econ reading 2 - Environmentalists tend to believe that,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Environmentalists tend to believe that, ecologically speaking, things are getting worse and worse. Bjorn Lomborg, once deep green himself, argues that they are wrong in almost every particular ECOLOGY and economics should push in the same direction. After all, the eco part of each word derives from the Greek word for home, and the protagonists of both claim to have humanity's welfare as their goal. Yet environmentalists and economists are often at loggerheads. For economists, the world seems to be getting better. For many environmentalists, it seems to be getting worse. These environmentalists, led by such veterans as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have developed a sort of litany of four big environmental fears: Natural resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers: forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing. The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted. Human activity is thus defiling the earth, and humanity may end up killing itself in the process.The litany of environmental fears is not backed up by evidenceThe trouble is, the evidence does not back up this litany. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so since the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth in 1972. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transientassociated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. One form of pollutionthe release of greenhouse gases that causes global warmingdoes appear to be a long-term phenomenon, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem for the future of humanity. A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it. Can things only get better? Take these four points one by one. First, the exhaustion of natural resources. The early environmental movement worried that the mineral resources on which modern industry depends would run out. Clearly, there must be some limit to the amount of fossil fuels and metal ores that can be extracted from the earth: the planet, after all, has a finite mass. But that limit is far greater than many environmentalists would have people believe. Reserves of natural resources have to be located, a process that costs money....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/11/2011 for the course ECON 3006 taught by Professor Keeler during the Spring '11 term at California State University , Monterey Bay.

Page1 / 9

econ reading 2 - Environmentalists tend to believe that,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online