Rating: 
Summary: REQUIRED READING, Meticulously Researched, Inspiring!
Review: "The Skeptical Environmentalist" presents a plethora of arguments (nearly 3,000 footnotes and a 70 page bibliography) to confirm what saner environmentalists have always suspected: the environment and life on earth are improving! Bjorn Lomborg's critics would do well to begin reading his book. His critics sadly will look to his title and simply assume that because he is a professor of *statistics* that he could never make an intelligent argument on the environment. Yet, Lomborg's analysis is based on statistical evidence taken around from the world and hundreds of different sources. One suspects that even if Lomborg was the most honored environmental scientist on earth, his critics would still disparage him for no other reason than his conclusions are actually positive and not comprised of Doomsday scenarios. Even if we were to assume that Lomborg's optimism is naïve, that some of his conclusions are incorrect, or his interpretation of statistics proves wrong, his often repeated point is the same: the environment certainly needs to be cared for, and we still have much work to do, but nonetheless the state of our air, water, food production, life expectancy, income, etc. have given us some reason to be proud. Surely this should be cause for SOME celebration! Lomborg should be praised and admired at minimum for not running with the herd and instead looking at facts and reality to come to his conclusions. In this way, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is an excellent book, and definitely worth a read (or two). If environmentalists would only take his lead and present the status of the environment fully and completely, they would gain much more credibility. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: A Statistician VS Environmental Science. Who's Right?
Review: =====> This book (first published in Danish in 1998 then English in 2001) by Bjorn Lomborg (born: 1965) has ignited a storm of controversy. (In fact, his official internet site has received more than 150,000 hits since it began in mid-December 2001.) Opponents say that this book is inaccurate. They say that his conclusion with respect to environmental concerns that "things are better--but not necessarily good" as compared to the past and that the environment will improve even more in the future is not accurate. As far as Lomborg himself, he is Associate Professor of Statistics in the Department of Political Science at Denmark's University of Aarhus (and a former Greenpeace member). He admits that "I am not myself an expert as regards [to] environmental problems" but he had "experts" review the chapters of his book. When I referred to this book's acknowledgements section, I counted about twenty names of people who might be called an expert. For a book that discusses the large topic of the environment, I thought this number to be quite slim. Lomborg also admits that "it's...true that statistics can be used to manipulate the truth. But used judiciously, statistics is the best source of information about our world...[and] the only way [in many areas] we can make a scientifically sound description of the world." This book has a main narrative of about 350 double-columned pages. There are over 2500 endnotes, over 1000 references, almost 175 figures (mainly line graphs and histograms), and almost ten tables. This book is divided into six parts and each part is divided into sections. (There are a total of 25 sections.) On the environmental side, these sections cover traditional problems like food, energy, water, and pollution but also future problems like biodiversity and global warming. Part one is a general outline of the entire book. Part two to five present graphs of data with Lomborg analyzing and interpreting the graphs. Part six is a summary and details the author's views and conclusions. Thus, when Lomborg says, "This book presents a lot of data," he's not kidding! Also, I should warn you that if you're not used to it, reading all this graphical data and Lomborg's explanations can be quite tedious and even boring. Thus, I recommend reading this book at a slow pace. As you can imagine, a book like this draws much criticism and most of this criticism I've read has to do with the accuracy and amount of the book's content. According to Lomborg's website, some scientific publications (with their associated experts, scientists, and university professors) that have given negative critiques of his book are as follows: Nature, Science, Scientific American, World Wide Fund for Nature, and the Danish Ecological Council. Even the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty gave this book a "highly critical assessment" but this has been recently retracted. I recommend reading through this mass of criticism to understand what the controversey is all about and perhaps balancing what Lomborg has to say in his book with what others in their areas of environmental expertise have to say about his claims. Why is all this criticism coming from the scientific community? Is Lomborg right and the scientific community wrong? The answer to these questions is found in this book! On the first page of part one, section one, the fourth paragraph states the following: "This book attempts to measure the real state of the world [with respect to environmental concerns]. Of course, it is not possible to write a book (or even lots of books for that matter) which measures the ENTIRE state of the world...I wish to gauge [WHAT I CONSIDER are] the most important characteristics [or indicators] of the world" (my upper-case emphasis added). This is the answer to the two questions above. Lomborg is NOT measuring the ENTIRE state of the world but is only measuring the state of the world based on a relatively FEW indicators WHICH HE CONSIDERS MORE IMPORTANT than other indicators. The environmental science community has data on the entire state of the world (and thus have "a lot of books" on this matter). This is why when you read their criticisms of this book they say his data is not completely accurate SINCE DATA THEY CONSIDER AS IMPORTANT INDICATORS IS MISSING. (For specific indicators, read the scientific community's criticisms in the sources indicated above.) Therefore, in their view, this book is not really "Measuring the Real State of the World" (this book's subtitle). Thus, Lomborg seems to be right (that is, the environment is better) when he bases his analysis on a few indicators. But when you base the analysis on all possible indicators, the scientific community is right (that is, the environment is not better). In Lomborg's analysis, he does, however raise many important ideas. Here are three of my favorites: (1) "Prioritization [of worthy causes] is absolutely essential if we are to achieve the best possible [or most efficient] distribution of resources in society."
(2) "We ought not to let [radical] organizations, business lobbyists, or the media be alone in presenting truths and priorities."
(3) There should be more emphasis on the positive things that have been accomplished rather than dwelling only on the negative. In conclusion, this is a controversial and honest book that bases its conclusions with respect to environmental concerns on the analysis of a limited number of indicators. Thus, caution must be used when applying these conclusions to the environmental state of the entire world. *** 1/2 <=====>
Rating:
Summary: A Grand Perspective on the Environment
Review: Lomborg has done us all an enormous service by providing perspective on the real state of the environment. All of us have been so bombarded by the the daily scare stories that most can't help but feel that everything is getting worse.
I think there are three main causes:
1. Since "bad news is good news" for the media, sensational headlines dominate.
2. Bias of environmental organizations motivated by fund raising and/or power-hunger.
3. Many researchers, who are constantly seeking more funding, slant their "scentific" findings to hype the need for more studies.
It is therefore refreshing to find out from Lomborg that our world is actually in better shape than it was 200 years ago! In area after area, he identifies the long-term trends of improvement in everything from food production to air pollution.
He has done mankind an enormous service by identifying where we are in good shape and where we can most effectively put our efforts to further improve.
A grateful reader
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely wonderful
Review: As a expose on the luddite fund-raiser that is TV-environmentalism this in-depth statistical page turner has few peers.
I have to admit that as a professional economist, who celebrates the fantastic achievements in wealth creation, poverty reduction and life expectancy achieved over the last hundred years, I have absolutely no truck with publicity-crazed people who would rather have the 'third world' consigned to perpetual poverty than wanting everyone to gain economic freedom.
Nevertheless, what amazed me about Lomborg's book, and what really makes it stand out, is the sympathy & patience with which he treats the topic's many subjects. Bear in mind that Lomborg used to believe in the eco-consensus - i.e. the one that we are heading into a crowded, smoke-filled & starving abyss. It wasn't until he actually looked at the numbers properly that he realised this simply isn't true and never will be .... but only if you do your numbers properly and put realistic timeframes on your projections.
Criticially, Lomborg focuses in on what the main obstacles to bettering mankind's lot really are and what can best be achieved by using cost-benefit analysis and long-term data trends as a guide - rather than starting with a thesis and choosing 'friendly' data points.
And in contrast to what Lomborg's many detracters would like you to believe, I happen to think that, for a statistician, he has a pretty good understanding of the many and complex issues involved - which is not something you would say about buffoons who think that a high oil price is a harbinger of doom or that land size is a constraint on food production.
If you are open-minded and believe in our ability to adjust, crank productivity and change circumstances to our advantage, then you'll love this book. If your world is full of storm clouds, big black smog-filled growlers, then I'd invest in land and cemeteries. At least you'll die rich. But please stop telling us to wake up. Only thirty years ago you were obsessed with global cooling.....
Five stars Mr Lomborg. Absolutely bang on!
Rating: 
Summary: Oh, for a zero start rating
Review: [...]
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.
To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg's skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science - namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review. Reviewing Lomborg's claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.'s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.
Winston Churchill once said, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on", reminding usof the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Like the Hare, Lomborg's lie has raced out in front of the truth.
With the help of these careful scientific peer reviews, UCS hopes that the truth, like the Tortoise, will catch up and emerge the ultimate victor.
Editor's note: In addition to these UCS-solicited reviews, critiques of Lomborg's book have also been published in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other scientific journals, as well as on several web sites [...] in global environment
[...]
Rating:
Summary: BREATHTAKING
Review: Though no friend of the radical environmentalist, I nevertheless first approached this volume with skepticism. After all, I reasoned to myself, how much science can anybody muster in today's world against the prevailing conventional wisdom of impending doom.
Not that I had to have a tremendous amount of science to bolster my skeptism about the environmental movement. My gut feeling, common sense, as well as knowledge about the world from the Bible had long ago convinced me that much of the product of the environmental movement was hooey. Using common sense I had long ago concluded that ocean drilling for oil could not be nearly as risky as envirowackos wanted us to believe, because I knew that untold millions of barrels of oil had been spilled into the worlds oceans during WWII (torpeodoed tankers, etc.) with little or no lasting affect. That, and other observations had taught me that nature is far more resilient than the Left would have us believe. From the Bible I knew that Satan is in a long war to discredit the Lord whenever he can, and the ascendancy of the Christianized West in World Affairs since the time of Christ, and particularly since the Reformation, has made it prime target for Satan's attacks. I saw, and still see in the Left's attacks on the Chrisitianized West's environmental record, a frantic and malicious attempt to make the absolute worst out of every failure, while minimizing the successes. Is it not manifiest that the largely Christian settlers and pioneers who subdued North America, while they certainly exploited it at times, for the most part preserved it as a wonderful place to live? Long before there was even such a thing as an "environmentalist" our ancestors were preserving vast tracks of land for posterity. Who staked out Yellowstone National Park, Ralph Nader?
No I was ready for a book to provide me ammunition in my guments with environmentalists, I just didn't expect it to be very heavy on scientific fact. What a surprise I got when I read this work. Deadly for envirowackos, this book pulls the lion's share of it's data from the institution envirowackos revere most (at least in governmental affairs) - the United Nations.
Virtually every fear that envirowackos are trying to plant in the heart of unsuspecting people worldwide is mitigated by facts in this book. Afraid of the out-of-control cancer menace, fueled by human exposures to man-made toxins everywhere? This book shows that for every type of cancer, except one, rates of incidence have been steadily declining since mankind has been keeping records. Afraid of deforestation depriving you of oxygen to breath and woods to recreate in? This book shows that worldwide deforestation is minimimal and may in fact come to a halt, largely because mankind has become (largely thanks to the dreaded chemical companies) so darn good at getting more and more crops out of the same amount farm acreage. This phenomenoh is called the "Green Revolution", but you won't hear much about that on your Leftist controlled nightly news. No, no - they mustn't report the good new. If they did you might conclude that Christian principles result in good governance instead of world-wide impending disaster.
Read this book. You won't regret your purchase.
Rating: 
Summary: Ideological, yes; Realistic, no
Review: An important key to understanding this book: Lomborg's best reviews come from the most conservative, business-oriented sources. A very few of the ecologically improving trends that he notes *may* be occurring, but three of the most important measures of planetary health--total biodiversity, terrestrial wildlife habitat and oceanic wildlife habitat--are on steepening downward trends. The book has been widely panned and gets two stars here only for its value in helping understand and debunk inaccurate statistics and perspectives that might be used by those who argue for status quo development policies. For a very well-reasoned and well-written response to Lomborg, go to http://www.ecocouncil.dk/english/ and click on the link for the book: "Sceptical Questions and Sustainable Answers," published, and provided without cost, by The Danish Ecological Council, an organization of academics dealing with environmental policy on a scientific basis. What comes through in reading the book is that Lomborg selectively chose the most alarmist environmental prognoses, recast them as mainstream perspectives, and called them The Litany, as though they were something that one constantly hears. At the same time, Lomborg selectively chose and twisted the data that support his extreme minority view of environmental conditions. In short, Lomborg appears to be a self-promoting ideologue who is doing everything possible to stretch his 15 minutes of fame.
Rating: 
Summary: Things are never as good or as bad as they seem
Review: The Skeptical Environmentalist is a lightning rod of controversy. The only reason I will not give this book 5 stars is because that would be endorsing everything the book claims. The book's main theme is altogether different. Bjørn Lomborg main argument with this book is that tremendous progress has been made cleaning up the environment. There has been so much progress than the Environmental Community has promoted doom and gloom to get attention for their causes.
Obviously no one book has the answers for the magnitude of an issue as complex as the environment, but it is refreshing to get an alternate perspective. In some ways Lomborg's book is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By writing this book Lomborg had to know there was going to be an absolute backlash against it and that is precisely his point. Both sides discount any reasonable objective perspective about the environment; one side for painting too rosy of a picture and the other side for stating there is a problem at all.
This is a great book to read if you love economics. There are tons of figures and graphs and extrapolations based on data. I highly recommend this book for anyone that is looking for an alternate perspective on the environment.
Rating:
Summary: What Me, Worry?
Review: In high school I sometimes said that I was against the environment. It was too easy to be for the environment, I reasoned. Who was going to keep these people honest?
Enter Bjorn Lomborg and his 2001 book, the Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg argues that the world is not going down the tubes, but that instead things are getting better. He begins with a description of what he calls the Litany: a seemingly endless list of environmental concerns portrayed in the media and elsewhere, ranging from toxic pesticides to a Malthusian concern that we will eventually run out of food to feed an ever increasing population. He says that environmental organizations, researchers, and the media all have a vested interest in scaring the general public and making it disproportionately concerned about the state of the environment. He then moves on to what he considers the best method to measure the true state of the world: human welfare. According to Lomborg, not only are we in a state of unprecedented prosperity, but this prosperity will continue for as far out as our models project.
One by one, Lomborg dismisses the most basic of environmental concerns. Remember those population projections that showed an exponential increase in the world's population beginning in the 20th century? Lomborg takes the UN's most recent projections and shows that the population will start to level out by about 2050. In fact, he states that the exponential increase is not due to sky-high fertility rates in developing countries, but rather to a dramatic increase in the life span of the average person in the developed world. Food shortages? Fear not, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization predicts more food for more people for the foreseeable future. Energy? We will continue to refine our technology so that we do not run out of fossil fuels. Besides, solar power will be competitive by mid-century. Surely water must be a problem? Nope, the world has enough water for everyone. The problem is access to water, and Lomborg argues that we need to manage our water better to allow more equal distribution.
Lomborg dedicates six chapters to pollution issues. Air pollution is diminishing, he shows. London, for example, has the cleanest air it has seen since monitoring began in the mid-16th century. The Exxon Valdez crash of 1989 was "a very unfortunate accident" that despoiled the coastline and killed a large number of animals in their natural habitat. Or did it? It killed 250,000 birds - precisely the same number that die every day in the U.S. by colliding with plate glass. According to Lomborg, "the [Prince William] sound has almost fully recovered or will do so within decades." Phew.
Discussing "tomorrow's problems", Lomborg maintains that the cancer risk of pesticides is blown out of proportion, that many fewer species are becoming extinct than most people think (between 4 and 100 species become extinct each year, he says, not the popular notion of 40,000 species per year), and that global warming is only partially caused by greenhouse gasses and in any case the models used to predict the extent of global warming aren't very good.
The Skeptical Environmentalist does not argue that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. In fact, Lomborg's main point is that we live in a world of limited resources and we should accurately inform ourselves in order best to allocate these resources. For example, if pesticides cause 20 cancer deaths per year in the U.S., should we thus ban pesticides? By doing so agriculture will be less productive, we will need to convert more land to farmland (leading to deforestation), and the price of fruits and vegetables will rise. A price rise will encourage consumers to eat less cancer-fighting fruits and vegetables. The result: an estimated 26,000 more people will die of cancer. Oh, and it will cost society $20 billion to boot. How about the Kyoto Protocol's proposal to cap greenhouse gasses? Not only will Kyoto have a minor effect on climate change (which isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be anyway, says Lomborg), it will cost society somewhere between $75-345 billion, money that could otherwise be spent on HIV screening, feeding the hungry, or reducing poverty in the developing world.
It is in making such comparisons that Lomborg is at his best. Yes, there are legitimate environmental concerns, he agrees. But we need accurate information so that we can understand the consequences of any action we take, prioritize among environmental concerns, and make proper trade-offs between investing in the environment and, say, health care. On top of that, a richer society will have more money to spend on non-environmental and environmental concerns, so decreasing poverty and promoting growth in the third world should be our priorities.
Though Lomborg makes an effort to distinguish between the progress of the developed and developing worlds, he tends to look at aggregate figures that ignore real local or individual concerns. Plus, just because we can save billions of dollars by not implementing a specific environmental program does not mean that the money will indeed be used for such a noble cause as to feed the hungry. Indeed, Lomborg himself points out that it would be inefficient to institute an environmental tax that would be earmarked for a specific purpose. His argument that the money can better be used elsewhere is therefore more theoretical than real.
Lomborg seems to confuse causality at times. Many of the data sets he uses to measure environmental improvement only go back to the 1970's. Why? Because this is when environmental issues became a general concern for the U.S. and the Western world. This is when the media and environmental groups started using their "the sky is falling" approach to educate the public about the environment - and it worked. The EPA was established in 1970. The UN Environment Programme was established in 1972. These organizations were created, in part, in response to the public's concern for the environment. Lomborg dismisses this very notion on the second-to-last page of his book: "No, things have gone so well because we have worked hard to improve our situation."
Is Lomborg right in the end? I have no idea. But the Skeptical Environmentalist will help readers look at news stories about an environmental doomsday in a new light. And it will certainly give me plenty of ammunition for my next high school reunion.
Rating:
Summary: For an opposite statement of our future, read *PowerDown*
Review: For an opposite statement of our environmental future, read *PowerDown* by Richard Heinberg, just published in 2004. The increasing price of oil and natural gas is a symptom, but only a symptom, of where we are headed.
|
