|
Bjorn Lomborg: Going After a Pet
Peeve
(October 6, 2004) -
Time magazine ranked Bjorn Lomborg in the 100 most influential
people on the planet. He’s the pet peeve of environmentalists
and academics, who call him an extremist and fraud making excuses
for industrial polluters.
Certainly the Director of Denmark’s National
Environmental Assessment Institute, best known as author of The
Skeptical Environmentalist — a book published in
2001 that remains a hot subject of debate in scientific circles
— raised a fundamental issue: should we be alarmed about
the state of the planet? And in areas where action is called for,
what should the priorities be?
A Professor of Statistics in the Political Science
Department at Aarhus University, Lomborg acknowledges the depletion
of natural resources and considers the decline in tropical rainforests
a temporary phenomenon. For him, poverty and hunger are on the
wane and climatic change is far from being the worst threat to
humanity after war. He harshly criticizes environmentalists for
cultivating a climate of fear and propagating various environmental
myths, in his view to support their fundraising campaigns and
strategic position in civil society. He has even dared challenge
the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) which says climatic change is exposing the planet’s
population to serious environmental, social and economic threats
in the 21st century.
Lomborg bases his statements on recent statistical
data obtained by finetuning indicators on the state of the planet.
His numerous detractors in academic journals accuse him of making
selective, incomplete and biased use of the scientific data he
tosses at the media as fodder, without regard for the disinformation
and confusion this causes among the public. Prominent researchers
accuse him of casting dishonour on the scientific community. "Lomborg
is a joke. He draws no distinction between environmentalists and
scientists," says University of Alberta Biology Professor
David Schindler.
Lomborg replies that the media pick up alarmist
statements without examining the truth of the litany of disasters
and without adequately questioning the scientific assessments
advanced. "Journalists should also report on long-term
trends, focus on the importance of the issues, and discuss not
only the benefits and suggested alternatives, but also the real
costs of the miracle solutions proposed," he says.
Attend the session on Skeptical Environmentalist or Environmental
Skepticism? today from 4 to 5:30 p.m. where none other
than Lomborg and Schindler will face off in a debate.
Denise Proulx
|
