Debating "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Posted: 30-Apr-2002; Updated: 30-Apr-2002

When a firebrand author/political scientist and the head of a leading environmental group meet to debate the current state of the world, the results are as contentious as the stakes are high.    

Bjørn Lomborg, Associate Professor of Statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark and author of the controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, and Environmental Defense Executive Director Fred Krupp, were invited to debate the topic: "Is Our Environmental Future Secure?"  The debate, held at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York on April 9, 2002, was sponsored by the Donald and Paula Smith Family Foundation.

The Skeptical Environmentalist, published in the U.S. in 2001, generated a firestorm of controversy over the author's assertions that what he called "doomsday predictions" by environmentalists (about such problems as global warming) were exaggerated. Lomborg claimed that data showed many world problems were actually getting better or were self-correcting, and that global warming would primarily affect the developing world rather than the developed world.

"On average we over-worry about the environmental area, and it does have consequences," Lomborg said. "Because if we over-worry about some areas we end up under-worrying about other areas. That's the reason why we need to focus on what is the real state of the world. Things are actually getting better and better and they're likely to do so in the future. This does not mean that there are no problems and that we don't need to worry, but it means that . . . the problems are getting smaller, and that means that we have to start focusing and prioritizing correctly."

In the debate, Krupp argued that Lomborg's selective use of data suggested that nations can only afford to implement environmental rules after they have become wealthy, as if a healthy environment were a luxury good. "Other countries really don't need to spend their money cleaning up after the fact when they have the option of doing things right beforehand," Krupp said. "China, for example: they don't accept the idea that they need to be consigned to some environmental hell [because of growing industrialization]. Their citizens are way down on the ladder in terms of per capita income but they're already demanding a cleanup."

The debate covered such topics as the effect of grassroots and government action in enacting better environmental conditions; the value of implementing the Kyoto Protocol; and the integrity of cost benefit analyses that determine how many lives are saved due to environmental laws. Questions were also raised from the audience about the critical reception Lomborg's book faced from scientists and editorial boards (Lomborg himself has had pies tossed in his face at other public engagements).

To view or download a complete transcript of the debate (a 957 KB pdf file), click here.