Explaining the Divergence
How is the extreme divergence of views between optimists and pessimists with respect to the environment to be explained? The first thing to note is that the divergence has its roots in science itself and is a consequence of the scientifically contested nature of environmental problems. Biologists, natural and environmental scientists rarely fully agree and hence scientific findings are rarely unambiguous on a certain environmental aspect. Ehrlich and Ehrlich are at pains throughout their book to stress that the vast majority of scientists supposedly share and support their views citing consensus statements on population and global environmental issues. But even they have to admit that "a very few qualified atmospheric scientists{A133}apparently see little reason to be concerned about" global warming, for example. And the fact that there might be only "very few" diverging scientific views does not imply that the majority of scientists must be correct. Especially Ehrlich and Ehrlich who downplay the extent to which scientific findings are indeed contested. They get excited about the fact that "Biologists are often confronted with assertions that population growth has no connection to environmental deterioration...", whereas astronomers do not have to take up the challenge of astrologers, physicists do not have to respond to self-proclaimed inventors of perpetual motion-machines and space shuttle engineers are not confronted with flat-earth believers. What Ehrlich and Ehrlich do not recognise, however, is that the link between population growth and environmental deterioration is indeed ambiguous and that their view can be contested on valid scientific grounds, whereas astrology is not a science, perpetual motion-machines are physically impossible and the earth is not flat, period.  | |
| Optimist | | | Wilfred Beckerman
Economist and author of Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens. He argues that natural resource depletion is far from imminent, saying that societies adapt to changing demand and supply of materials. While acknowledging that global warming has to be taken seriously it is no cause for alarm or dramatic action. | | |
Second comes the politically and socially contested nature of environmental problems. Individuals can have diverging views on what the political and social response to an environmental problem, if existent, should be. Whereas the thinning of the ozone layer demands an immediate and complete ban on all ozone-damaging substances according to the environmental pessimists, Simon believes that "people can intervene in many ways--even with as simple a device as wearing hats more frequently". Take biodiversity loss as another example. Environmental pessimists demand drastic policy changes in order to combat the trend of "losing, very roughly reckoned, at least 30,000 species every year". Beckerman, on the other hand, regards such a policy response as unjustified. Even if there was indeed large-scale species extinction, there are, at the same time, other much more pressing problems to worry about: "One could not justify using up vast resources in an attempt to preserve from extinction, say, every one of the several million species of beetles that exist. For the cost of such a task would be partly, if not wholly, resources that could otherwise have been devoted to more urgent environmental concerns, such as increasing access to clean drinking water or sanitation in the Third World".
Lastly, some part of the divergence between environmental optimists and pessimists can be attributed to some prior basic view of the world. To a certain extent, the divergence simply arises because the optimists regard a glass that is half filled with water as half full and expect the glass to fill further over time, whereas the pessimists regard it as half empty with the danger of becoming completely emptied if no drastic action for reversing the trend of depletion is undertaken. In some sense, the environmental optimists and pessimists simply live in different worlds. Is there a possibility for a convergence of views of both sides in the future? This seems very unlikely. The debate is pursued with a highly aggressive and arrogant tone on both sides. Consider, for example, Beckerman's response to the 'Limits to Growth'-report: "Now, it seemed to me that the Meadows/Club of Rome document was such a brazen, impudent piece of nonsense that nobody could possibly take it seriously so that it would be a waste of time talking about it." Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments are not uncommon. Of course, the debate could become disconnected from the major persons involved, especially if the main stakeholders die. However, even then will the chances for a future convergence of views be rather slim? Environmental optimism and pessimism are like conflicting paradigms; but conflicting paradigms rarely communicate with each other and if they do communicate, rarely listen to and learn from each other. Instead prior convictions and a narrow way of seeing things in the light of these prior convictions dominate. It is as if the optimists and pessimists saw "different things when they look from the same point in the same direction". | |
| Thinking Point | | | Do you think that environmental issues should be viewed as entirely scientific and left out of the social and political domain? | | |
From the perspective of both optimists and pessimists, the conflict cannot be solved in favour of either side. The optimists like to stress that supposedly they have been right in their forecasts in the past, whereas the pessimists have always been wrong. Hence the public should rather believe them than their opponents. But the pessimists in turn argue that it is absurd to predict the future from past trends because "today's situation is wholly unprecedented"--a suggestion, however, that, in the view of Simon, the pessimists have always made throughout history and have equally always been wrong. Clearly, neither side will be convinced by the other side's arguments or empirical evidence. This is because, as Norton observes, it is characteristic for extra-paradigmatic conflicts (as the one between environmental optimists and pessimists) that there is neither agreement on basic principles nor on the scope of the true subject matter or a consensually accepted methodology. Falsification is virtually impossible as both sides can always answer "by denying that some phenomena{A133}are 'real'" and argue that they are "actually bogus entities that are the ontological fallout, the theoretical dross" of the flawed arguments of the other side. Both environmental optimism and pessimism are extremist points of view and some of their proponents sincerely believe that they hold a monopoly over the truth, as most extremists do. Hence it is practically impossible that the other side could potentially make a good point on even the smallest aspect of the debate. |
|
