Another state of the world - comment to the presentation of Bjørn Lomborg

Ladies and gentlemen,

Mr Lomborg´s views have raised controversial reactions within the scientific community and the society at large. I am not a scientist so I will concentrate on general aspects, which I can comment from my own background, and leave the more specific debate on the validity of Lomborg´s arguments to others who are in a better position to do so. As far as I know, this has already taken place in the international scientific fora as well as in his home country, where a number of scientists have challenged most of Lomborg´s key arguments.

Lomborg´s main argument concerns the alleged selective information provided by the environmental movement, which has been spread by the mass media and which affects decision-makers in the industrialised world. In his book, the author rejects this doomsday approach and argues that the state of environment is actually improving and humanity doing better than ever before.

It may be true that in some cases, such as population growth, the ozone layer and acid rain, the worst predictions and scenarios have not materialised. This is partially due to improved family-planning, as well as international agreements to ban the use of CFCs and global efforts to restrict sulfur dioxide.

In most cases, however, major problems remain. To discard them lightly and to consider that they will be automatically solved as a result of economic growth is an attitude which has raised major consternation within the scientific community.

My question is the following: how seriously should we take someone who argues that the great majority of scientists who provide the basic information and data to national and international organisations and decision-makers, are either biased or overrun by the environmental lobby and, therefore, cannot provide an objective picture of the world, which according to Lomborg´s own words is simply îbeautifulî? Furthermore, what value should be attributed to the kind of technical and economic optimism that Lomborg is now preaching?

It seems intriguing to read claims which run contrary to mainstream knowledge on the state of the world. Are we therefore to accept that the UN summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg and the EU approach concerning the Kyoto protocol were based on wrong estimates? Having worked for both institutions for several years, I can only assure you that these organisations depend on massive scientific data, which is gradually digested into policy initiatives and practical measures. To disagree with their approach is one thing, but to claim that they are based on completely wrong assumptions seems either incompetent or intentionally delusive.

Furthermore, I find it peculiar that someone who claims to have been a supporter of Greenpeace suddenly turns his back to all the values that this organisation represents and becomes an avid speaker in favour of an all-mighty market economy.

The market economy cannot be given free hand to operate and correct its activities whenever necessary. That is the kind of fodder that the most conservative, reactionary forces of society love to hear. If this message were to spread to the political level, we could find ourselves in a terrible mess.

The irony is that most of the advances that Lomborg is referring to could have been attributed to increased environmental awareness among political decision-makers and the general public, which has eventually led to legislative restrictions and international agreements. The fact that he deliberately scales down the achievements of environmental policy and draws opposite conclusions based on interpretations which conveniently support his own views, shows a complacency which is not common in the scientific community. In a complex world full of uncertainties, diverging trends and intresses, to pretend that all is well and improving does not sound very academic to say the least.

I think that humanity still has a lot to learn from the natural environment. Unlike Mr Lomborg, I hope that we will continue to apply the precautionary principle in order to restrict the negative impact of our activities and ensure that future generations can enjoy the same quality of environment and level of biodiversity that we do. To overlook our ecological footprint and act as if economic growth and the use of natural resources could increase endlessly is a reckless attitude that should be avoided at all price.

EERO YRJÖ-KOSKINEN
Director
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation