The Skeptical Environmentalist

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (TSE) (Danish: Verdens Sande Tilstand) is a controversial book by political scientist Bjørn Lomborg, which argues that claims made about global warming, overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other global environmental issues are exaggerations and unsupported by a proper analysis of the relevant data. It was first published in Danish in 1998, and the English edition was published as a peer-reviewed work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001.

Criticism

Environmental groups as well as members of the scientific community have criticised the book for what they claim to be a selective use of statistics, and an incomplete understanding of the many areas and disciplines being covered. Essentially, they argue that Lomborg takes the most optimistic view on the environmental damage being caused by current human activity, and the most pessimistic view of the adjustment costs of changing to less environmentally-damaging technologies. Two related critical charges recur: that TSE discounts and ignores the importance of biodiversity and ecological connectedness (insofar as the effects of interconnectedness have not been quantified, they are ignored); and that TSE uses of global figures to define regional occurrences (e.g. the percentage of a rain forest destroyed as a percentage of global forest area, as opposed to the percentage of that forest itself).

Related Topics:
Biodiversity - Rain forest

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Anti-publication pressures

While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publishers, Cambridge University Press, were apparently surprised by the pressure brought against them not to publish TSE. They felt it necessary to issue a formal, written statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the article, entitled "Peer review, politics and pluralism", author Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press) noted that "many of the critical reviews of TSE went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all. The post tray and e-mail inbox of editors and senior managers at the press bore witness to a concerted campaign to persuade Cambridge to renounce the book." He went on to describe complaints from environmentalists who feared the book would be "abused by corporate interests".

Related Topics:
Chris Harrison - Corporate interests

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite existing pre-publication peer review), that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent publication of books described as "essentially a political tract" in future.

Related Topics:
Error - Peer review

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

With these complaints and the publication of a Scientific American issue dealing with the book (described below), Cambridge stated, in response to those who claimed the book lacked peer-review credentials, "it would be quite wrong to abandon an author who had satisfied the requirements of our peer-review system."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of publishing proposals for book which offered an opposing argument to Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than scientific.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Subsequent to Cambridge's unequivocal assertion that TSE had been subject to peer-review, Harrison noted that "we were surprised and disappointed to see the critics' letter being quoted in an issue of Time magazine (2nd September 2002)... in which the authors repeated their charge that the book had not been peer-reviewed despite the assurances to the contrary that they had by then received by the press... It has become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that this book bypassed the usual Cambridge peer-review process... This is a charge that is repeated in many of the public and private attacks in the press, and it is unfounded."

Related Topics:
September - 2002

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr. Harrison also noted that, anticipating the level of controversy a book like this would likely provoke, Cambridge took extra care with their peer-review process. For example, instead of choosing candidates from the usual list of social science referees, they chose from a list provided by their environmental science publishing program. Four were chosen: a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC)) and a "pure" economist. All four members of Cambridge's initial review panel agreed that the book should be published.

Related Topics:
Climate - Biodiversity - Sustainable - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Criticism from scientific circles

The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contains, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, claiming that Lomborg and TSE misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the magazine. The magazine allowed Lomborg a one-page defense in the May 2002 issue http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000001E0-157B-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF, and published his complete rebuttal on-line as a PDF file http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf, along with counterrebuttals of John Rennie http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF and John P. Holdren http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DC658-9373-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF.

Related Topics:
January - 2002 - Scientific American - May - PDF - John Rennie - John P. Holdren

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nature also published a harsh review of Lomborg's book. In it, Stuart Pimm of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University and Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology wrote: "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."

Related Topics:
Nature - Stuart Pimm - Center for Environmental Research and Conservation - Columbia University - Jeff Harvey - Netherlands Institute of Ecology - AIDS - Nazi

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Other critics have questioned Lomborg's academic qualifications, and knowledge of the issues he discusses. For example, the Australian economist John Quiggin noted that Lomborg had not published any articles on environmental issues in peer-reviewed journals, and that Lomborg's only peer-reviewed paper prior to TSE is on game theory.

Related Topics:
Knowledge - Australia - John Quiggin - Game theory

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The World Resources Institute stated:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

: prior publications are in game theory and computer simulations. He has no professional training—and has done no professional research—in ecology, climate science, resource economics, environmental policy, or other fields covered by his new book. Lomborg says the book grew out of a class project for his students. http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=697

Related Topics:
Game theory - Computer simulation - Resource economics

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lomborg has also been criticised (in, for example, a 2002 review in the UK journal Local Environment) for using straw man arguments, with charges that his "litany" of environmental doom-mongering does not accurately represent the mainstream views of the contemporary green movement.

Related Topics:
UK - Straw man - Green movement

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), referring to their own set of commissioned rebuttals, summarized:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:These separately-written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature—often not peer-reviewed—that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician". http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=533

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The "separately written expert reviews" individually further detail the various expert opinions. Peter Gleick's review, for example, states:

Related Topics:
Expert opinion - Peter Gleick

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:There is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of his criticisms have appeared in... previous works—and even in the work of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the scope and variety of the errors he makes.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Jerry Mahlman's review of the chapter he was asked to evaluate, states:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:I found some aspects of this chapter to be interesting, challenging, and logical. For example, the author's characterizations of the degree of difficulty in actually doing something meaningful about climate change through mitigation and coping/adaptation are perceptive and valuable. In principle, such characterizations could provide a foundation for more meaningful policy planning on this difficult problem. Unfortunately, the author's lack of rigor and consistency on these larger issues is likely to negate any real respect for his insights.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

TSE as media construct

Another angle of critical attack focused as much on Lomborg as it did on the book, charging that TSEs prominence was due to the intense media coverage: had not the coverage been so great, neither would its impact. The controversial statements the book presents, and the fact that Lomborg offered a catchy public image - " not a steely-eyed economist at a conservative Washington think tank but a vegetarian, backpack-toting academic who was a member of Greenpeace for four years" - New York Times - made the package of contrarian book and hip author eminently media-ready.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News"http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/environmentalist/, attributes this media success to its initial, influential supporters:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:News of the pending book first appeared in the UK in early June of 2001 when a Sunday Times article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report of claims made by Lomborg that London's air was cleaner than at any time since 1585. Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's questioning of the Kyoto climate change protocol to U.S. president George W. Bush's visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial opposition to the treaty. The Times followed up the report the next day with a news article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle.

Related Topics:
President - George W. Bush - Europe

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:With The Times reports, Lomborg and his claims had made the Anglo media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets followed the reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the claims of The Skeptical Environmentalist to Bush's European visit ran later that week in the U.K's The Express and Daily Telegraph, and Canada's Toronto Star."

Related Topics:
The Express - Daily Telegraph - Canada - Toronto Star

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another influential UK news publication, The Economist, also weighed in at the start with heavy support, publishing an advance essay by Lomborg in which he detailed his Litany, and following up with a highly favorable review and supportive coverage of the critical controversy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Formal charge of scientific dishonesty

Detailed coverage at Bjørn Lomborg/Complaint to DCSD

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Several environmental scientists brought complaints against Lomborg before the social sciences committee of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology. This added fuel to the overall controversy surrounding TSE, and served as a rallying point for both supporters and critics of Lomborg and the book. In January 2003, the DCSD reached its decision, and also took the unusual step of releasing its working papers, which contained their various internal discussions. The conclusion was that Lomborg was not guilty of intentional scientific dishonesty, as he had no experience in the scientific areas concerned in the complaints. However, through the release of its notes, the DCSD made public that it did find TSE to be a matter of scientific dishonesty. Subsequently, Lomborg complained to the Ministry of Research and Information Technology, which found the DCSD's handling of the investigation to be improper, and ordered the DCSD to reconsider the case. The DCSD declined to reopen it, citing the fact that Lomborg had already been cleared in the first instance. Since that first investigation was invalidated by the Ministry, not reopening it amounted to the DCSD declining to proceed on the original complaints. The conclusions concerning TSE, never formally withdrawn by the DCSD, ceased to officially exist.

Related Topics:
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty - January

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The "so damnably reasonable" critique

Some critics of TSE took issue, not with the statistical investigation of Lomborg's Litany, but with the suggestions and conclusions that the book based upon them. This line of criticism considered TSE as a contribution to the general environmental debate, and not as a scientific work. In a BBC column from August 23, 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent Alex Kirby wrote:

Related Topics:
BBC - Alex Kirby

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve, interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the only one in step, every single time.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1502076.stm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:What really riles me about his book is that it is so damnably reasonable. In the rational world that Bjorn Lomborg thinks we all inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one...But the real world is messier, more unpredictable - and more impatient.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On September 5, 2001, at a TSE book reading in England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face. In a September 9, 2001, article, "Why I pied Lomborg", Lynas stated:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices - such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with. Why not take the $60 billion from George Bush's stupid Son of Star Wars program and use that cash to save lives in Ethiopia? Because in a world where political choices are not made democratically at a global level, but by a small number of rich countries and corporations, the poor and the environment are never going to be a priority.http://schema-root.org/people/political/activists/environment/individuals/mark_lynas/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The December 12, 2001 issue of Grist, a popular online environmental magazine, devoted an issue to TSE, with a series of essays from various scientists challenging individual sections. A separate article examining the book's overall approach took issue with the framing of Lomborg's conclusions:

Related Topics:
Grist - Magazine

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Lomborg begins by making the entirely reasonable point that accurate information is critical to informed decision-making. If information is skewed to paint a bleaker environmental picture than is justified by reality, as he claims, then we will in turn skew our limited resources in favor of the environment and away from other important causes. ... Then Lomborg proceeds to weigh the causes championed by the environmental movement against a deliberately circumscribed universe of other possible "good causes." It is up to us, he says, to make responsible decisions about whether to protect the environment or "boost Medicaid, increase funding to the arts, or cut taxes. ... The worse they can make this state appear, the easier it is for them to convince us we need to spend more money on the environment rather on hospitals, kindergartens, etc." A few pages later he again claims that the purpose of the Litany is to cause us to prioritize the environment over "hospitals, child day care, etc." ... But who is really failing to consider how our money is spent? As Lomborg notes, "We will never have enough money," and therefore, "Prioritization is absolutely essential." Why, then, does he weigh the environment only against hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies and defense spending?http://grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/infamous/index.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Addressing the apparent difficulty of anti-TSE scientists in criticizing the book strictly on the basis of statistics and challenging the conclusions about areas of environmental sciences that were drawn from them, Lynas contends:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:One of the biggest problems facing the environmental community in analyzing Lomborg?s book is that his work, as flawed as it is, has clearly been very time-consuming and meticulous. In a busy and under funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow though 3,000 footnotes checking his sources. It is impressively interdisciplinary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~