2/25/2005

Environmental Trade-Offs

In the article The Truth About the Environment, Bjorn Lomborg expresses his views on environmental beliefs such as the depletion of natural resources and the burgeoning population. Society is exposed to one-sided issues. What the world knows about the environment is what they are told by environmentalists. Facts are ignored. Rationalism is disregarded. Energy supplies have always been large enough to supply the world’s needs, contradicting environmentalists’ statements that we will soon run out. Advancing technology has made possible continual discovery of new energy sources. Extraction is constrained by capital. Therefore, price increases are not due to scarcity.

America will not be overflowing with refuse within the next 10 years. “…even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will take up (an 18 mile square), " writes Lomborg. Try to discuss this with the vast majority of people who have never bothered to research the facts. Land in the U.S. is plentiful yet many people are under the impression that without recycling we would be inundated by garbage.

Recycling is not cost effective. My roommate pays $15 a month for a recycling service. As part of this service we are required to clean each recyclable. Do you know how long it takes to scrub a peanut butter jar or wash a lotion container? Recycling is a misuse of my time and more importantly to me, a misuse of water. Steven Landsburg addresses this issue of trade-offs in Fair Play by asking, "with exactly which valuable resources are we obligated to be exceptionally frugal?" I feel that because I live in the desert more of my energy should be used to conserve water.

Bjor Lomborg poses an interesting question, “the question is whether the cure will actually be more costly than the ailment.” A better use of money according to Lomborg would be to “provide universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation”. (Lomborg, 2001, Always look on the dark side of life, para.8) This would prevent two million deaths annually. The environment needs to be managed with regards to opportunity costs. Bjorn Lomborg once held left-wing environmental views before he found data to support the opposite argument.

1 comment:

Dr. Tufte said...

-1 for a spelling mistake in Diane's post.

The important thing to recognize about Lomborg is that he is still left-wing and pro-environment. What he is really criticizing is misplaced priorities and knee-jerk anti-capitalism and anti-development among the current political left.

He has the really radical viewpoint that we ought to take care of the big problems first. And the biggest problem on the planet isn't recycling, or pollution by corporations (I could go on). The biggest problem is people putting raw sewage into the same places they get drinking water from. Other problems that should be addressed sooner rather than later include control of HIV (because it kills people in their prime), and elimination of nutrient-deficiency diseases.

The basic point is that hospitals are not full of people dying due to environmental problems - they're full of people who've been in car accidents, who are into substance abuse, and old people who typically live longer than their ancestors did.

You should also note that opinions that contrast with Lomborg are easy to find on the internet.