Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
with global warming or global poverty but not necessarily both. Avoiding this
prioritization means relinquishing the opportunity of doing the best for ourselves
and for future generations. The problem is that policy makers, and certainly the
general public wishing to protect the environment, also want to experience constant
improvements in their material well-being. They want everything, and now.
Additionally, people are reluctant to prioritize, because they do not fully understand
the nature of the risks involved. Hunger is a greater cause of loss of life in this world
than pollution. Chemical and pesticide pollution accounts for just 2 per cent of
cancers. We shouldn't worry about risks without first properly weighing them up.
The media are partly to blame for this, because they focus on sensational and dramatic
incidents that cause accidents or death, rather than mundane and everyday activities.
Consequently, we tend to overate these statistically minor elements and underrate
sizeable but more boring ones. This has led to an unwarranted hostility to genetically
modified (GM) foods, despite the fact that GM foods will positively contribute to
increasing the world's food supply. GM promises so much. For Lomborg, the key
argument from science and economics is not the abandonment of GM research and
development, the risks of which have been exaggerated wildly, but the need to
establish effective regulatory systems and management practices. Indeed, as most
people are readily aware, global environmental sustainability policy and action is
rife with past, present and undoubtedly future controversies.
Lomborg clearly exemplifies the position of a neoliberal in his belief that the
market, economic growth and development will enable rich and poor nations to
improve their environmental performance in the long run. He also expresses some
values shared with ecological modernizers, but Lomborg would probably describe
himself as a practical realist, or as a pragmatist. Whatever the case, Lomborg does
stimulate many people to think, argue and discuss the issues. It is important not to
automatically dismiss views you disagree with, but to use them as a device to learn
more and to understand better.
It is important to consider the context in which the debates around Lomborg take
place and the use to which the arguments of the various parties are put, and by
whom. Critical focus has not only been on the status of science and scientists, the
value of academic refereed journals, the presentation of statistical evidence, and the
role of the mass media and public communication, but also on the processes of
political decision-making and political influence and, ultimately, questions of what
type of world we have and think we want. Therefore, by examining the Lomborg
controversy, a number of issues emerge:
the politicized nature of the debate over the environment and sustainability;
the soundness or otherwise of scientific knowledge, research and evaluation;
the role of 'sound science' and statistics in policy formulation and implementation
particularly, as they pertain to issues such as risk assessment;
the role of political and economic interests in the social construction of 'sound
science' and its dissemination to and understanding by a wider public; and
public trust and understanding of science and its contribution to the ethics of
the sustainable development process.
The initial response to Lomborg's first topic was furiously partisan and intense.
In January 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) found that
Lomborg was 'systematically one-sided'. Later in the year, however, the Danish
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search