It was a day of quiet, a day where I felt a little less on the outside of the general consensus and a day where I got to see 2 episodes of CSI (quiet curse to Quebec cable for not carrying Spike, very quiet curse).
For awhile now I've been following the work of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg. Back when I was writing the sustainable development lesson plans I was blown away at the deluge of doomsday environmental spin out there. Then I discovered his book and I was glad:
In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.
Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media.
When I first read his stuff, I was so pleased. There were people out there who felt like I felt. Yes, there are a lot of environmental problems in the world, but we don't have anywhere near enough data to be sure that the end is truly nigh and we really have to step back and think about what our priorities should be in trying to remedy them. The environmental movement always struck me as a group of people running about with their hair on fire, not sure which strand to put out first.
It's easy to convince the green movement that the environmental situation is far from good. But up until recently, the only way one could persuade those with the money (and power) that things had to be done was to scream that the sky was falling, and falling right this second. Lomborg makes a good point that we don't always make the most rational decisions when faced with a falling sky. Lomborg also impressed me because he had the wherewithal to put environmental issues in an economic context. Asking important questions like what is the real value in solving these problems for people today.
I had the pleasure of seeing Lomborg in the flesh at the conference. So rarely do I find myself agreeing with speakers at environmental conferences (I've been to two and heard about 20 lectures and spent a lot of time listening to bad rants and straw man arguments... oh and rolling my eyes, a lot.). The focus of his talk was about the rational prioritzation of the issues that are facing the globe today. As he said, "there is only one bag of money, but many good uses" and we have to use rational thinking to determine what we choose to spend that money on.
We also have to demystify a lot of what we read about in the media. Bad news sells and if one were to only read the news and not dig deeper, you'd think that in spite of all the efforts of the past century, there was no hope for environmental progress and everything we've done so far has barely made a dent. And that's just not true. Things are not perfect. There are still some things going on that shouldn't continue, but as the western world has become richer, we've been able to afford to put money into conservation, into sustainability and into research and development. We have fufilled our primary needs (food, shelter, etc) and now we have the luxury of determining the manner in which we sustain our existence. We don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, so we have time to worry about pollution.
I think what I like the best about Lomborg's viewpoint is that his hope lies in human ingenuity. We are making things better, have have already come so far because we've been able to solve problems. We don't need to panic about the oil reserves because we are continuing to develop alternative fuels that may one day take over oil, just as oil overtook coal and coal replaced wood. It's a very different approach from the usual schpeel you get from the green movement that actually makes you feel guilty for being a human being. I've always found that offensive.
Lomborg also brought up the not so cuddly, but awfully practical issue of cost/benefit analysis. Something that a lot of people don't want to touch because they don't want to appear as though they are a bad person. For example, the ill conceived Kyoto accord actually gives us less in terms of it's effect on global warming than what we put in in terms of dollars lost to restrictions. It takes a lot of guts to say that you think Kyoto is an futile piece of environmental legislation. In many circles it's like putting an "I hate the planet" sticker on your head. But the reality is, that the accord isn't going to put a dent in the global warming problem (should you choose to accept that there is one), so why are we choking our economies for it? It's going to have dire effects upon the economy, which will effect all of us and I don't think for the better.
One of the things that has really resonated with me was Lomborgs point that we are spending so much of our energy focusing on the wrong things. There are problems out there that we may not be able to fix right now, yet we spend so much time and energy on them in futility. In the meantime there are things that we could have a huge effect upon now.
When I learn that 40% of all adult deaths in South Africa are AIDS related, the problem of the global temperature rising 4 degrees in 50 years doesn't bother me as much. When I learn that in developing countries, many illnesses and deaths are caused by particulate inhalation (meaning people burn anything they can for heat and fuel, inhale the by products from it and get really, really sick), I'm not as troubled by greenhouse gases. I'm not saying they don't matter, but they shouldn't be higher on the priority list.
Find a cure for HIV/AIDS (Go Tash!), find a way to prevent Malaria without using DDT that developing nations can afford or find a way to increase free trade. That's a good use of funds. And that's going to have an impact on the world and on future generations.
Gosh it's nice to come out of a talk with some hope.
HRH
