Optimist
	Bjorn Lomborg Associate Professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus. His book The Skeptical Environmentalist argues that much environmental pessimism is not based on sound facts and scientific research.

The book's objective is to prove to the reader that well known environmentalists such as Paul Ehrlich, Norman Myers or Lester Brown from the Worldwatch Institute as well as environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and WWF are almost always wrong in their warnings about large-scale environmental degradation and the need to take decisive action against it. Lomborg argues that what he calls the "Litany" put forward by these people and groups is not based on sound facts and scientific research and therefore plain wrong. Contrary to the Litany he purports to show that "mankind's lot has actually improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator" and whilst some environmental problems do exist, they have often been vastly exaggerated and environmental quality is rising rather than falling in most instances. He follows the lead of other environmental optimists in either negating that an environmental problem exists or, if existing, negating that it presents cause for alarm. Acid rain? Does not kill forests. Pollution? The "air and water around us are becoming less and less polluted". Biodiversity loss? Vastly exaggerated. Global warming? Lomborg believes it "will not decrease food production, it will probably not increase storminess or the frequency of hurricanes, it will not increase the impact of malaria or indeed cause more deaths". And so on.

If this line of argument is not new, why does this book receive so much media attention? One reason could be that Lomborg, contrary to Simon, Beckerman and others, once believed in the Litany himself and the conversion of a former sinner always makes good marketing. Lomborg describes himself as an "old left-wing Greenpeace member" who was provoked by reading an interview with Julian Simon in a magazine, tried to refute Simon's arguments with statistical facts and soon resigned to accept that Simon was right and the Litany wrong.

There are two aspects on which Lomborg's book provides a welcome difference to the earlier debate between environmental optimists like Lomborg, Simon, Beckerman and others and environmental pessimists. First, he does not assume the highly aggressive and arrogant tone that characterised the earlier debate. He does not engage in personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. Second, he is somewhat more cautious about simply dismissing the existence of environmental problems. His optimism is more based on arguing that environmental problems are vastly exaggerated rather than imaginary. In addition, his book is marvellously referenced, providing many details with a comprehensive list of all sources of data.

ok suffers from a number of severe shortcomings. First, Lomborg does not appreciate that individuals can have diverging views on what the political and social response to an environmental problem should be. Lomborg himself assumes a welfarist position: Environmental problems are one of many humankind faces and environmental protection must be subjected to a stringent cost-benefit analysis. Only if the benefits outweigh the costs including all opportunity costs should environmental protection be initiated. Otherwise scarce resources are wasted. Whilst this is one possible view of how mankind should treat nature, it is certainly not a position one would call "environmentalism". Lomborg does not seem to understand that environmentalists want to give priority to (certain forms of) environmental protection independent of what economists have estimated to be the cost-benefit ratio because with environmental destruction something unique might become irreversibly lost. Whatever Lomborg might be he certainly is not an environmentalist since he regards the environment as any other commodity. His "environmentalism" is one of the "we all care for the environment" kind, which paints over the fact that some benefit from environmental degradation and that there are real conflicts between environmentalists and non-environmentalists on how much environmental protection efforts should be undertaken. Consequently, he fails to understand that, for example, from an environmentalist perspective even a loss of tropical forests at an annual rate of "only" 0.46 percent, which Lomborg suggests is the "true" rate as opposed to the feared 1.5 to 4.6 percent put forward by the environmental pessimists, is cause for alarm.

	Thinking Point
	Do you think that the environmental optimists ignore the weight of scientific evidence?

Second, in his exclusive focus on environmental pessimists Lomborg neglects that many environmentalists have a much more sophisticated perspective on the changing welfare of humankind and the environmental problems it faces. Whilst, for example, drawing time and again on data provided by the World Resources Institute he fails to appreciate the many good research and policy work undertaken by this particular environmentalist institution as well as many others including many environmentally concerned academics all over the world. It is a bit too easy to refer time and again to Ehrlich, Myers, Brown and their followers whilst ignoring that there exists as well an entirely different strand of environmentalists, who appreciate that in a world of scarce resources not all claims for any and every environmental protection effort can be satisfied.

Third, Lomborg fails to give credit to environmental pessimists whose frequent and sometimes unfounded alarms about imminent environmental destruction have mobilised policy makers into bringing about the many environmental improvements he correctly celebrates in his book. Whatever the fault of environmental pessimists might be, their often exaggerated claims have historically been important in waking up a dormant public and community of policy makers alike. Whilst he is absolutely right in arguing that policy decisions should not be based on exaggerated claims he could give some credit to the proponents of the Litany here.