The Skeptical Environmentalist

For years I've been telling everyone - based largely on excerpts - how great a book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg is. Now I know, having finally read it cover to cover (including the 2,930 endnotes, and a browse through the 71 pages of references - both new records for books not written by Marxists).

One point to note is that Lomborg supports virtually every point he makes with peer reviewed scientific research. As a piece of academic work, this book is nothing short of stunning. So, virtually every item reported below is cited and supported, rather than hearsay. So, don't knock them unless you can pull a contradictory piece of research out of your filing cabinet.

Here's what I liked and will try and carry forward with me.

These passages are rather extensive, so I have inserted words and phrases in brackets occassionally to cut the amount of content I am lifting.

Serendipity can explain why some tragedies sear the public consience, while others do not:

...the Ethiopian hunger tragedy of 1984 only actually became news becasue a team of BBC journalists stayed overnight in Addis Ababa on their way to another job and sent home shocking pictures... (pg. 39)

I didn't recognize it until I read this that calls for a sustainable economy are hidden calls for autarkic society - a path dismissed in the first weeks of every principles of economics course:

Another interpretation of overpopulation ... focuses on ... population density being sustainable. ... to put it mildly, it seems bizarre to insist that a population should be able to support itself from the specific land on which it lives. The whole idea of a trading economy is that production does not necessarily have to take place at the physical location of demand, but where it is most efficient. (pg. 48)

When you carry out the logic of how ecosystems work to its fullest (Walrasian) extent, you immediately recognize that the claim that forests produce oxygen is Marshallian and ought to be viewed with some suspicion:

...we were told that rainforests were the lungs of the Earth...But this is a myth. True enough, plants produce oxygen ... but when they die and decompose, precisely the same amount of oxygen is consumed. Therefore, forests in equilibrium .... neither produce nor consume oxygen in net terms. (pg. 115)

Again, the commonplace analysis is Marshallian and falls apart under a deeper Walrasian examination:

...it is not obvious that plantations reduce overall biodiversity. Certainly they have fewer species locally, but certainly because the purpose of plantations is to produce masses of wood, they reduce the economic pressure on the other natural forest. As a result, these forests are better shielded, [and] can support higher biodiversity... (pg. 115-6).

Perhaps the best killer quote I have ever seen comes from Sheik Yamani, the leader of OPEC during the 1970s.

"the Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones, and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil" (pg. 120)

Here's another bit of trivia for economists who need to make the point that prices are driven by scarcity not utility:

Aluminum was first discovered in 1827, and since it was exceedingly difficult to extract, it was very expensive. Napoleon III had aluminum forks and spoons produced for himself and honored guests while lesser visitor had to make do with gold utensils. (pg. 140)

Here's a reminder that scarcity of resources is fundamentally an economic problem, which typically is solved through negotiations rather than conflict:

Adequate pricing actually turns out to be the main issue for water problems. When water is a free resource – as it typically has been throughout the ages – we consume as much as we possibly can (given our private costs). As we become richer and can use more and more water, and as we support more and more people on this planet, we begin to experience limits. To act as if water is free gives rise to problems. Thus we have to start prioritizing the uses of this resource. Should we use more water to produce extra food, or should we use more water in the cities and force agriculture to become more efficient? Pricing water ensures the most efficient trade-off.

But when water becomes more valuable, because it is acknowledged to be scarce, it will also mean that nations will become more aware of the distribution of water among themselves. This can lead to an increased tension and an increased political focus on water questions. Tension over water will make up yet another element in a potentially explosive cocktail of international conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, this does not imply that “many of the wars of this century were about oil, but wars in the next century will be over water,” as the World Bank put it a much quoted sentence from a press release to a report that did not even mention the word “war”.

Professor Aaron Wolf has gone through the entire international crisis dataset, and of the 412 crises in the period 1918-94, only seven had water as even a partial cause. In three of these, not a single shot was fired, and none was violent enough to qualify as an actual war. Wolf concluded: “As we see, the actual history of armed water conflict is somewhat less dramatic than the water wars literature would lead one to believe. . .As near as we can find, there has never been a single war fought over water.”. The lack of actual water war examples should be compared to the more than 3.600 treaties concerning international water resources that were registered in the centuries between 805 CE and 1984. Within the last hundred years alone, more than 149 treaties have been signed. (pg. 156)

Visions of future wars over scarce water are dramatically overblown. This from an Israeli Defense Forces officer:

'Why go to war over water? For the price of one week's fighting, you could build five desalination plants.' (pg. 157)

Followed by these salient points:

...water cooperation is highly resilient - the Mekong Committee on water functioned throughout the Vietnam war, Israel and Jordan held secret water talks through 30 years of formal war, and the Indus River Commission survived two wars between India and Pakistan. (pg. 157)

And I may as well ditch my pothos if the Environmental Protection Agency stated that:

As a matter of curiosity it is worth noting that green plants do not help to improve indoor air to any measurable extent. (pg. 183)

The Exxon Valdez grounding is perhaps the most overblown American ecological disaster. Neither I nor Lomborg wants to minimize that, we just want to put in context for useful comparison.

My guess is that many people who were offended by the Exxon Valdez damage were not equally offended by Saddam Hussein's pointless environmental damage to Kuwait, even though:

...[the] accident [was] about 25 times smaller than the Gulf incident. (pg. 192)

And, if we really care about birds so much, we should get rid of all our windows and cats:

...the total 250,000 dead birds from the Exxon Valdez disaster is still less that the number of birds which die on a single day in the U.S., colliding with plate glass, or the number of birds that are killed by domestic cats in Britain in two days... (pg. 192)

Oops. This sounds like one of those Stossel-like exposes that the dirtiest kitchens are the ones that people clean the hardest (because they spread germs doing so):

By way of experiment, some stretches of beach were left uncleaned, and it transpired that life there returned after just 18 months, whereas it did not do so to the cleaned beaches for three to four years. (pg. 193)

Maybe we ought to ban boats too:

Another thought provoking comparison is that the overall pollution was less than 2 percent of pollution caused by powerboats in the US every year. (pg. 194)

Lest we forget, envirohysteria had us convinced not so long ago that we were running out of landfill space:

All the American waste of the entire twenty-first century will fit into a single landfill, using just 26 percent of ... [arbitrarily chosen] Woodward County [Oklahoma] (pg. 207)

Self-congratulation should always raise suspicion:

We tend to believe that recycling is a rather new phenomenon ... [yet] recycling is still below the levels of the 1930s (pg. 209)

We really shouldn't be worried about any environmental risk leading to cancer if:

Over a lifetime, it is more likely to get involved in a motor vehicle accident with disabling injury than to experience cancer. (pg. 224)

Lest we forget, the people who crow the loudest about many of these issues are simply not living in the same reality that we are:

...Paul Erhlich estimated in 1981 that ... half of the Earth's species [would] be gone by the year 2000 and all gone by 2010-25. (pg. 249)

And, it probably doesn't make sense for our culture to go back to its noble savage roots when this is true:

...the Polynesians in total have eradicated around 2000 species of birds, or more than 20 percent of all current bird species ... (pg. 251)

We teach women and children that there is something wrong if you feel like you're being forced to accept something you don't like, but we throw that out the window when it comes to biodiversity:

The issue of biodiversity resemebles the classic battle between model and reality. The biologists acknowledge that there is a problem when it come to the figures ... 'we have no way of knowing the actual extrinction rate ... let alone an approximate guess' ... the rate is 'incalculable' ... Even so, E. O. Wilson attempts to put a lid on the problem with the weight of his authority: 'Believe me ... we're easilly eliminating a hundred thousand [species] a year'. His figures are 'absolutely undeniable' and based on 'literally hundreds of anecdotal reports'. (pg. 254)

How far would some people go to preserve a goose that lays golden (grant) eggs?

One prominent conservationist admitted in Science that "the lack of data does worry me". ... [but] worried about the reaction from other biologists, he demanded to remain anonymous, because "they'll kill me for saying this"... (pg. 254)

I'll do the math for you. It isn't desirable, and we should consider trying to do better, but I just can't be terribly concerned because this rate means that we will lose the first half of all our mammal and birds species by 10,665 A.D. Am I too relaxed if that is far enough off that I feel relaxed?

the recorded extinction figure for mammals and birds ... are 'very small.' ... 0.08% per decade. (pg. 254)

Regarding the 88% cleared and heavily fragmented Atlantic rain forest of Brazil:

..."it must be assumed that ... very large numbers of species have been lost in some areas. Yet surprisingly there is no clear-cut evidence for this." (pp. 254-5)

...when members of the Brazilian Society of Zoology analysed all 171 known Atlantic forest animal, the group 'could not find a single known animal species withc could be properly declared as extinct, in spite of the massive reduction in area and fragmentation of their habitat (pg. 255)

calculations and observations simply do not match up ... reduced in area as severely as any tropical forest type ... Accoding to calculation, this should have led to considerable species loss. Yet no known species of its old, largely endemic, fauna can be regarded as extinct. (pg. 255)

But, big name people don't want you to know about this sort of evidence:

According to Professor Ehrlich ... 'biologists don't need to know how many species there are, how they are related to one another, or how many disappear annually to recognize that Earth's biota is entering a gigantic spasm of extinction.' (pg. 256)

Umm ... why not? Lomborg is more diplomatic than I'd be about this:

Having the attitude that in scientific discourse on species extintiction it is unnecessary to provide evidence is ... problematic. The biologists seriously argue that any skeptic should himself go to the jungle and carry out the biologists' research, because the biologists already know that things are going askew. In reality, of course, they are asking society for a blank check to prevent somethings with is claimed to be a catastrophe ... but which is not supported by data (pg. 256)

The environmental movement has clearly latched onto global warming as the problem which will shut down debate:

Greenpeace ... tells us that although we may have lots of oil ... global warming prevents us from using it ... climate change has become the environmental trump card ... possibly we are doing better on almost any objective indicator, but if global warming demands a change, all other arguments will be of lesser import. (pg. 258)

But, let's not forget that the greenhouse effect itself is a fact:

The basic greenhouse effect is good - if the atmostphere did not contain greenhouse gases the average termperature on the Earth woul be approximately [59 degrees Fahrenheit] colder ... (pg. 260)

The problem is that it isn't clear that the choppy record on global warming can be associated with the relatively smooth growth of our use of fossil fuels (unless I forgot about some solar power epoch in the 1950s and 1960s):

... all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods, from 1910 to 1945 and again from 1975 to the present (p. 263)

Betcha' the media didn't see privy to let you know that in the big picture, there really hasn't been a whole lot of new results in this area in a generation:

The basic IPCC prediction of climate sensitivity ... has remained constant ... in the scientific literature since the 1970s. (pg. 271)

This is just plain nasty, because what the media has done is stopped presenting the median scenario in favor of something else:

Instead, when we have been presented with changes in predictions, this has primarily been due to changes in the [choice of] scenarios [presented]. (pg. 271)

I had no idea. In economics, this sort of drivel would never get published (and hard scientists laugh at us). But in climatology, each computer model is run through scenarios that have different assumptions. So, the results depend more on the team doing the research than on the assumptions they make about how the world will work in the future:

the temperature prediction ... is predominatly dependent on the choice of computer model - the span [between models] ... is actually bigger than the entire temperature span of the ... scenarios [within a particular model] ... This ... means that the noise from the models is bigger than the signal we are supposed to formulate policy from ... (pg. 272)

Amidst all this, Lomborg comes out quite strongly that the ozone hole is a real environmental problem that has been successfully attacked:

it has been unequivocally corroborated that the ozone layer over the inhabited mid-latitudes has declined (pg. 273)

Even so, the damage is minute. After all when did you last consider solar radiation as a negative to moving to a warmer location ... oh wait, I forgot we like one part of solar radiation a whole lot more than we dislike the bad part:

That he ozone layer has been damaged .. is equivalent ... to moving approximately 200 Km closer to the equator (pg. 276)

Lomborg reminds us that there is an older alternative theory to global warming that isn't dead yet (even if we are trying very hard to ignore it):

sunspot theory ... has the tremdendous advantage, compared to the greenhouse theory, that it can explain the temperature changes from 1860 to 1950, which the rest of the climate scientists with a shrug of the shoulders have accredited to 'natural variation' (pg. 277-8)

neither solar radiation nore greenhouse gases can alone explain the entire temperature record. (pg. 278)

Then there is this wonderful point about how economics, technology, and growth, can change the story while we're not looking:

Perhaps the greatest danger in prognoses is that we tend to underestimate how technical innovations can make the orignal worry moot. In the words of one modeler: 'One hundred years ago icebergs were a major climatic threat impeding travel' (pg. 278)

Are climactic scientists just plain disingenuous? Economists would say that there is a moral hazard in awarding grants primarily for research that produces negative results:

It is truly hard to understand why modelers programming amazingly complex computer models ... nevertheless have chosen to model the central point in question ... with an arbitrary ... figure ... instead of the more accurate and lower [value] (pg. 280)

Here is my old classroom saw - that the driving force behind many politicians is that they really just like to tell other people what to do:

Most political discussion and certainly the international agreement in Kyoto ... focuses on limiting carbon emissions, through taxes, quotas or bans.

However, what matters much more ... the truly important point ... to make sure ... [is that] renewable energy sources rapidly decrease in price (pg 286-7)

Tell your friends that the polar ice caps may melt, but that isn't what is going to flood Dhaka:

... the global water level has risen ... three-fourths of this rise is due to the fact that the water has got warmer and therefore expanded, and only one-fourth comes from changes in glaciers and increased runoff (pg. 289)

We worry about heat related deaths every time there is a heat wave in the summer, yet deaths are not caused by absolute heat but by relative heat:

... populations have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperature ... heat-related mortality started around 17.3 C in north Finland, it first set in at 22.3 in Longdon, and at 25.7 in Athens. Heat-related deaths occur not beyond a certain fixed temperature, but somewhat beyond the usual temperature ...(pg. 291)

I didn't know this, but apparently the climatologists have decided that global warming won't bring hurricanes to Europe:

"Assertions that winds in midlatititude (versus tropical ) cyclones will become more intense do not appear to have credible scientific support (pg. 294)

I wonder ... if I were Johnson, would I define a religion as a state of thinking that begins by dispensing with cost benefit analysis?

Is it not curious, then , that the typical reporting on global warming tells us all the bad things that could happen from ... emissions, but few or none of the bad things that could come from overly zearlous regulation of such emissions? ... Indeed, why is it that global warming is not discused with an open attitude, carefully attuned to avoid making big and costly mistakes to be paid for by our descendents, but rather with a fervor more fitting for preachers ... (pp. 318-9)

Clear thinking about what the global warming issue is really about:

This is an indication that the discussion of global warming is no just a question of choosing the optimal economic path ... but has much deeper, political roots as to what kind of future society we would like ... (pg. 319)

... the environmental movement has an interst in greenhouse gas curbs which goes far beyond the narrow concerns of global warming. (pg. 319)

Jeremy Rifkin proves this by showing us his hysteria about the possibilities of cold fusion - he didn't like it when it was only possible, far before it was proved false:

'it's the worst thing that could happen to our planet.' Inexhaustible power, he argues only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet's resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste ... (pg. 320-1)

Not surprisingly, the media is biased towards not only bad news but the bad possible scenarios:

... scenarios that were presented as far-ranging "stories", the choice of many extremes nevertheless had political implication. In the reporting ... it was found that all used the high estimate ... and yet none mentioned the low estimate. (pg. 322)

Cost-benefit analysis of the global warming problem shows the following three facts:

The total worh of income over the [21st] century is estimated at $895T. (pg. 324)

The estimates of 3 plans for addressing global warming will cost between $107T and $274T of that total.

...the total cost of global warming is estimated at $4.8 T. (pg. 324)

Tell me again why we should spend more to fix a problem than the value of the damage from the problem? Even so, Lomborg points out that if this is what people really want to do, we are rich enough to go forward without worrying about it:

Yet, one could be tempted to suggest that we are actually so rich that we can afford both to pay a partial insurance premium against global warming ... and to help the devleoping world ... And that is true ... I am still not convinced that there is any point ... But it is correct that we are actually wealthy enough to do so. And that is the main point of this book. (pg. 324)

Al Gore comes up for special criticism:

...Gore sees civilization as the new antagonist ... 'we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.' (pg. 328)

I though the central organizing principle was eating ... maybe that's why have a double chin. And it's about time that someone pointed out that it may be immoral to even be worrying about this sort of thing:

We have more leisure time, greater security and fewer accidents, more education, more amentieis, higher incomes, fewer stargin, more food, and a healthir and longer life. This is the fantastic story of mankind, and to call such a civilization 'dysfunctional' is quite simply immoral. (pg. 328)

Fundamentally, views like Al Gore's are puritan:

For the industrialized world, growth and progress have given us a life that is so much better that we at last have enough time and resources to consider how we want to make the most of life. Ironically, Al Gore’s dressing-drown of our society is only possible because growth has liberated us (and him) sufficiently form our physical limitations to give us the possibility to choose – even if this choice is to turn one’s back on present-day society.

In so far as Gore simply wants us to consider whether we would not be happier shopping less and living more (leave the mall and visit friends, go for a hike in the wilderness, take up painting, etc.), his commentary is naturally sympathetic and serves as a reasonable reminder. But Gore goes much further and tells us that we live superficial and phony lives, that our civilization and our parents’ generation have indoctrinated us into living this dysfunctional life and that we cannot see the prison walls that surround us. We are repressed without being aware of it. This kind of supercilious attitude is a challenge to our democratic freedom and contests our basic right to decide for ourselves how we lead our lives, so long as doing so does not bring us into collision with others.

But for both Al Gore and Lester Brown the argument goes much deeper. Because the actual justification of their criticism of civilization is not that we are doing better, but that we are doing better to an increasing extent at the cost of Earth’s ecosystem. This is why in reality we should put a stop to the insane collision with Earth’s limits.

Al Gore thus joins the long list of cultural pessimists who have experienced the modern world but have also seen the seeds of its destruction. From Frankenstein to Jurassic Park, our technical ingenuity is seen as catastrophically exceeding our expectations, creating a world that has spun out of control. (pg. 329)

We all need to bring the discussion down to some level of reality:

... many of these myths may be propagated by well-meaning, compassionate people ... it is essential to point out that this is purely a matter of conviction. we know of no other substantial problems looming on the horizon. (pg. 330)

It is difficult not to get the impresion that the criticism ... of a 'dysfunctional civilization' is simply an expression of .. Calvinistic sense of guilt. We have done so well that some actually feel rather ashamed. [They] may really believe that we have deserved global warming. (pg. 330)

And it's important to get the discussion in touch with reality because the level of misinformation is so stunningly high:

...Europeans were asked whether it ws true of false that 'ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do.' ... half thought it was true ... (pg. 344)

Comments

[Tim Worstall]

Wow, I'm amazed. You mean you didn't read it earlier? Seriously.
Great precis btw.
For a fun run through the autarchy/overpopulation/local produce idea, PJ O'Rourke in "All the Trouble in the World".
Compares Bangladesh and Freemont California. About the same pop density.