Debunking Lomborg and other things

Garret is having a great weblog conversation on just how *off* Lomborg’s The Environmentalists Are Wrong is.

it’s just that i’m surprised that so many are buying what this individual is selling, without using their baloney detection kit. or, at least spending a minute or two on google.

I posted my take to Garret’s discussion – Even if the Lomborg’s right with his facts (and like others I seriously doubt it – but who am I to argue? :))… He’s saying the monentary value of adjusting to the climate change is cheaper then preventing it in the first place. So his conclusion is that we should adjust instead of prevent. That’s bullshit. His whole argument is that we should take the route of least resistance. Just because something is easier doesn’t make it right. Just because something is cheaper doesn’t make it right.

I’d argue we need to do both. Help countries with fighting poverty *and* invest in technologies and practices to sustain and improve the environment. With America leading the way by actions and not words. Those actions can happen at a local level. At a personal level.

A great point Garret made,

“the market is driving a push to sustainability, because of pollution in urban areas – *not* the environmental movement. sustainability and development are local, regional issues too … not just linked to global warming.

Now read this Yahoo! news story on a report issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, American Rivers, and Smart Growth America.

Suburban strip malls, office buildings and other paved areas have worsened the drought covering half the United States by blocking billions of gallons of rainwater from seeping through the soil to replenish ground water, environmental groups said on Wednesday.

Atlanta loses enough water to supply the average household needs of up to 3.6 million people a year, the report said.

The Boston area was next with between 44 billion and 103 billion gallons of water lost. Next came Philadelphia with 25 billion to 59 billion gallons of water unable to return to the soil, the report said.

“Sprawl development is literally sending billions of gallons of badly needed water down the drain each year — the storm drain,” said Betsy Otto, senior director for watershed programs at American Rivers.

“Sprawl hasn’t caused this year’s drought, but sprawl is making water supply problems worse in many cities,” she said..

Confirms Garret’s point doesn’t it?

Mike starts with attacking the sinner and not the sin, but ends up making some great points once past that. I wonder if our notion of poverty is cultural? If not then I have to disagree with this,

“Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they begin to think about the effect of their actions on the world around them and on future generations.” Yeah, Bjorn. We have seen that happen in Europe and North America. It is indeed as you say. What do you do all your life? Watch the fiords freeze over? Eat LSD with your cornflakes? That has to be the dumbest statement anyone arguing a point such as yours could put forward.

I come from a ‘disadvantaged’ background, and from my perspective, on this point, Bjorn is positively right. When you can’t feed yourself – all you think about is your next meal. I return to my point above. Fight poverty and lead by example on environmental issues. That’s IMHO.

Wanna see a perfect idea for protest on a very local level?. I love it!

Alwin nails why I have issues with IndyMedia,

I think that Portland Indymedia is doing an important job. I realize that Indymedia sites have an agenda, and it’s pretty plain what it is. I just think it would carry more weight if it was written with more attention to the facts.

I hear the outrage in the voice, can even empathize with it- but it’s place is in a more personal space (like a weblog) not in something purporting to be “Independent media.” Independent means not taking sides (emphasis added by Karl). Doesn’t it? Or have we changed the meaning of the word?

Alwin – I’ve been wondering who are the contributers to IndyMedia for a while. For such an ‘independent’ forum, they sure are biased in one particular direction. They are the leftist O’Reilly Report. Where are those that just want to report the truth and not their editorial opinion?

5 thoughts on “Debunking Lomborg and other things

  1. …And “alternative” music by definition can’t be popular. But when you define yourself by what you’re *not*, you leave unsaid what you *are*.

    But as with alt-music fans, IndyMedia thrives on the notion that they’re different, smarter, better than what they view as the majority. It’s elitism, regardless of how compelling the content or valid the viewpoint.

  2. “when you define yourself by what you’re *not*, you leave unsaid what you *are*.”

    great point. that’s one for my quotes file.

  3. Great post, Karl and right on the button. It just goes to show we don’t disagree on everything 🙂 In fact, I think the inverse is true – but we do articulate ourselves very differently. On that point, at a local level I agree that one certainly learns the value of something once you’ve been without it [ask me as well], but I get the feeling Lomborg’s focus is very much global and general. As general as he can get to float an idea so full of holes someone should just push it under so that it dies a quiet death. It’s positiviely dangerous.

  4. Thanks guys. You gotta point there Scott.

    Hey Mike, it’s almost funny, your polar political opposite, Mike Sanders, feels the same way about my view points too. Darn it, if was was more on the right or left, it’d be sooooo much easier 🙂 I watch you guys slug it out and I go… yes… he has a good point… yes… no … he has a good point…

    I think people taking Lomborg at face value is dangerous to. Saddly, that’s what most people do with their reading. But not this crew 🙂

Comments are closed.