Rating: 
Summary: please be skeptical
Review: How should an open-minded person with a strong interest in determining the truth and with no political axe to grind treat this book? In my view, it is a good starting point, but ONLY that, for exploring many important issues regarding the environment. Check out the sources, the claims and counterclaims. Keep in mind that the 'truth' in this vastly complex subject area can rarely, if ever, be completely determined and no 'side' has a monopoly on it. SKEPTICISM indeed should be the rule, both for the claims made in the book and for claims made by the book's opponents...What really matters is not whether the 'doomsayers' of thirty years ago were right or not (How many predictions of ANY kind made thirty years ago turned out to be right?), but what will conditions on our planet be like for our descendants and how cautious should we be right now to increase the odds that those conditions will be good. In the end, as a result of reading this book or reading about this book, you will probably use it simply to confirm your pre-existing opinions. Too bad.
Rating: 
Summary: Total propaganda
Review: Science Magazine tore this book to shreds. It is innaccurate, using "data" to manipulate what's really happening because of the rapid warming of the Earth.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed
Review: First the good news:
1.The book's stated aims are laudable.
2.Many of the points in the book are sound.
3.It (usually) uses a better approach than just emotional gut feeling ("how arrogant are we to believe...") Now the bad news:
1.It's a polemic. There's plenty of documentation out there about just how wrong it goes (e.g. the Jan 2002 issue of Scientific American), but I'll add a few thoughts: Lomborg shows no qualms about reversing his position wherever it suits. For example, he argues that acid rain was never a big problem and limiting sulphur dioxide output was a knee-jerk reaction. Then, in discussing air pollution he boasts about how much sulphur dioxide levels have dropped. What is wrong with this picture? Lomborg repeatedly argues that we can't help the environment without giving up schools or hospitals, as if spending less on agricultural subsidies or nuclear arms or even roads isn't an option. He dismisses transferring taxation from wealth creation to pollution for many dubious reasons including "limiting the joy of driving" -- as if that belonged in a supposedly objective book on the environment. He argues that cars are getting lighter; don't they have SUVs in Denmark? Lomborg also seems to have a skewed view of how much effort has been needed to get this far in cleaning up. In his world, and contrary to counter-examples such as Saudi Arabia, countries get to a certain level of wealth and then just clean up; scientific discoveries, public opinion, the democratic process and legislation don't come into it. The post-hoc fallacy should not be made by a self-proclaimed skeptic. Particularly painful to read is his version of the history of the Montreal Protocol, where every country instantly united in banning CFCs and moved on. What *really* happened was a longer process involving political and industrial interests attempting to discredit the science and the scientists (which still goes on), followed later by attempts to claim that reducing CFCs would be more expensive than living with the consequences of reduced ozone. There's an obvious parallel with what Lomborg argues with carbon dioxide limits: I suspect that had the book been written in the 1980s, he'd have argued against limiting CFCs. The book falls well short of meeting its stated goals. It's progress of a kind when a polemic acknowledges that there is such a thing as global warming or ozone depletion, but it goes on to say that in every field the (non-expert, non-peer-reviewed) author has looked into, the consensus of (peer-reviewed) experts is wrong: don't the book's fans find this in the least bit odd? And on the subject of peer reviewing: Cambridge University Press took the strange step of not getting the book reviewed by natural scientists. This isn't unheard of -- Velikovsky's bizarre "Worlds in Collision" also escaped scrutiny and became a big money-spinner for its publishing house. As a balanced text, I'd give it 1.5 stars. As a polemic I'd give it 3, but if that's what you're after then try P.J.O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World" -- considerably more upfront and readable.
Rating: 
Summary: An important statement of clarity and fact
Review: Lomborg compellingly debunks many myths about the state of the environment. I am an environmentalist who helped start the first Earth Day in 1970 at age 10, but I read and checked the original data sources he cites and they are very accurate. His conclusions about the improvements in the human condition are impossible to ignore - we are better off than at any time in our history - verifiably. At the same time, the dire situation for the natural world is also clear - and worthy of major action. Three cheers for Lomborg's courage to challenge the basis for doomsayer preaching about apocalypse.
Rating:
Summary: The Future Is Not Scary
Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist is an important book. The author writes in what I have to call the "un-masking" tradition, in which a writer examines an almost universally accepted world view and reveals it to be false. Unlike most writers in this tradition, who tear down false paradigms but leave little of value in their place, Lomborg has a charitable and humanitarian message. Lomborg examines a wide range of phenomena - food and hunger, deforestation, air pollution, and water pollution, for example - and usually finds that our current policies are working. They may not be working as fast as we would like, and it would be inappropriate to feel complacent, but, contrary to what we are told by the media and some environmental groups, we have identified approaches to environmental problems that are successful and are working. The author is careful not to overstate his case, and there are many exceptions to the highly simplified conclusion that I've described above. One major exception is that, while the developed countries can afford to address their environmental problems and are doing so, the developing countries face the more pressing problem of crushing poverty. In Lomborg's view, this problem - poverty in the developing countries - is the principal problem facing the world. Accordingly, our principal objective must be to create wealth in these countries. Creating wealth in the developing countries will help their people live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. And, once these basic needs are met, the developing countries will turn their attention and resources to environmental issues as the developed countries did in the last quarter of the 20th century. There is much more than this to Lomborg's finely detailed examination of the true state of the world. His book, while polemical, is carefully researched and argued. Lomborg's presentation is engaging and the book is visually attractive. This is probably the most rigorous book I have ever read by a political scientist and it enhanced my appreciation for what Lomborg's profession can offer us.
Rating:
Summary: Doomsday predictions are based on apalling exaggerations---
Review: This is the best of several rebuttals to the prophets of doom and predictions of environmental collapse. Bjorn Lomborg carefully demonstrates the widespread misinterpretations of environmental data and science by some environmentalists and by many politicians. 0ne by one, he addresses the various elements of what he calls "the Litany," and shows them to be gross exaggerations, misinterpretations of data, or outright misrepresentations. The author's overall purpose is to get the environmental issues in proper perspective, so that legitimate discussions can occur and valid decisions made regarding policy and priorities. As one approach he uses a cost-based analysis to demonstrate that the cost of remedying environmental damage is frequently greater than the cost of the damage itself. A basic point is that, contrary to the Litany, virtually all aspects of life by any objective measure are better now than they ever have been, and getting better, not worse. That is not to say that life is perfect, or as good as it could and should be. He provides his explanation of why we continually hear so much bad news, when things have never been better! The data, properly interpreted, supports the following statements (emphasis added): "We will NOT lose our forests; we will NOT run out of energy, raw materials or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world, and have good reasons to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have NOT been defiled. Our rivers have become cleaner and support more life-" "Acid rain did NOT kill off our forests, our species are NOT dying out as many have claimed, with half of them disappearing over the next 50 years-the figure is likely to be about 0.7 percent. The problem of the ozone layer has been solved. The outlook on global warming does NOT indicate a catastrophe-rather there is good reason to believe that our energy consumption will change toward renewable sources way before the end of the century.----And, our chemical worries and fear of pesticides are misplaced and counterproductive." "The Litany is based on myths, although propagated by well-meaning, compassionate people"--- perhaps based on a "---Calvinistic sense of guilt. We have done so well that some feel rather ashamed." Here is the most important book about the environment of several I've read. Highly recommend it to anyone interested in FACTS about the REAL state of the world!!
Rating:
Summary: Corporate Style Propoganda
Review: The author uses manipulated and/or inaccurate data to convince people that they do not need to be environmentally responsible citizens. This book was probably funded by the unscrupulous corporations that exploit and poison our natural resources and at the same time try to convince us how wondeful they are to our society. It is quite convincing but when the statistics are carefully examined they prove to be highly manipulated to justify the anti-environmentalist author's arguments. Many scientists and mathematicians have come out against the way in which the author used his data.
Rating:
Summary: A Smokescreen
Review: This book is based on a tenditious and self-serving interpretation of the existing data. Worst yet, the author provides a scientific smokescreen for those economic and political interests which are blocking any effective effort to address the single greatest threat to humanity and this planet, climate change. For an accurate understanding of the political and economic forces arrayed against appropriate environmental policies I recommend Matthew Cahn's _Environmental Deceptions_ and George Gonzalez's _Corporate Power and the Environment_.
Rating:
Summary: A serious important book
Review: Lomborg has written a well researched, carefully documented, readable book that exposes the shoddy research of so many of the establishment enviornmentalists. And they don't like it. Read the book, then read the criticism and his responses on Lomborg's web site and on The Scinentific American's web site (the S.A. wouldn't let Lomborg post their criticism of him on his web site). I found the SCIENTIST'S criticism based mostly on "because I say so" but make up your own mind.
The crux is global warming. Lomborg finds The Kyoto Accord very expensive to impliment. There isn't much argument here. He also finds it almost worthless as a cure for global warming. This is also consistent with what the serious envioronmental data shows, but this isn't what the media is telling us.
Rating: 
Summary: MAYBE THE TRUTH IS IN BETWEEN
Review: This is an interesting book. Written by a scholar previously working with an environmental agency, based on a broad spectrum of material(including a lot of data generated by environmental agencies) it makes compelling reading as it states the case for a revision of the apocalyptical view of some orthodox prophets, about the current state of global environment.
In order to aquire a more balanced view of the diverse problems that affect our environment, and a more realistic approach to the policies that really need to be enacted, a balance has to be made. And this is a book that contributes toward that end.
| 
