The Skeptical Environmentalist

Bjorn Lomborg

I have watched the unfolding controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist with a cynical amusement not at the combatants, but at myself, for still having some shred of belief that reason, logic, and critical analysis has any place in modern reviews, especially those submitted by readers to amazon.com. You would think that by now I'd know better. More fool you (and me, the biggest fool of all.)

It is blisteringly obvious that the overwhelming majority of critics (and, one is tempted to say, those heaping the book with such lavish praise) have never actually read the thing. Or, if they have, their reviews of the book are geared toward its political agenda rather than its readability, the competence of the proofreaders, that sort of thing. Oh, well, to each his own. I will warn you that, when reading other reviews of this book, proceed with great caution. Withhold judgment until you've read it yourself. Many of the extant reviews exist to further the agendae of the reviewers, rather than cast an unbiased (however jaded) eye over this book.

The main reason for my surmising that most of them haven't read it is because they make pointed, often gleeful, attacks on things that Lomborg specifically addresses in the book. The treehuggers have a penchant for saying the message of The Skeptical Environmentalist is “nothing's wrong,” a point which Lomborg specifically addresses many times, far more than he should have to, in this book. (Note to others writing controversial books: it doesn't matter how often and how plainly you state something, the deluded will see the opposite. Not your fault.) Instead, Lomborg's driving purpose in this book is to examine the environmental concerns on which the global economy currently spends many billions of dollars per year to see if there are ways we could better spend that money.

That he comes up with a resounding “yes” is not surprising. That his advice has not only not been listened to, but attacked from all sides, is equally unsurprising. Why? Because we have heard the myths Lomborg attempts to put to rest so many times that we take them as truths. What Lomborg calls The Litany has been inculcated into us as surely as has the idea held by some that man has never gone to the moon, or that the Earth is flat. Just because you hear something a million times, and just because you surround yourself with people who also believe it, that doesn't mean it's true.

One assumes Lomborg set himself up for the ridicule he has received; you don't tackle topics such as deforestation, global warming, Rachel Carson and the legacy of drooling idiots she has left in her wake, and other such imbecilities without the imbeciles who foster the myths wanting to castrate you. But someone had to do it. Whetehr it would have met with less skepticism coming form Jan Harold Brunvand is anyone's guess. But it came from Lomborg's, and thus, we must look at what we've got.

There is no denying that what is here is valuable information. Even if there is a glimmer of truth in the massive Scientific American criticism (to which Lomborg has already responded, so I will save my words), if the many environmental movements whose horse manure we're subjected to daily use massive amounts of hyperbole to try and get their points across, why shouldn't the other side use a little now and again? (Not that I believe this is in any way the case.) Those who don't believe there's been hyperbole on the part of the environmental movement seem to have very short memories, another point Lomborg brings up in almost every chapter. The doomsayers have held a monopoly on our ears for too long; it's about time someone tried to set us straight.

And thus we come to the problem with the book itself. It's what my college literary criticism professor would have called a “typically German” work of criticism; well over twenty-five hundred endnotes are packed into the three hundred fifty pages here (and a small mini-rant, if I may; the increasing use of endnotes rather than footnotes is highly annoying. Please cease and desist immediately, and put the notes back where they belong, on the pages where the references are found). One cannot argue that Lomborg hasn't done his homework, though many have. There are huge blocks of text that are nothing more than facts, figures, and interpretation. Which, as you may surmise, makes for a book that is at time more boring than it is controversial. Readability here may not be at a minimum; you'll get more pleasure out of this than you will trying to choke down the dreck that, say, Tom Clancy or Danielle Steel releases on a regular basis. But not much. It suffers from the general malady of the belief that what is important must be dry as dust.

There are also a number of questions Lomborg left unanswered, many assumptions he took at face value; did he do so because getting too far into them would have resulted in the book being endless, or because there are certain parts of the litany he believes? It's certainly okay to not question some things, but the professional skeptic will tell you why. Such things do leave questions in the mind of the reader, chinks in the armor that such a controversial book cannot afford.

I cannot recommend it highly enough as a way to balance out the loads of excrement we get fed on a daily basis by people who should know better. But I can't recommend it as an unputdownable bestseller. It's hard work, getting through this thing. But it's worth it.