"The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World" by Bjorn Lomborg. Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. xxiv + 515, ISBN 0 521 01068 3

This book has probably attracted more public attention than any other book on the world’s environmental problems since Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). In reviews and critiques, it has been lauded and lambasted. I will therefore consider two aspects: what it says, and what the public reaction to it has been.

The message of The Skeptical Environmentalist is almost the exact opposite to that of Limits to Growth. Lomborg says that environmental advocates have painted a massively inaccurate picture of the overall state of the world’s environment: that the impression of impending environmental disasters that they have tried to create is a gross exaggeration. For most of the headline environmental and resource issues, things are improving or have already improved, in some cases quite dramatically so. For other issues, things were never as bad as often claimed, or will not get as bad as often predicted. This is not to say that the state of the environment is necessarily good enough, but that by many criteria it is pretty good and getting better, and so we should not be panicked into excessive, ill-considered expenditures in order to avoid non-existent looming catastrophes.

Lomborg’s conclusion is a surprise to many (and an outrage to some). However, it is backed up by a multitude of statistics drawn from what appear to be safe and conservative sources (e.g. FAO, UNEP, UNDP, WHO). Lomborg notes that his data sources are the same as those used by the environmentalists who make dire pronouncements. The difference is that Lomborg presents the information in broader contexts: a longer time scale (so that short-term fluctuations do not mislead us), a global spatial scale (so that the overall significance of issues can be seen) or a broader socio-economic context (so that the importance of environmental expenditures can be considered relative to other uses of scarce resources).

An important question is whether Lomborg is right. I am not able to judge the accuracy of the technical information contained in the book. Fortunately, I do not need to. It has been subjected to the most intense (and hostile) scrutiny imaginable. There are numerous critiques available, including a web site devoted to the task of debunking the book. In some cases, panels of invited scientists have reviewed it chapter by chapter. If there are any errors in the book, they would certainly have been highlighted. The results of the published reviews by scientists can be described in two parts:

(a) a very strong negative verdict about the book from most of the invited scientists, and

(b) a failure by these scientists to identify any specific errors of substance. They have found some minor errors, and expressed legitimate concerns about the strength of some conclusions, but the general thrust of the book stands up very strongly.

(The extreme level of scrutiny initiated by people who disavow Lomborg has had an unintended result. Ironically, it means that an impartial observer can more confidently conclude that, at least with regard to the raw information, the book is broadly sound.)

The stark contrast between the evidence and the verdict reveals much about what is really going on. So does the choice of scientists, many of whom have been criticised in the book. So do the tactics they have adopted. Even in publications as august as Scientific American, the published critiques resort to nit-picking, quoting out of context, and gross misrepresentation. They appear determined to find fault, and only fault. At least the Scientific American critiques avoid personal vilification, which is only too prominent in many of the published attacks.

Most charitably, one might suppose that the scientists involved in writing these critiques are so upset by the potential funding consequences of its conclusions being taken seriously that their ability to judge the work impartially is impaired. But frankly, the whole backlash has all the hallmarks of a witch-hunt. Through it all, Lomborg has retained his dignity. One can only marvel at his resilience as he has dealt with the vitriol and hyperbole heaped against him with reason and patience.

So what about the book itself? Lomborg employs a number of different approaches in dealing with the different environmental issues. The first approach, and the least controversial, is to present official statistics or peer-reviewed scientific data about the severity of problems, and to contrast these with dire warnings and predictions from environmental advocates. I expect that few will fail to be surprised by the positiveness of the overall picture which emerges in relation to population, life expectancy, health, food supply, poverty, forests, energy, minerals, water, air pollution, water pollution and acid rain. The critics generally acknowledge that the information Lomborg presents on these issues is broadly correct, although they seem angry at him for presenting it, or at least for the interpretations he draws (which generally appear reasonable to me). Some of the more desperate critics have chided him for not saying anything new about these issues, but that seems only to strengthen his point.

Lomborg emphasises repeatedly that he is not saying the problems are unimportant or fully resolved. He is merely saying that the situation is not nearly as bad as the public is led to believe, and that we need to understand this if we are to make sound decisions about priorities for policy and action. It seems so reasonable that one has almost to pinch oneself when reading some of the backlash.

The chapter on "Our chemical fears" is particularly compelling. As in other parts of the book, Lomborg cites many alarmist statements by prominent commentators, in this case decrying the dramatic increase in cancer rates due to pesticides in the environment, in food and in water. Then he presents a multitude of evidence showing that there has been no such increase, and that the levels of cancer from these causes are very low indeed. For example:

"The head of the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Toxicology … estimates that the most probable distribution of food-related cancers is: 98.79 percent from traditional food (red meat, poultry, grains, potatoes, sugar, cocoa, salt, etc.), about 1 percent from spices and natural flavourings (mustard, pepper, cinnamon, vanilla, etc.), 0.2 percent from indirect additives (remnant substances from factories, such as lubricants, surface residues, packaging, etc.), 0.01 percent from pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.), 0.01 percent from animal drug residues (antibiotics, growth hormones, etc.) and 0.01 percent from preparation (fermentation, frying, boiling, etc.)." (p. 236)

Here’s another example:

"A plausible estimate for the excess annual cancer mortality due to pesticides in the US is probably close to 20 extra cancer deaths out of 560,000. For comparison, about 300 Americans die each year from drowning in their bathtub." (p.245)

I was particularly interested to read that the cancer risk from ETU (the most dangerous present-day pesticide intake in the US) is 66 times smaller than that from three cups of coffee per day, and 2100 times smaller than 1.7 beers per day (the US averages). The book is just packed with information like this. I found it interesting, entertaining and surprising from beginning to end.

The chapter on biodiversity and extinctions is probably the least convincing, because the evidence is harder to get and harder to interpret. Lomborg quotes dramatic levels of extinction claimed by some (40,000, 100,000 or even 250,000 species lost per year) and points out the absence or weakness of evidence to support them. He argues that the available knowledge supports vastly smaller numbers. Lomborg does acknowledge that the data is likely to understate the reality, but makes a case that the extreme claims are unlikely to be realistic. Critics have taken issue with his case, but I found it difficult to assess their arguments (partly because they are so laden with abuse and other irrelevancies that one is disinclined to trust their objectivity).

The chapter on global warming is by far the longest, and it takes quite a different approach. It is the only issue in the book which is approached as an economist would approach it, asking whether the benefits of intervention would exceed the costs. Lomborg uses the published projections of the UN climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Based on the projections for the 40 officially used scenarios, he points out that a full implementation of the Kyoto protocol would have a negligible impact on global warming. The temperature that would be reached in 2094 under a business-as-usual scenario would instead be reached in around 2100. Not being close to the issue, I was surprised to learn this, and I think many people would be. Of course, there remains enormous uncertainty about what will actually happen, but the point is that whatever will actually happen, according to the IPCC, interventions of the scale of Kyoto will make little difference.

On the other hand, citing well known economist William Nordhaus, the author notes that the cost of implementing Kyoto would exceed the total projected cost of global warming, while reducing that cost only slightly. In other words, we would pay twice. Even allowing for possible wide error margins in the economic analysis, the chances that implementation of the Kyoto protocol could generate benefits in excess of costs look extremely low. This is outstandingly important information, which has caused me to reconsider my attitude to this issue.

Lomborg points out that the main beneficiaries of avoidance of global warming would be people in developing countries, but that the resources required to implement Kyoto could generate vastly greater benefits to developing countries much more directly and much sooner. For around half the cost of Kyoto, developing countries today could better provide fresh water, health care, education and sanitation to all their citizens throughout the coming century. (Of course, putting this into practice would be another matter, and just providing massive amounts of money to developing countries would not resolve the social, political and institutional issues which are usually the real problem. Lomborg does not consider these issues, but his point is still useful for putting the cost of Kyoto in context.)

A response has been, yes, but Kyoto is only the beginning. We need much more intensive interventions to follow after Kyoto. Lomborg’s rejoinder is that the much more intensive interventions are correspondingly much more undesirable. It is possible that the global warming will be more damaging than allowed for by Nordhaus, but this is not supported by the officially sanctioned results of the best available models. One implication is that if we are seriously interested in making good decisions about global warming, the analysts need to focus more on estimating the probability of catastrophic outcomes, which is not currently their approach.

Lomborg’s very reasonable conclusion is that, at least for now, instead of bearing the massive costs, we should dramatically increase investment in R&D to accelerate the development of improved and economically competitive renewable energy technologies. For a fraction of the cost of Kyoto, such R&D could produce technologies which could be widely adopted at low or zero cost.

I do have some reservations about the book. The conclusions reached sometimes seemed too general and sweeping for my comfort. It surely will not all be so simple or benign as the impression created by the book. There are many small, specific corrections and caveats that have been pointed out by commentators (both friendly and unfriendly). The global perspective on issues obscures regional and local environmental issues, which may still be very important. The written English sometimes shows its Danish origins. It is true that the book may erode some of the hard won gains in political standing which the environment has made in recent decades. It will no doubt be exploited by those who are antagonistic to funding for environmental protection. However, if the environmental movement took it seriously (which seems unlikely at this point), it could ultimately help them to enhance their credibility, and to better prioritise their own allocation of time and effort to different environmental and resource issues.

Most economists will appreciate Lomborg’s attempt to look at the big picture, to promote prioritisation of scarce resources, and to evaluate extravagant claims made in support of particular policies. The findings of the book should reinforce the importance of seeking the best available scientific data, rather than accepting the conventional wisdom at face value.

The Skeptical Environmentalist is a remarkable achievement. To have encompassed so much information about so many complex issues is breathtaking. And you cannot fault him for lack of ambition. He concludes the book with the hope that, "as far as the Western world is concerned, … this book can lead to an appreciable change in attitude to environmental problems." (p. 351). If you have read the violent critiques, do not be put off. You will scarcely recognise it as the same book. I recommend it as essential reading for any open-minded person with an interest in the environment. It will also prove an invaluable source of information and discussion in university courses which cover scientific, ethical, economic or political aspects of the environment and/or natural resources.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens W. III. 1972, Limits to Growth, Earthscan, London.