Rating: Summary: Facts Not Ideology Review: I have thought for some time that the Environmental Movement has become a religious one. They have developed a creed and a theology baed on opinions set in stone. "Leaders" make dire prophecies and refuse to look at opposing facts. Despite the numerous predictions - famine by 21st century, 50% of all species extinct, cancer rates skyrocketing, mass starvation in most of the word, deformities will mushroom due to chemicals, etc. - not a one has even came close to occurring, they continue undisturbed in their faith.The author's biggest problem is not going to be solved by a book - even one as good as this one. He is attemmpting to fight a battle using scientific data, facts and teaching, whereas the opponents use emotion, wild claims, false science and ideology. Facts that do not agree with a stated opinion are ignored or ridiculed. This book, appearing at this juncture in the environmental fight, provides an amazing array of charts, facts and sources. The comparisons with the claims of the zealots are remarkable. Especially telling were the many measurements of progress in almost every area of human activity - from life expectancy, to food to clean water. This is in direct conflict with the doom and gloom we hear on a regular basis. The return to a pastoral setting, which many of the "theologians" evoke displays an incredible lack of knowledge about pre-industrial conditions. Wisely, the author does not pretend that "all is well" but does try to restore a little balance to the argument over humankind's role on Earth. The power of this book is evident by the over-reaction from the "mainstream" media. I have heard it disparaged on NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR and read "reviews" in many publications (NY TImes, Washington Post, Scientific American) All these blasts have one thing in common. Very little attention is paid to the facts and the the main argument seems to be that he had the temerity to challenge the world view promulgated by the preachers. Read this book and enjoy.
Rating: Summary: Hoist by their own petard! Review: Very brief, as many of the reviews here make salient points. In the movie BLACK HAWK DOWN there is a scene at the end where the soldiers sieze a machine gun nest and turn the barrels back at their attackers: who were none to happy to be victims of their own tactics. So too with this textbook: its turns the SAME statistical techniques and generalizations and hysteria that have been the environmental movements' trademark (since SILENT SPRING) right back at them! Thats why I am amused at these 'scientific panels' and 'peer reviews' of this text condemning it so much; for in so doing they are indicting themselves.
Rating: Summary: Nothing New Here Review: There is nothing really that new here. In fact, we've been having the same debate, with the same positions, at least since Hardin wrote "The Tragedy of the Commons." Thus, why people think Lomborg's views are so ground breaking I can't say. Cheers
Rating: Summary: Doomsayers are afraid that you might actually read this book Review: Since Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was published in the United States last year, a lot of people have been very critical of Lomborg and his book. That's fine. Healthy debate and disagreement over important issues is essential to the preservation of a free, open, democratic society. Some of Lomborg's critics have politely raised legitimate disagreements about some of Lomborg's statements, such as on global warming, the amount of public land that's covered in forest, and the size of wild fish populations. However, even these polite and civil critics have ignored the vast majority of Lomborg's book. Many of Lomborg's other critics have resorted to waging personal attacks on Lomborg, calling him a "liar" and a "fraud" and a "charlatan," and saying that he has "no credentials." These personal attacks against Lomborg suggest that Lomborg must have struck a nerve somewhere. I suppose that anyone who dares to give statistics and facts to disprove the doomsayer predictions that were made by Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown, the Club of Rome, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others in 1960s and 1970s, is bound to strike a nerve somewhere. The doomsayers who predicted a worsening of third world famine as the world's population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion were wrong. Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other doomsayers predicted in the 1960s and 1970s, the truth is that over the past few decades, per capita food production has increased in China, India, Latin America, the developing world in general, and the world as a whole. The doomsayers were wrong in their claim that the Chinese famines of the 1960s were caused by "overpopulation." And the doomsayers were wrong in their prediction that as China's population got bigger, its problem of famine would get worse. In reality, China's famines of the 1960s were caused by bad economic policies, not by "overpopulation." China's switch from collective farming to private farming in the late 1970s caused a tremendous increase in per capita food production. Today, China's population is much bigger than it was in the 1960s. And today, the people of China are much better fed than they were in the 1960s. Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other doomsayers want us to believe, Africa actually has a low population density, and is very rich in many valuable natural resources, and has many large tracts of fertile land that are sitting idle, unplanted, with no crops being grown. The real cause of African famine is bad economic policies, not "overpopulation." Collective ownership of farmland discourages farmers from planting crops, because the person who plants the crop is not necessarily the person who gets to harvest it. Government price caps on food discourage farmers from growing food. Poor countries remain poor because of corrupt government, bad economic policies, and a lack of strong protections of private property rights. Whenever a poor country adopts strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, combined with a strong rule of law, and enforcement of contracts, and holds on to these policies, the country experiences tremendous increases in its standard of living. Recent examples of poor countries transforming themselves into rich countries include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, and all of this happened while these countries experienced substantial increases in their populations. Paul Ehrlich said this was impossible, but real world experience proves that Ehrlich was wrong. In the rich capitalist countries with a first world standard of living, the air and water have been getting cleaner. Once per capita GNP in a country reaches about $4,000, people can start to afford worrying about protecting the environment. And the richer the country gets, the better off its environment becomes. On privately owned timberland, the greedy landowner is concerned about the future resale value of his land, so he usually plants more trees than he cuts down. On private fish farms, fish populations keep getting bigger and bigger. Government price caps on the price of water keep the price artificially low. This artificially low price encourages people to waste water. Also, this artificially low price prevents many water suppliers from being able to afford desalination plants. 70% of the world's surface is covered in water, to an average depth of 2 miles. Water "shortages" are caused by bad economic policies, not by an actual lack of water. The doomsayers who predicted that before the year 2000, the world would run out of oil, copper, gold, iron, tin, and aluminum, were wrong. In a free market, with private ownership of resources, and free market pricing, it's impossible to run out of a resource. Scarcity of a resource leads to higher prices. Higher prices encourage users to conserve. Higher prices encourage suppliers to look for more of the resource, and/or to find a cheaper substitute. The doomsayers don't understand the function of prices in a free market economy, and that's why their predictions of "running out" of resources have been consistently wrong. The doomsayers of the 18th century who worried about running out of candle wax and whale oil never realized that things like petroleum and electricity and light bulbs would come along. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the petroleum age won't end because we run out of petroleum. The doomsayers who predicted global cooling and an ice age by the year 2000 were wrong. The doomsayers who predicted the extinction of one million species by the year 2000 were wrong. The doomsayers who predicted the total disappearance of the amazon rain forest by the year 2000 were wrong. I recommend that you read Lomborg's book. I also recommend that you read Lomborg's critics. Then you can make up your own mind about who is right.
Rating: Summary: Very misleading and shallow Review: So many people will believe anything they read if it agrees with their beliefs. This book contains errors and distortions. Unfortunately, the reviewers just add to the confusion. For example: "...government workers faked lynx presence..." Sorry, it didn't happen. Read the follow-ups, not just the first headline. Visit the Audubon Magazine website for a comprehensive article on the incident. The marine harvest data is flawed. China has been lying about their catches for years. Even the not very left-leaning U.S. News reported that yields have been dropping dramatically. "Marine sleuths find that faulty numbers from Beijing have masked a worldwide drop in catches". This book is recommended for the person who wants to refute arguments about environmental problems and doesn't care about accuracy and facts.
Rating: Summary: Home Run Review: I haven't seen this much dust kicked up since Thomas Wolfe published his art world broadside "The Painted Word" in 1975. That text ridiculed the incestuous idiocies of the art historian/art theorist, and the response that spewed forth from those he targeted was identical to those now appearing in opposition of Lomborg: "our trade journals don't agree," "he's not properly educated," etc. You get the idea: those who we control aren't agreeing, and those who do agree couldn't find their rump with both hands. Especially they are incensed that an outsider put a pencil to their Luddite fantasies and poor research. Fortunately this scientific study came from Denmark and their academia and not a shareholder at Enron as his detractors would have you believe. Note: the English language version of Scientific American published an Environmental Caliphate review of his book but declined to offer Lomborg space in which to respond; neither then nor in a subsequent issue! Lomberg then published his response on his own web site. SA then tried to enjoin him with a court order preventing him from doing so. THAT is the real state of the world, at least the environmental world.
Rating: Summary: ARMAGEDDON IS NOT THAT NEAR Review: This is a fascinating book if you read it with an objective mind. Lomborg presents a new perspective about inaccuracies that have enabled some environmentalists and activists to present an excessively bleak picture of the effects of pollution, overpopulation, global warming, food shortages, reduction of biodiversity, etc. One has to bear in mind that the author started his research when he was an environmentalist at Greenpeace. He utilizes statistical and economic models to present us another view about these subjects and the real dangers we have to confront in the world, using mostly official figures of the U.N., World Bank and environmentalist organizations. According to the author, there are problems that we must approach in a scientific manner, but we might have never been better off compared with other periods of humanity. Life expectation has doubled in developed countries in just a century (increasing 50% in less developed ones). Never so much food has been produced and population growth is slower relatively, than the reduction of cereal production. According to FAO figures the rainforests are not in the brink of extinction. On the contrary, since WWII, forests have actually grown by 0.85 %. Lomborg also analyzes in depth figures related with the water problem and pollution. Global warming effect gets a fairer treatment. The Kyoto protocol could only provide a very marginal difference in temperature rise. If you want to balance the inflammatory literature we are getting used to read, with another perspective, I would recommend this book. But of course, politicians, regional interests, and fanatics are contaminating constantly what should be a real and transparent debate, from the scientific standpoint, to insure a better future and the right policies for a healthier world..........
Rating: Summary: Completely Inaccurate Review: Not only does this book contain piles of completely incorrect "facts" and statistics, but it wildly distorts the actual facts it presents. It has widely been mocked in the scientific and intellectual communities (see, for a layman's example Scientific American issues of January and May 2002). Anyone who wants a clear and unbiased version of the facts will unforuntately not receive it from this horrible book.
Rating: Summary: Much better reasoned than most of the replies Review: Just to take one issue out of many -- lets talk about forests. Part of the environmentalist "litany" that has led to so much deserved skepticism is that there is a devastating deforestation of the planet underway, with further obviously bad consequences for biodiversity. Yet Lomberg observes that the UN climate panel, a standard source for the relevant statistics, relied upon often by his critics in their own writings, indicates that there is no net deforestation, and that in all likelihood the Earth will have more forests in 2100 than it had in 1950. To this his critics often reply (as Lovejoy did, in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN panel, or lynch mob) that Lomberg is confusing "tree plantations" with real forests. We are deforesting because we are substituting phoney forests for the real thing. So they say. But that revised version of the litany doesn't work either. Lomberg antitipated it. In this book he writes, "But for one thing it is not obvious that plantations reduce overall biodiversity. Certainly, they do have fewer species locally, but...they reduce the economic pressure on the natural forests. As a result, these forests are better shielded, and support higher biodiversity," etc. Unsurprisingly, he provides specific facts to back that up, too. In all, this feels to me like real science, whereas the critics, who often claim that they have the "defend science" from such outsiders as this, sound like dogmaticizing Popes.
Rating: Summary: Pure bilge! Review: More than a few eminent scientists are up in arms over Cambridge University Press' publication of this essentially non peer reviewed compilation of misrepresented facts and statistics. The only science Lomborg espouses is political-- fitting considering his expertise lies in social rather than environmental science.
|