Townhall.com | Bill Steigerwald | August 13, 2007
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg (Knopf)
“Cool It” is not the first book Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg has written about global warming. Lomborg’s heretical 2001 best-seller, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” drew a firestorm of nasty criticism and unveiled hatred from environmentalists and the global warming crowd because it said most of the bad effects of climate change have been grossly exaggerated. Named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in 2004, Lomborg — a statistician by training — believes global warming is occurring. But he also believes we should approach the problem rationally — which means not wasting all our energy and resources today on global warming’s long-run effects when there are more-pressing human-killing problems like malaria and malnutrition we should be addressing.
Q: What does “Cool It” refer to?
A: Well, of course it refers to the idea that we need to find a way in the long term to reverse global warming. But it also — and perhaps more importantly in the current debate — refers to the fact that we need to cool and temper our conversation on climate change. Right now there is a lot of hysteria going on, a lot of alarmism going on, and quite frankly, if we only hear one side of the story — and often an exaggerated side of the story — it’s unlikely we’ll make good judgments.
. . . more
I’m glad to see Lomborg acknowleging that global warming is real.
However, after that Lomborg attempts to minimize the risks of global warming by arguing that relatiively speaking, there are more urgent problems such as disease, flooding and famine. He argues that we shouldn’t act until a global concensus can be reached.
Here is where Lomborg’s logic fails. First, disease, flooding and famine may well be by-products of climate change resulting from global warming. So the more urgent problems may be symptoms of the larger problem that Lomborg is arguing is less important.
Second, Lomborg ignores the fact that as global warming worsens, it becomes more difficult to arrest. Particlularly worrisome is the potential melting of the Siberian Permafrost. Global warming is caused by the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere and the melting of the Siberian permafrost would release massive amountts of carbon into the atmosphere. We really don’t have the luxury of time for the ponderously slow pace of change that Lomborg argues we should follow.
note 1:
Particlularly worrisome is the potential melting of the Siberian Permafrost. Global warming is caused by the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere and the melting of the Siberian permafrost would release massive amountts of carbon into the atmosphere.
This would be a very good thing. The amount of arable land would increase dramatically (providing not only food but other raw materials such as fiber, etc.). This is one area where the global warming scare fails: global warming = good, on balance. Let’s pray and hope the permafrost melts sooner, not later!!!
Note 3. It’s the National Catholic Reporter Dean, so sift the political message from the theological. On Pope Benedict’s desire to recover natural law the report is correct. As an implicit endorsement of “environmentalism” however, the report jumps to completely unwarranted conclusions.
Note Pope Benedict’s premise:
This is a critique of philosophical materialism and the secularism it engenders. The problem with “environmentalism”, particularly in the undefined way the NCR uses the term, is that the logical outgrowth of materialism is ideology (man is the final touchstone of all values, purpose, and meaning), and much of the ideological fervor has shifted to environmentalism (global warming as a religious cause, etc.). These are distinctions that Pope Benedict can be expected to make since he understands the ideological dimension very well.
The NCR crassly puts Pope Benedict in the leftist environmentalist camp in that usual way it loves to mix politics and religion. They seem to understand the environmentalist movement (it’s Gorian variant in particular) but they don’t seem to understand Pope Benedict.
I used to think of myself as an environmentalist since I love the outdoors and am generally not extravagant or wasteful. But then I spent 7 years working in environmental biotechnology, and was forced to actually think through questions of resource management and waste disposal. Nothing focuses the mind like having to do calculations and make decisions instead of making lofty pronouncements.
I came more and more to think that “environmentalism” is a form of delusion based on gauzy sentimentality and lack of rigorous thinking. For example, any number of politicians or church leaders might exhort us to “defend the environment”. But what exactly does “defend the environment” mean? If I cut down some trees and build myself a house that is 10,000 sq ft am I defending the environment? Most would say no. OK. How about 1,000 sq ft? Most would say yes. But why? What number of trees corresponds to defending the environment and what number corresponds to violating it? What principles are used to make the calculation? What if I plant some shrubs? Are shrubs more valuable than trees or less valuable? How about grasses vs. trees? Again, what principles inform these decisions?
At this point, not being able to come up with any guiding principles, most people will reply that the issue is really one of not using too much of a resource so that others can share in its use. But with this “defending the environment” has been thrown out the window. The question becomes human-centric rather than nature-centric. What is really being defended now is the right of humans to enjoy a certain standard of living.
The radical environmentalists recognize human-centric vs. nature-centric reasoning, and they make the case that the non-human world has some sort of “rights”. (Patriarch Bartholomew talks this way.) They see any human influence as pernicious. So, 6 billion people inflict a lot of damage on nature’s rights. But this sort of thinking suffers logical collapse too as soon as one puts numbers and rigorous thinking into play. 6 billion is intolerable? OK, how about 3 billion? 1 billion? How many is just right? What principles guide the calculation? Etc. Etc.
Every attempt to justify “environmentalist” rhetoric with first principles and compelling calculations founders on the rocky shore of logic. In the end, “environmentalism” is simply how the dominant social class asserts its lifestyle preferences. Owning an SUV and driving 1 mile to the grocery store is bad for the environment, but using thousands of gallons of jet fuel to go on an eco-tour to Bali is good for the environment. Strip mining is bad for the environment because nature has a right to leave metals buried underground, but converting millions of acres into irrigated vineyards is good because good wine makes dinner parties so enjoyable.
Note 5. Tom C. writes:
Radical environmentalists are (Rousseau)ian in that they perceive nature to be prelapsarian. Rousseau shifted the locus of the fall from the garden to socialization (when mankind organized itself into communities). This rewrite of the Genesis narrative had profound effect on other thinkers earning him the title “Father of totalitarianism” by Solzhenitsyn and others.
The reasoning goes like this: If socialization is the locus of the fall, then resocialization, by force if necessary, should return us to the garden. (Anyone see the Marxist parallels here?) Of course, the French Revolution (as well as every Marxist revolution that germinated in this toxic soil) proved all it accomplished was the opening of the jaws of hell (think Robespierre, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc. etc. etc.).
Radical environmentalists want to restructure society in the same way, but a return to idyllic nature, rather than a harmonious and progressive society, is the new version of that old totalitarian dream of heaven on earth.
Ever wonder why radical environmentalism has a religious cast? Every wonder about the emergence of the secular apocalypticism in global warming (Florida will be under twenty feet of water in fifty years! — a new Great Flood?) and the like? Ever wonder why man-made global warming skeptics are branded with the same invective reserved for Holocaust deniers? Well, now you know.
Father: I will take your word for it that the National Catholic Reporter, has an ideological bias or predilection when it comes to the environment. But what about the quote from Pope Benedict? Aren’t those his words:
Tom is correct that much of what is done in the name of environmentalism are symbolic rather than substantative. But I think its a stretch to say that all environmentalism is just feel-good political correctness that there is no empirical link between certain activities and damage to the planet. Just yesterday the Bush administration anounced that it will enshrrine in law the practice of strip mining where the tops of mountains are totally denuded and blasted away and the debris literally dumped into the valleys and rivers below. How can anyone argue that suchh activities do not cause significant, irreparable ecological damage?
I’m sure that you have enjoyed a hike or a picnic in some beautiful natural setting at some point in your life. You watched the sunset as you cast your fishing line into one of Minnesota’s lakes, or saw an Egret or Crane rise up from a Florida marshes and soar overghead. Now imagine you could only read about those images in books but never actually experience them because some greedy generation before you thought that nature only existed for their enjoyment, profit and consumption and future generations be damned.
Note 7:
How much of your post (your thought?) do you believe is influenced by Rousseau? Would you say any of your last paragraph, or the general moral tone, has anything to do with Rousseau?
Note 7. Dean writes:
Yes, but what Pope Benedict means, and how the NCR politicizes them are two different things.
Dean, just because a motive is good, it does not follow that all distinctions and responsible thinking should be abandoned. The radical environmentalists (note modifier radical) really believe only they speak for environmental protection, and that anyone who opposes their agenda is an enemy of the environment (global warming deniers?).
Do you really think Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are responsible for the pristine Minnesota lakes, or the restoration of the Florida Everglades? Think again.
Note 8. Christopher writes:
It’s not that scolding tone as much as the belief that by removing any trace of man from nature, the idyllic state of creation is restored.
If you are saying that scolding tone reveals a moral presumption that draws from the ideology, yes, that certainly might be true.
#7 Mr. Scourtes
I’ll set aside the “enshrined in law” comment as that is nonsensical.
Life is all about tradeoffs. Maturity is recognizing this and taking responsibility for making decisions that balance competing goods.
I don’t know anything about mining, but we have been reminded recently how dangerous underground mining is. Maybe the practice you describe is the best way to extract ore without causing worker deaths. Maybe the minerals in question are of strategic importance but would be too expensive to remove any other way. Maybe there are very good reasons why this type of mining needs to be practiced.
I do know that it is a lot easier to strike a moral pose and shout “environmental degradation” than it is to find solutions to complex problems.
Note 10, Spot On Tom, Human life is more important than undisturbed mountaint tops
Economists have a term for what Dean has done. He has assigned “infinite value” to an undisturbed mountain top. Given that assignment of “infinite value” no other value can compete even human life and welfare has to take
a back seat.
This is the essential decision-making fallacy of the “environmmentalists” it constitutes a form of intellectual paralysis. Following this reasoning we still stunt not only our economic and material development but our entire culture.
There is good reason for people to be disgusted that the preservation of a single species of minnow would take precedence over th welfare of 100,000s of people served by a hydro-electric dam.
Fact is that animals (including humans) compete for space in the environement. We cannot exist as humans in a complex civilization without
having a negative impact on some species at some time. We have to be judicious and decide among competing values, not just put “the environment” at an untouchable mountain top.
Human life is more important than the environment or animals. Dean has slid into Gaia worship whether he realizes it or not.
Environmentalism started with a concern for human life, now it worships Gaia and places Gaia’s interest over people’s interest
People frequently assume that a concern for the environment is a positive moral good. In my opinion, that concern only makes sense when it affects people.
I am concerned if a factory expells toxins that hurt human life. When it comes to animal or plant life, I have a “qualified concern.” I may or may not be concerned about “damage” to plant or animal life. It does not have infinite value and there are cases when other things are more important that plant or animal life, even an entire species.
Please note that when the issue is pollution from factories we are dealing with the easiest form of pollution to control: single point pollution. There is very little toxic pollution coming from factories built after 1990 as air-cleaners are built into every smoke stack and purifiers are built into every water or waste emission system. The biggest source of air pollution is the individual automobile.
I can now hear Dean composing a note to the effect that I would rejoice in the destruction of the last Bengal tiger for the sake of some additional material wealth. Not true, however, I would personally pull the trigger on the last Bengal Tiger on the planet if it would save a single child’s life.
One of the founder’s of Greenpeace eventually left that organization because he said that it had become anti-human. I agree. Assigning infinite value to every aspect of the natural world, necessarily degrades human life.
Note 12. Missourian writes:
This will be the logical end of much of the environmental movement given the presuppositions that drive it.
Note 14. Dean writes:
Tell that to your compatriots Dean. That is exactly what they do! Didn’t you read Missourian’s post (note 12) about why the Greenpeace advocate quit?
Note 14 Mr. Scourtes:
“How is human well being served by careless mining practices that expose human beings to significant health risk?”
People got electricity. The rapidly growing populations in urban areas were able to heat their homes in the winter. The United States became an industrial power. None of that would have happened were it not for domestic coal production at the time. That was how it helped, despite some nasty impacts to local areas (and I’ve seen some of the impact to SE Ohio myself).
The examples you are citing occurred due to archaic mining practices that were applied years ago, and are therefore not necessarily pertinent to current decision making. They were careless, but there was not the same understanding and technology present at the time as there is today. Modern techniques and remediation can and should be applied to reduce environmental impacts associated with mining operations, so there is not such a severe dilemma associated with coal mining today.
Yes, but the Bush administration wants to bring those archaic mining practices back.
Rule to Expand Mountaintop Coal Mining
No decent, Christian person could ever contenance this sort of rape and violence directed against God’s creation , or the spiritually sick, material greed that leads to utter disregard for the impact of such actions on others.
#17
I love this measured, nuanced, compelling rhetoric. Sure has me convinced.
I love this measured, nuanced, compelling rhetoric. Sure has me convinced.
All from a man who would not support the use of the state to stop the holocaust, but would to prevent strip mining. Talk about your confused priorities…
Note #19 Mr. Scourtes:
The strip mining (or, I guess “mountaintop removal” for shock value) that is proposed does not have to result in the severe consequences you mentioned in note #14. Yes, the landscape will be altered, but there is a difference between filling gullies with overburden and filling them with waste coal. I know you don’t like Bush, but it is disingenuous to claim he is authorizing the same sorts of problems that you cited in note #14.
I understand it must be easy to be confused by the radical environmentalists, though. I suppose you have not received significant training in environmental science or mining engineering.
“No decent, Christian person could ever contenance this sort of rape and violence directed against God’s creation , or the spiritually sick, material greed that leads to utter disregard for the impact of such actions on others.”
This is way over the top. You are claiming that these folks must be greedy and negligent just because they will be strip mining.
A model for conservatives to aspire to. In China they don’t have to worry about silly environmentalists:
“As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes”, NY Times, 8/25/2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html
Note 21 Mr. Scourtes:
First, you are not even responding to the arguments made by me and others, but continue to make wild accusations (or typical leftist talking-points) that are not grounded in reality. Conservatives in the U.S. do care about the environment.
Second, because you mention China, would you be surprised to know that the increased pollution there is in part due to environmental radicalism in the United States?
We used to manufacture oxidized coal (“coke”) in the U.S. at our steel mills. The process is necessarily dirty, but our coke plants were clean relative to what is found in the rest of the world due to environmental regulations and technological improvements. Those regulations and technology, however, were just not good enough for radical environmentalists, and were tightened. They were tightened so much that, even with additional modernizations, domestic coke production was almost completely shut down.
Well, the Bessemer process must go on because the world still needs steel, and guess where coke production went? That’s right, to China! And guess how it is produced? In beehive kilns with absolutely no pollution controls! And it isn’t just China’s problem, as a “brown cloud” covers East Asia, the Pacific, and sometimes California.
Don’t get me wrong, the brown cloud would still be there because the Chinese government is amoral, but we did realize an order-of-magnitude increase in air pollution associated with world steel production, all because of unrealistic environmental regulations that leftists advocated and that the conservatives you love to disparage argued against.
D. George: Your argument is that overly-stringent environmental protections have pushed steel production away from the United States which had moderately effective safeguards, to China which has very poor environmental safeguards, resulting in a net increase in air pollution. That would have been a very difficult arguument to overcome, so I did some research. Apparently a number of nations who are signatories to the Kyoto treaty are also among the world’s top steel producers. I would be surprised if Japan and Germany had environmental regulations that were significantly weaker than those of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_production_by_country
I won’t dispute that the cost of making the steel production process comply with environmental regulations makes the US less competitive than some other nations. However, that is only one of a number of factors responsible for the decline in US steel production. The relative age of US plants, compared to newer factories in Japan and Europe is a factor. Higher wages and the cost of health benefits for American workers and retirees, also makes US production less competitive.
Note 23 Mr. Scourtes:
“Your argument is that overly-stringent environmental protections have pushed steel production away from the United States…”
Close, but not quite correct. My argument was that oxidized coal (not steel) production, which is necessary for steel production, was shifted away from the US (and likely other industrialized nations) to China due to stringent environmental controls. Our mills imported coke from China, which was manufactured without environmental control.
I agree that the increased cost due to importing oxidized coal was not a major factor in the overall decline of the US steel industry. In addition to the issue of wages and benefits you mentioned, I would cite the resistance of the union to modernization out of fear of job losses, which resulted in an inability to match the tolerances (quality) that Japanese steel manufacturers were able to achive.
The scenario described by Mr. George vis-a-vis coke production has been repeated in several other industries such as lumber, fishing, chemical production, etc.
Industry = BAD: Dean doesn’t understand “single-point emitter” pollution solutions
Every plant which has the potential to produce toxic emissions, can with a little work, control those emissions BECAUSE they derive from a single location.
Air emitted from smoke-stacks can be pre-filtered removing toxins before emissions Water emitted from factories can be routed through baffles which remove heat, or through filters which remove toxins. Cars pose a more difficult emission control problem, although great progress is being made there.
Modern industrial plants, those built after 1990, are simply not a significant source of air-pollution. Retrofitting plants built in the 1930′s can be prohibitively expensive, however and could have a major impact on some industries. Between 1960 and 2000 the American foundry industry was effectively eliminated through a combination of free trade agreements and heavy environmental controls. We have very few plants that can craft heavy armanents like tanks. Thanks to the genius of government.
This has been explained to Dean, 10,576 times but he still thinks that coal-fired electricity is “dirty.” At one point, a favorite post of mine, Dean claimed that the power industry was blithely polluting our air without a care. I was able to send him to a website hosted by the Power Society of the IEEE (the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineering) and that website contained page after page after page of scholarly scientific papers on the topic of pollution control devices.
Don’t bother Dean with reality. The power industry is BAD, BIG INDUSTRY BAD no qualifiers, no details, no facts, it is just BAD and always will be BAD. Even though our entire society takes cheap and abundant electric power (and other forms of energy or high-techn products) for granted every minute of our earthly existence.
Note 21. Dean writes:
Wrong. Communist governments are notorious for the absolute rape of the environment. (Just look at what Communist Russia did in Siberia.) Capitalist, and capitalist leaning governments, however, overall treat the environment much better.
Your real point however, is that if a person doesn’t buy into the Greenpeace or Sierra Club social agenda, he doesn’t really care about the environment — kind of like if a person doesn’t buy into Hillary Care, he doesn’t really care about sick people.
Note 17:
Attacking motives is a shop-worn tactic, Dean. It’s like Ellen Goodman equating man-made global warming skeptics with “holocaust deniers.” The moralisms start when the ideas are weak.
Energy production is BAD because everything that energy powers is BAD because we westerners are BAD that’s why it is BAD to fight the jihadists because we BAD folks ought to just self destruct especially if we are “Christian” or at least live in an orgy of guilt, guilt, guilt. Chrisitians may well decide at some point that the society in which we find ourselves is so ungodly that we must not participate, but that decision can only be made correctly from Christian principals and reality, not the ideological chimeras that are most often presented.
Ideas become weak when ideology is paramount, it makes no difference whether the ideology is “leftist” or “centerist” or “rightist” or “religious” or “secular” or maroon. Ideology is a BAD way to make decisions. There is a big difference between political philosophy and political ideology. All idelogy is inherently tyrannical because it denies the dignity and freedom of human beings and our ability to form thoughts and to form community that is responsive to all human needs while realizing the utopia is impossible.
There are many things that we as a responsible society should do to protect the phenomenal world especially the people. It is a big mistake to treat the “environment” like a thing. It is not a thing to be exploited or to be worshipped, it is integral to our own being. If we are right with God, the world will be ordered properly. If we are not, nothing else we try to do will work.