[saymaListserv] Re: Does This Sound Familiar? (Londborg/Death of Environmentalism)

[Joshua Stuart Rose]

Hey all,

Two issues seem to have been conflated in the recent back-and-forth on 
environmentalism: the essay "The Death of
Environmentalism" by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, and the book 
"The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. These are two very 
different issues.

The Shellenberger/Nordhaus essay is intelligent, thought-provoking writing 
by two people who have been environmentalists for many years, and so know a 
fair amount about the topics they address. It would be a mistake to attempt 
to dismiss this essay with a few CNN-style sound bites such as 
"Environmentalism is just another special interest" or "Environmentalists 
are to blame for losing the battle over Arctic drilling".

And note - I'm not sure this was clear to everyone - that the essay posted 
to this listserv was NOT "The Death of Environmentalism", but an editorial 
from The Economist which just briefly quotes from that much longer work. 
Grist, the on-line environmental magazine with which most of us are 
familiar, re-ran the original essay and several in-depth pieces in 
response; see
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

Lomborg is a very different animal. He is a statistician and political 
scientist who wrote a book attempting to deal with issues of meteorology, 
ecology, and several other fields in which he is far from an expert. I'm 
sure he's a very good statistician, but as an ecologist, he is an 
incompetent. Any honest and ethical scientist confines his or her comments 
to those areas where they understand the science involved; Lomborg did not. 
The criticisms of Lomborg's book did not come just from "environmentalists 
whose work he questions", as alleged in one preceding e-mail; his critics 
include many of the scientists whose work he distorts and misrepresents in 
attempting to make his case.

To use as an example the area closest to my specialty, Lomborg addressed 
forests. One e-mail posted here quoted him using statistics on worldwide 
forest cover as justification that loss of forests was not a threat. Anyone 
who actually studies forests knows that this is an incorrect, if not 
dishonest, analysis. Forests as intact, healthy ecosystems are still being 
lost rapidly. Healthy forest ecosystems are being replaced by tree 
plantations and early successional growth that lack most of the species 
diversity and ecosystem services of the ecosystems they have replaced. In 
his book, Lomborg disputes the use of a forest loss index on the basis that 
it does not count timber plantations as forest; speaking as an ecologist 
who lives in a region where much of the original forest has been converted 
to plantations, and who has investigated both in detail, I can state 
authoritatively that Lomborg is wrong, a tree plantation is not any kind of 
healthy forest. Protection of virgin and old-growth forest, and of forest 
processes such as fire, flood, and decomposition, should still be a top 
priority.

Ironically, Lomborg, at least wtih regards to forests, makes the same error 
of which he accuses environmentalists, abusing and misunderstanding the 
science supposedly supporting his case.


Joshua S. Rose, Ph.D.
jsr6 at duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/

Duke Natural History Society
http://www.biology.duke.edu/dnhs/

Program Director
Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association
http://www.ellerbecreek.org/

Environmental Chair
Old North Durham Neighborhood Association
http://www.oldnorthdurham.org/

Duke University
Department of Biology (Zoology, R.I.P.)