derived from flawed interpretations
of data or even a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by some
in the environmental movement.
[2] As a college student in the late seventies, I received what
Lomborg would probably call an indoctrination in "The Litany." I
vividly and fondly recall classes in which we ardently discussed
Limits to Growth (a text [Meadows et al. 1972] that served
as an apologetic for the environmental movement of the seventies
and eighties and is oft-criticized in The Skeptical
Environmentalist) and I remain an admirer of Amory Lovins'
ideas about renewable energy resources. As such, one would expect
that I would reject, in toto, Lomborg's revisionist
notions about the state of our environment. Yes and no. As a
scientist (I have a Ph.D in Plant Biology), I am alarmed by the
lack of scientific rigor in the debate about the state of the
environment. Far-ranging claims about the health of our environment
often appear to be based on limited lines of evidence. Thus, I find
myself in sympathy with at least one of the basic sentiments
expressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist - one should
not blindly accept all that is espoused by the environmental
movement. Moreover, the data on which Lomborg bases his conclusions
in The Skeptical Environmentalist are cited and
documented. As a consequence, readers can examine the raw data and
then evaluate Lomborg's conclusions. Lomborg is to be commended for
approaching the issue with a transparency that at least attempts to
introduce scientific rigor.
[3] But, is The Skeptical Environmentalist good
science? In my opinion, the answer is "no" because The
Skeptical Environmentalist fails one of the requirements for
scientific scholarship - peer review. All good scholarship in
science goes through a process in which numerous experts in the
field review the material as an unpublished manuscript. The
Skeptical Environmentalist has not been subjected to peer
review; which was not an oversight on the part of Lomborg, but the
path he chose for publication of the material. Why are the
scientific merits of the book a relevant issue, if Lomborg had no
intention of publishing his manuscript in the tradition of
scientific scholarship? At least some are touting the book as a
scientific challenge to the environmental movement. Yes, Lomborg
has assembled and interpreted an impressive array of published data
for which he deserves credit. However, the fact remains that the
book represents his interpretations of the evidence.
[4] One might ask a follow-up question: "Why can't you, a
scientist, evaluate the merits of Lomborg's thesis?" The answer is
that I don't have the expertise in the broad spectrum of topics
covered by The Skeptical Environmentalist. In fact, I
would be surprised if any single individual could have a depth of
expertise in all of the subjects addressed in The Skeptical
Environmentalist. It is this observation that leaves me uneasy
about the conclusions in Lomborg's book. A survey of the myriad
post-publication reviews suggests that Lomborg generally supports a
minority viewpoint in his book. Rightly or wrongly, this situation
reminds me (as a plant evolutionary biologist) of exchanges I have
had with creationists who use their interpretation of evidence on
topics ranging from astrophysics to zoology to challenge
evolutionary theory. I am occasionally unable to answer immediately
some of these challenges simply because the subject (e.g.,
astrophysics) lies outside my area of expertise. However, a quick
trip to the library or a conversation with a learned colleague has
always provided me with an answer to the creationist challenge.
Moreover, these exchanges generally reveal the challenger to be
unfamiliar with the full spectrum of issues regarding a given
subject. Is it possible that Lomborg, who is not an expert in most
of the topics he covers, has missed key points of the environmental
debate? Many of Lomborg's critics make just this claim. A more
cynical question would be "Has Lomborg interpreted the data he
cites in order to fit them into a pre-conceived outcome?"
[5] Finally we consider the ethical questions brought to the
fore by The Skeptical Environmentalist: "Has Lomborg
factored ethics into his interpretations of the evidence?" Although
Lomborg pays lip service to ethical considerations, it is clear
that the bottom line is the bottom line - would the benefits
derived from an environmental remediation activity justify the
cost? For example, Lomborg addresses the question of biodiversity
and concludes that the background rates of extinction currently
accepted by the majority of biologists are grossly exaggerated and
that, therefore, the need to preserve biological diversity is
likewise exaggerated. Furthermore, Lomborg essentially concludes
that efforts to conserve some species (e.g., many invertebrates and
most microbes) to be of little economic benefit since these
organisms do not factor into an aesthetic need (i.e., most of us
would not mourn the extinction of the green alga
Pediastrum, but many would care deeply if the beloved
African Elephant disappeared) nor are these organisms likely to
offer any economic incentives for preservation (i.e., they don't
produce any economically important byproducts). Interestingly, this
topic allows us to examine the limits of scientific evidence in the
grand debate. A wealth of data regarding changes over time in the
diversity of organisms can be assembled with relative ease.
However, the inherent uncertainty associated with these data can
allow for varied interpretations regarding, for example, the
background extinction rate. More importantly, one cannot test
hypotheses about the economic or ecological effects of a given
extinction event, since one cannot perform the control treatments
of such an experiment. In my opinion, this observation can be
extended to other areas of the environmental debate. If science is
not definitive, how are we to proceed in the environmental debate?
It is clear to me that this debate represents a complex interplay
of ethical considerations and empirical evidence. My concern is
that the Lomborg ethos has "maximize profits" as the prime
directive and that this is coloring the interpretations of the
data. Could it not be argued that a more biblical, stewardship
approach to managing the environment is a legitimate alternative
ethos? What is the appropriate ethical framework in which to
evaluate the data generated in the debate on the environment? This
question is not addressed in The Skeptical
Environmentalist.
[6] It is clear that the skepticism of the environmental
movement advocated by Lomborg is a double-edged sword - the same
skepticism needs to be applied to The Skeptical
Environmentalist. We need to acknowledge that an honest
evaluation of empirical evidence is essential in defining the
parameters of the debate, but that ethical yardsticks will also be
part of the equation and may even color our interpretations. Should
you read this book? Sure (especially if you have a stake in the
environmental debate). Does this book represent a serious challenge
to environmental dogma? The jury is still out.
Citation
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. & Behrens III,
W. W. 1972. Limits to Growth. London, Potomac Associates
Book
© April 2002
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 2, Issue 4