THEORY
3.3 Bjørn Lomborg:The Skeptical EnvironmentalistLomborg, an ex-Greenpeace member, attacks
environmentalists for constantly reciting the
‘litany’ of environmental fears about
disappearing resources, overpopulation,
biodiversity loss and pollution. He argues that
this litany is inaccurate, and, fuelled by the
need for environmental groups to raise funds
and the media’s search for ‘bad news’, it
creates a climate of fear, which encourages
bad policy decisions. In reality, he asserts that
‘Mankind’s lot has actually improved in terms of
practically every measurable indicator’ (2001: 4)
and he marshals a huge array of statistics about
key trends to show that natural resources,
energy, food are actually becoming more
abundant; people are eating more and living
longer; species loss is exaggerated; forests are
not disappearing; and pollution improves with
economic growth. So, rather than introduce
costly and ineffective policies to alleviate
environmental problems that either do not exist
or which we can do little to prevent, notably
climate change, he recommends instead that
efforts be concentrated on improving health
and diets to alleviate poverty and save
lives.
Lomborg has provoked huge criticism
from the academic and environmentalist
communities. He is criticised for creating
a ‘straw person’, a survivalist environmentallitany that few people today really believe.
He is widely condemned for ‘bad science’,
including the selective use of evidence, the
misinterpretation of key sources, a focus on
quantity not quality (e.g. comparing old
growth tropical rainforests with timber
plantations) and a general insensitivity to
the workings of complex ecosystems. A
special issue ofScientific American(January
2002) had leading scientists lining up to attack
him and Lomborg was even taken to the
Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty,
where he was found to have used dishonest
methods, although this decision was overruled
by the Ministry of Science in December
2003.
The publicity that Lomborg has attracted
reflects the high stakes involved:
environmentalists are sensitive to the ‘cry wolf’
charge that they are self-interestedly
exaggerating the extent of the eco-crisis;
anti-environmentalists (ranging from big
business to the right-wing Danish and US
governments) are keen to publicise any attempt
to undermine the green case.
See Lomborg ( 2001 ), Jamison ( 2004 ),
Dryzek ( 2005 : ch. 3), Dryzek and Schlosberg
(2005: chs. 5 & 6); the anti-Lomborg website:
http://www.mylinkspage.com/lomborg.html; and his
replies on http://www.Lomborg.com.today? Future-generations arguments provide a powerful anthropocentric
case for environmental protection that can supplement the ecocentric argu-
ments discussed in Chapter2 (see Box3.4).^3Critical question 1
Must green politics be based on the idea of limits to growth?◗ Agreen programme for a sustainable society
If ecologism is a distinct ideology, then it should be possible to identify
avision of the good society based on ecological principles that is funda-
mentally different from other ideologies. This section outlines the central