[A-List] Destructive creation: Bjorn Lomborg

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Right now the Financial Times has been lending support to Bjorn Lomborg, the
self-styled "sceptical environmentalist". Martin Wolf devoted a column to
his cause on 14 January, and preceding reports of his "difficulties" suggest
that the FT has been enlisted as part of a wider campaign to discredit the
green movement, with Lomborg the centre-piece of the campaign. Given the
interconnections that exist between the FT, New Labour and MI6 it would not
be surprising to find Hakluyt in this somewhere, given that organisation's
well-documented past, including spying on Greenpeace. Here's some of the
fallout that is available to non-subscribers from the FT site. Maybe we need
to keep a closer eye on Lomborg, who clearly relishes his preposterous
"Salman Rushdie" role.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Flak means you're close to the target
By Steve Hanke
Financial Times; Jan 14, 2003

>From Prof Steve H. Hanke.

Sir, In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg argues - and
supports with a blizzard of evidence -that environmental policy is often
supported by shaky science, at best, and that most of the scary predictions
made by the prophets of doom have been off by a country mile. Shortly after
the book's release, the bishops and church fathers of environmental science
the world over formed a brigade and began what has been a withering
condemnation of the heretic.

If nothing else, this illustrates what any fighter pilot knows: that when
you start receiving flak, you know you are over the target. More important,
the venomous ad hominem character of most of the flak thrown up at Mr
Lomborg suggests that many of his assailants lack the arguments and evidence
to counter his work.

All this has, of course, done wonders for Mr Lomborg's reputation and book
sales, proving once again that it is better to be denounced than ignored.

Steve H. Hanke, Senior Fellow, The Cato Institute, Washington, DC 20001, US

-----

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Sceptic's arguments do not stand up
By Penny Kemp
Financial Times; Jan 14, 2003

>From Ms Penny Kemp.

Sir, Whatever his motivation, Bjorn Lomborg's conclusions on the global
environment are sadly mistaken ("Sceptic finds rubbishing the green lobby is
not so peaceful", January 9).

It cannot be disputed that uncontrolled economic growth and the increasing
human population have led to a massive exploitation of natural resources and
to climate change. The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty quite
rightly observed that the US, with the highest energy consumption in the
world, has a vested interest in agreeing with Mr Lomborg's views. However,
the Green party also points out that Mr Lomborg's economic arguments fall
down under scrutiny.

Climate change is the biggest single threat to the world economy. The
insurance industry has estimated that global damage caused by storms,
droughts and floods has roughly doubled each decade since 1950, reaching
almost $500bn in the 1990s. Extrapolation of this trend suggests that the
annual rate of damages could reach the same magnitude as the annual global
gross domestic product by the 2060s. In the UK, storms and flooding cost
£1bn in 2000. A report by the Global Commons Institute has estimated that
the costs of global damage are rising faster than economic growth (including
land lost through climate change).

The burden of pollution cannot be said to have diminished - air pollution,
for example, kills up to 24,000 people in the UK every year. The health
costs of air pollution from the UK aviation sector are estimated at more
than £1.3bn a year.

Considering the economic effects, as well as health effects of climate
change, there is no doubt that feelings run high.

Penny Kemp, Environment Spokesman, Green Party

------

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Faith of the Green fundamentalists burns as fiercely
as that of bin Laden
By Deepak Lal
Financial Times; Jan 14, 2003

>From Prof Deepak Lal.

Sir, I have argued for some time that the Green movement is best seen as a
religion: eco-fundamentalism. Your report of Bjorn Lomberg's travails
("Sceptic finds rubbishing the green lobby is not so peaceful", January 9)
provides further confirmation.

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty has issued its fatwah against
Mr Lomberg, like the Ayatollah Khomeini's against Salman Rushdie, and the
Holy Inquisition's indictment of Galileo. The Danes also want Cambridge
University Press to suppress the book, which is reminiscent of the
book-burning and intimidation of publishers of The Satanic Verses. I hope
that this will open the eyes of those involved in environmental policy
debates to the fact that the "scientific" proponents of the Green agenda
burn with no less fierce (though a different) "religious" passion than these
other fundamentalists.

By attempting to suppress free debate and any questioning by lapsed
"believers", not only have they gone beyond the proper bounds of science but
their activist followers are also attempting to coerce the world to accept
their "religious" beliefs, no less than the Islamist fundamentalists such as
Osama bin Laden.

Deepak Lal, James Coleman Professor of International Development Studies,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US