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

[Steve Livingston]

On 4 May 2005 at 22:24, Joshua Stuart Rose wrote:

> 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.) 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association mailing list
> posting address: sayma at kitenet.net
> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://kitenet.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sayma
>