Bjorn+Lomborg

Bjorn is a well known Danish academic who became famous after the release of his book, “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg is not, however, a skeptic in a traditional sense when applied to the environment. He rather takes a view that is almost directly in the middle, taking both opinions and looking at them logically. He is, first and foremost, a rational thinker, and many of his ideas on environmentalism and, indeed, the world in general, stem from his grounding in logical thinking.
 * __ Bjørn Lomborg __**


 * __ His Basic Premise __**

Lomborg’s basic opinion on the environment is that there is no doubt that global warming is happening but that it is likely much less serious than most projections say it is. This belief is based on looking critically at both optimist’s and pessimist’s point of view. He also strongly urges that people look at not only how bad things are now, but on how they have improved. For example, Lomborg states that in 1970, 35% of all people in developing countries were starving. In 1996 the figure was 18% percent and the UN expects that the figure will have fallen to 12% by 2010. However, he says that it is important to distinguish between things improving and things being good enough. Lomborg says that he has had people tell him things like “How can you say that things are continuing to improve when 18% of all people in the developing world are still starving?” and he therefore stresses the point that just because things are vastly improving does not mean that they are good enough. The improvement simply means that we are on the right track, however, improvement could always be faster and things could always be better. As well he stresses the point that the mixed economy in the United States plays an important role, and disapproves of the government coinciding with corporations, the corporations being in control is the wrong place for us to be putting our money. It is also important to recognize that putting money towards one thing means less money towards another. It is therefore extremely important to prioritize, a point which was the foundation of the Copenhagen Consensus, a project that seeks to prioritize the world’s biggest issues.


 * __ Copenhagen Consensus __**

In 2002 the Bjorn Lomborg founded the Copenhagen Consensus which aimed at prioritizing the world’s biggest problems. The idea was that they could roughly estimate how much it would cost to make impacts of various sizes in the world’s problems and from that, better prioritize. Its goal was to try and fix the problems where a little money could do a lot of good first. The consensus did not say which problems were the most serious but rather how much it would cost to fix them. The prioritization was done by 30 of the world’s top economists. The list they composed put things like climate change at the bottom because a lot of money would do not that much good. In the middle there were things like water sanitation which, once again, would cost a lot of money and do less good. The top four problems they identified (the most good with the least price) were: 4. Malaria 3. Free Trade 2. Malnutrition 1. HIV/AIDS In all of these issues a lot of good can be done with a very low cost or a very high return. For example, HIV/AIDS cases could be reduced by as much as 28 million by 2010 while spending only $27 billion. Free trade would boast a return of around $2400 billion dollars and about half of that would go to the developing world. To maintain credibility and dissuade questions the consensus was also done by English speaking university students from around the world and they produced roughly the same results, putting climate change at the bottom and AIDS and malnutrition at the top.

This excerpt from the book “The Sceptical Environmentalist”, look at the fundamental truth that is the human race and the flaws in Worldwatch and Greenpeace. Bjorn states that, although there will always be people that defend the rights of plants and animals, they will always come second to human’s. They cannot vote, they have no real representatives so their fate is essentially in our hands. There are, however, instances when our needs and nature’s needs are similar or even identical. These needs are usually the essentials in life, such as clean drinking water, clean air, etc… There are yet other times when we completely rely on animals to sustain us and therefore must sustain them in return (even if this takes the form of domesticating). Bjorn states that in the environmental debate, there are often statements made, not usually by the field scientists but by the communication of these facts by the media or environmental agency. On such agency, call Worldwatch, frequently prints statements which are either just untrue or give no sufficient evidence. For example, Worldwatch claimed that forests are deteriorating when the UN says that they are, in fact, growing. They also give a list that they printed in 1984 when they started publication and proclaimed that we have done nothing to stop these issues. In fact, we have improved significantly in all areas but world debt where there has only been a slight improvement. Bjorn states that Worldwatch’s problems are not with the data but with their strong belief in the litany and a carelessness that allows them to be so devoted to it. Another agency that has become wrapped up in the litany is the World Wind Fund for Nature (WWF). They claim that about 2/3rds of the world’s forests are gone and that the forest fires in 1997 were the most serious in recent history. However, not only was 1997 well below the record for forest fires, the general acknowledged estimate for the worlds depleted forests is about 20%. When asked about this, the WWF stated that no report had ever existed. The WWF later did a study that found the world ecosystem to be worth about $33 trillion annually. However, although this is slightly above the normal mark, what makes Lomborg scratch his head is that they then say that our “living planet index” (a report that looks at the decline of natural wealth over the past 25 years) has fallen 30% and therefore our world ecosystem must be worth %30 ($11 trillion) less than it was. What is really shocking is that by using the same numbers they used we should have experienced a slight increase in ecosystem services. Greenpeace, another environmental organization, is the last object of Lomborg’s attack from pgs 11-18 of his book. They made claims that roughly half the species on earth would be extinct in approximately 75 years. The actual total is closer to 0.7%, which, when asked about their numbers, Greenpeace stated that 0.7% had always been their position on the issue. In a later statement Greenpeace said that many of the issues that they fought for many years back are practically solved but that they continue to promote the idea that “everything is going to hell” because it forces people to take the environmental debate seriously. This is a major part of Bjorn’s sceptical environment idea, that, although global warming is a problem, unless companies promote the end of the world idea that no one will listen.
 * __ Fundamentals: People, Worldwatch, WWF and Greenpeace __**