The Skeptical Environmentalist Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg Cambridge University Press, 540 pp., $69.95 IN 1997, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish professor of statistics and a self-professed “old left-wing Greenpeace member,” came across a book by Julian Simon, one of the great critics of contemporary environmentalism. Lomborg set up a study group with ten of his “sharpest students” to refute Simon. But it turned out “a surprisingly large” number of Simon’s points “stood up to scrutiny.” Lomborg became convinced that “the Litany”–the cliched collection of beliefs that the world is subject to ever increasing environmental degradation and poised on the brink of destruction–has it wrong. Most global trends are improving and can be expected to continue improving as the world grows wealthier. Fears of environmental disaster are exaggerated and have little scientific basis. While there is no reason to think the world is already good enough, there is every reason to expect human ingenuity will continue the improving trend. So Lomborg sat down and produced “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” a critical examination of many of the key issues of contemporary environmentalism, which he hopes will “lead to an appreciable change in attitude about environmental problems.” If we “forget our fear of imminent breakdown,” we may be able to achieve a “reasonable prioritization” of the measures necessary to improve the well-being of man and nature. Lomborg deserves the impact for which he hopes, but if past experience is any indication, he won’t obtain it. You can catch a hint of that in the publicity which has swirled around “The Skeptical Environmentalist” so far–all of it less concerned with the message than with the messenger’s betrayal of his old environmentalist faith. In eighteen careful chapters, Lomborg covers most of the issues environmentalists use to foment panic. Food production is increasing, and a smaller percentage of the globe faces starvation than ever before. Life expectancy is growing in most of the world. More people are prosperous and secure. Water and air pollution trends are improving; indeed, urban air in the developed nations may be cleaner now than it has been in centuries. Our fears of chemicals are greatly exaggerated. In short, we are in a period of “unprecedented human prosperity.” But isn’t this prosperity built on an orgy of consumption that sacrifices future generations? Aren’t we successful only by undercutting the integrity of nature itself? Lomborg excels in dissecting such examples of the environmentalists’ Litany. He demonstrates that statements like “The world is losing 109 species a day” have no basis in empirical research; indeed, the scientists most likely to put forward such claims have the least interest in doing the necessary research. Similarly, in three and a half well-crafted pages, he demolishes the idea that we are running out of room for landfill and points out the link between rising prosperity and improved air quality. Whether he is hunting down the source of claims that provoke environmental alarm or providing the context that was left out in order to heighten fears and grab headlines, Lomborg shows how to evaluate claims about environmental degradation and danger. “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is particularly good at recontextualizing environmental problems–the main focus of its introductory and concluding chapters. Lomborg skillfully uncovers the source of the bias towards bad environmental news in the scientific community, environmental interest groups, and the media. Drawing valuable lessons about tradeoffs and priorities, he makes clear why environmental goods cannot be treated as uniquely privileged–and he suggests how pernicious it is that over half of America’s voters think we cannot do too much to protect the environment. “The expressed dislike of prioritization does not mean that we will not end up prioritizing, only that our choices will be worse.” LOMBORG’S “The Skeptical Environmentalist” has so many virtues (to say nothing of its 2,930 endnotes), it seems unfair to predict that the book will not succeed at creating the “appreciable change in attitude about environmental problems” its author desires. But think for a moment about the fate of Julian Simon–and the parallel fates of Judd Alexander, William Baarschers, John Baden, Ronald Bailey, Robert Balling Jr., Joe Bast, Ben Bloch, Karen Bolander, Alston Chase, George Claus, Leonard Cole, Edith Efron, Gregg Easterbrook, Alan Fitzsimmons, Bernard Frieden, Michael Fumento, Jay Lehr, Marc Landy, Bernard Lewis, Harold Lyons, William Rathje, Dixy Lee Ray, Marc Roberts, Michael Sanera, Jane Shaw, Fred Singer, Stephen Thomas, Elizabeth Whelan, Aaron Wildavsky, and others. At various times over the past four decades, each of these writers has produced works that attempt to show the shortcomings of contemporary environmentalism. They have not all been as comprehensive as Lomborg’s, but taken as a whole they have covered much the same territory. Other than providing valuable updates, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” breaks little new ground in environmental criticism. Lomborg’s work is no less necessary for being the latest in a string of such works. Still, that leaves the question of environmentalism’s extraordinary persistence. Why don’t the facts seem to count for much in environmental matters? The answer needs to go beyond Lomborg’s analysis of the Litany. The state of the world as Lomborg sees it depends on a powerful sense of progress–a justified sense, but one that must remain, in all honesty, uncertain. Past results do not guarantee future performance, as advertisements for investment funds always note, and it is always difficult to see clearly the fragile components of the foundations upon which one lives. Environmentalists exploit this uncertainty, promising in its place complete certainty if only we remake the world as they desire. Lomborg believes things will get better, which seems rather likely. Environmentalists believe things can be made the best, which seems extremely unlikely. You’d think the possibility of Lomborg’s vision would easily vanquish the impossibility of the environmentalists’–but the magic of claiming “the best” always trumps the dullness of claiming “the better.” Similarly, Lomborg sees present problems as opportunities for human ingenuity as capable of achieving increasing security for increasing numbers of people, while environmentalists turn them into apocalyptic presentiments. Here again, Lomborg has only common sense on his side. The environmentalists have the universal human imagination of the end of the world: If things appear to be going well, they are only going well so far, and this or that environmental indicator is a bellwether of future disaster. AS WE ACCUMULATE experience of disasters not happening, this kind of argument ought to lose its power. But the persistent ability of environmentalists to conjure up the world’s end is based on shifting the burden of proof. Somehow, critics of environmentalism have been put in a position of having to prove definitively that something will never happen. This maneuver represents a tremendous rhetorical triumph. When critics are forced–as they must be–to admit that proving a negative is impossible, they seem to concede that there is something genuine about the environmental fears. The real issue in dispute, as Lomborg recognizes in his discussion of global climate change, is what we want the future to look like. Lomborg does not develop this insight into the essentially political nature of the environmentalist program as much as he could have. Reasonable people may disagree about whether the environmental vision stems from “secularized” religious belief, from self-interested behavior within liberal democratic institutions, or from a utopian mindset. But there is little question environmentalism is driven primarily by a vision of the way the world ought to be–a vision that puts the environment above liberty, self-government, human diversity, an
d material well-being. Science is a weapon in advancing this vision, but its use among devoted environmentalists is purely tactical. In “The Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg, like his many predecessors, has performed a valuable service in attempting to block the misuse of science for political ends. But until more people understand that the world promised by contemporary environmentalism is not a world in which they would want to live, there will be little change in our arguments about the environment. A professor of politics at Duquesne University, Charles T. Rubin is the author of “The Green Crusade: Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism.”
