*EPF419 10/04/01
Researcher Contends Environment Is Getting Better, Not Worse
(Describes gloomy environmental projections as exaggerated) (1010)
By Jim Fuller
Washington File Science Writer

The persistently gloomy projections of many environmental organizations have a familiar ring -- the world's natural resources are running out, the tropical forests are disappearing, species are perishing at an alarming rate, and the general state of the environment is spiraling out of control. Danish author Bjorn Lomborg has captured the attention of researchers and policymakers by challenging these claims with his assertion that things are getting better, not worse, and that the world's environment is rapidly improving.

Lomborg, a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, presents his findings in a recently published book entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," which has been described by The Economist as one of the most valuable books on public policy in the past 10 years.

Speaking October 3 at a seminar in Washington sponsored by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Lomborg described "the litany" of gloomy statements about global trends made by many environmental organizations as exaggerations or myths.

"The litany has pervaded the debate so deeply and so long that blatantly false claims can be made again and again, without any references, and yet still be believed," Lomborg said.

Lomborg emphasized that he does not deny that threats to the environment exist, but that exaggerating problems distorts society's priorities and makes it hard to make the best decisions.

"If we feel we're cornered ... if we feel the environment is somehow doomed, than we are willing to spend whatever it takes to try to get out of that corner," he said. "But if the data actually indicates things are getting better, than we can start to say we need to prioritize."

The data presented in his book demonstrate that "things are generally moving in the right direction," Lomborg said. For example, he writes that global inequality has declined from 1960 onwards, and that the world is getting more to eat, with an individual in the developing world who consumed only 1,932 calories per day in 1961 -- a near starvation level -- consuming 2,650 calories per day in 1998.

Lomborg cites figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Environment Agency to show that the rate of world population growth has actually been dropping sharply since 1964; the level of international debt decreased slightly from 1984 to 1999; the price of oil, adjusted for inflation, is half what it was in the early 1980s; and the sulfur emissions that generate acid rain have been cut substantially since 1984.

"We have more leisure time, greater security, fewer accidents, more education, higher incomes, fewer starving, more food, and a healthy and longer life," Lomborg said. "And this holds true not only for the industrial world, but more importantly for the developing world."

Lomborg also contests the claims of major environmental groups. For example, the Worldwatch Institute said in its 1998 "State of the World" report that the world's forest estate "has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." But Lomborg said that the longest data series of annual figures available from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization shows that global forest cover has in fact increased, from 30.04 percent of global land cover in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994.

Lomborg adds that forest loss has been less serious than is often described -- only 20 percent since the dawn of agriculture, not 67 percent, as stated by the World Wildlife Fund.

Lomborg also said that the world typically hears from environmental groups that biodiversity is decreasing dramatically, losing some 20,000 species a year or about half of all species over the next 50 to 75 years.

"This would be a catastrophe, but these numbers seem to have no basis in real life," he said. "Actually, the loss over the coming 50 years seems more likely to be about 0.7 percent -- a problem, but not a catastrophe."

Lomborg writes that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which maintains the authoritative Red Book of endangered species, concluded in 1992 that the extinction figures for mammals and birds were "very small" and that the total extinction rate, assuming 30 million species, was probably 2,300 species a year.

Lomborg also takes issue with the predictions of global warming. He contends that computer models of climate change are still unable to accurately account for such things as the role of clouds and the effect of aerosols.

"Global warming is definitely happening, but the question is how much?" Lomborg said. "It seems that the current estimates, calling for a temperature increase of between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius over the next century, are skewed to the high end."

Lomborg contends that implementing the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed nations to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 level by 2010, will cost between $80,000 million and $350,000 million annually. Lomborg said that the projected annual cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be compared to the annual cost of all development aid, which stands at about $50,000 million.

This suggests, he says, that there are better ways to spend money than on aggressive emission reduction programs.

Lomborg said a more effective approach to combat climate change would be to increase research on alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar energy.

Michael Oppenheimer, an expert on global warming at the Environmental Defense Fund, agreed that clouds and aerosols are still weak points in the climate models. But he added that a broad-based push to invest in alternative energy technologies would be far less efficient than the technology that would develop in response to a requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN