A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its abundance. Such species are described as playing a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem
and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species
in the community. A keystone species is a plant or animal that plays a
unique and crucial role in the way an ecosystem functions. Without
keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease
to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf, are also apex predators.
The role that a keystone species plays in its ecosystem is analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch.
While the keystone is under the least pressure of any of the stones in
an arch, the arch still collapses without it. Similarly, an ecosystem
may experience a dramatic shift if a keystone species is removed, even
though that species was a small part of the ecosystem by measures of biomass or productivity.
It became a popular concept in conservation biology, alongside flagship and umbrella species.
Although the concept is valued as a descriptor for particularly strong
inter-species interactions, and it has allowed easier communication
between ecologists and conservation policy-makers, it has been
criticized for oversimplifying complex ecological systems.
The concept of the keystone species was introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Paine developed the concept to explain his observations and experiments on the relationships between marine invertebrates of the intertidal zone (between the high and low tide lines), including starfish and mussels. He removed the starfish from an area, and documented the effects on the ecosystem. In his 1966 paper, Food Web Complexity and Species Diversity, Paine had described such a system in Makah Bay in Washington.
In his 1969 paper, Paine proposed the keystone species concept, using Pisaster ochraceus, a species of starfish, and Mytilus californianus, a species of mussel, as a primary example.
The concept became popular in conservation, and was deployed in a range
of contexts and mobilized to engender support for conservation,
especially where human activities had damaged ecosystems, such as by
removing keystone predators.
Definitions
A keystone species was defined by Paine as a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment relative to its abundance. It has been defined operationally by R. D. Davic in 2003 as "a strongly interacting species whose top-down effect on species diversity and competition is large relative to its biomass dominance within a functional group."
A classic keystone species is a predator that prevents a particular herbivorous species from eliminating dominant plant
species. If prey numbers are low, keystone predators can be even less
abundant and still be effective. Yet without the predators, the
herbivorous prey would explode in numbers, wipe out the dominant plants,
and dramatically alter the character of the ecosystem. The exact
scenario changes in each example, but the central idea remains that
through a chain of interactions, a non-abundant species has an outsized
impact on ecosystem functions. For example, the herbivorous weevilEuhrychiopsis lecontei is thought to have keystone effects on aquatic plant diversity by foraging on nuisance Eurasian watermilfoil in North American waters. Similarly, the wasp species Agelaia vicina
has been labeled a keystone species for its unparalleled nest size,
colony size, and high rate of brood production. The diversity of its
prey and the quantity necessary to sustain its high rate of growth have a
direct impact on other species around it.
The keystone concept is defined by its ecological effects, and
these in turn make it important for conservation. In this it overlaps
with several other species conservation concepts such as flagship species, indicator species, and umbrella species. For example, the jaguar is a charismatic big cat which meets all of these definitions:
The jaguar is an umbrella species,
flagship species, and wilderness quality indicator. It promotes the
goals of carnivore recovery, protecting and restoring connectivity
through Madrean woodland and riparian areas, and protecting and
restoring riparian areas. ... A reserve system that protects jaguars is
an umbrella for many other species. ... the jaguar [is] a keystone in
subtropical and tropical America ...
The sea otter is an important predator of sea urchins, making it a keystone species for the kelp forests.
Sea otters protect kelp forests
from damage by sea urchins. When the sea otters of the North American
west coast were hunted commercially for their fur, their numbers fell to
such low levels – fewer than 1000 in the north Pacific ocean – that
they were unable to control the sea urchin population. The urchins in
turn grazed the holdfasts of kelp
so heavily that the kelp forests largely disappeared, along with all
the species that depended on them. Reintroducing the sea otters has
enabled the kelp ecosystem to be restored. For example, in Southeast
Alaska some 400 sea otters were released, and they have bred to form a
population approaching 25,000.
Keystone predators may increase the biodiversity
of communities by preventing a single species from becoming dominant.
They can have a profound influence on the balance of organisms in a
particular ecosystem.
Introduction or removal of this predator, or changes in its population
density, can have drastic cascading effects on the equilibrium of many
other populations in the ecosystem. For example, grazers of a grassland
may prevent a single dominant species from taking over.
The elimination of the gray wolf from Yellowstone National Park had profound impacts on the trophic pyramid.
Without predation, herbivores began to over-graze many woody browse
species, affecting the area's plant populations. In addition, wolves
often kept animals from grazing in riparian areas, which protected
beavers from having their food sources encroached upon. The removal of
wolves had a direct effect on beaver populations, as their habitat
became territory for grazing. Increased browsing on willows and conifers
along Blacktail Creek due to a lack of predation caused channel
incision because the beavers helped slow the water down, allowing soil
to stay in place. Furthermore, predation keeps hydrological features
such as creeks and streams in normal working order. When wolves were
reintroduced, the beaver population and the whole riparian ecosystem
recovered dramatically within a few years.
Sea stars and other non-apex predators
As described by Paine in 1966, some sea stars (e.g., Pisaster ochraceus) may prey on sea urchins, mussels, and other shellfish
that have no other natural predators. If the sea star is removed from
the ecosystem, the mussel population explodes uncontrollably, driving
out most other species.
The jaguar, whose numbers in Central and South America have been classified as near threatened, acts as a keystone predator by its widely varied diet, helping to balance the mammalian jungle ecosystem with its consumption of 87 different species of prey. The lion is another keystone species.
Keystone
mutualists are organisms that participate in mutually beneficial
interactions, the loss of which would have a profound impact upon the
ecosystem as a whole. For example, in the Avon Wheatbelt region of Western Australia, there is a period of each year when Banksia prionotes (acorn banksia) is the sole source of nectar for honeyeaters, which play an important role in pollination
of numerous plant species. Therefore, the loss of this one species of
tree would probably cause the honeyeater population to collapse, with
profound implications for the entire ecosystem. Another example is frugivores such as the cassowary, which spreads the seeds of many different trees, and some will not grow unless they have been through a cassowary.
A term used alongside keystone is ecosystem engineer. In North America, the prairie dog is an ecosystem engineer. Prairie dog burrows provide the nesting areas for mountain plovers and burrowing owls. Prairie dog tunnel systems also help channel rainwater into the water table to prevent runoff and erosion,
and can also serve to change the composition of the soil in a region by
increasing aeration and reversing soil compaction that can be a result
of cattle grazing. Prairie dogs also trim the vegetation around their
colonies, perhaps to remove any cover for predators. Grazing species such as plains bison, pronghorn, and mule deer have shown a proclivity for grazing on the same land used by prairie dogs.
Beaver dam, an animal construction which has a transformative effect on the environment
The beaver
is a well known ecosystem engineer and keystone species. It transforms
its territory from a stream to a pond or swamp. Beavers affect the
environment first altering the edges of riparian
areas by cutting down older trees to use for their dams. This allows
younger trees to take their place. Beaver dams alter the riparian area
they are established in. Depending on topography, soils, and many
factors, these dams change the riparian edges of streams and rivers into
wetlands, meadows, or riverine forests. These dams have been shown to
be beneficial to a myriad of species including amphibians, salmon, and
song birds.
In the African savanna, the larger herbivores, especially the elephants,
shape their environment. The elephants destroy trees, making room for
the grass species. Without these animals, much of the savanna would turn
into woodland.
Australian studies have found that parrotfish on the Great Barrier Reef
are the only reef fish that consistently scrape and clean the coral on
the reef. Without these animals, the Great Barrier Reef would be under
severe strain.
Limitations
Although
the concept of the keystone species has a value in describing
particularly strong inter-species interactions, and for allowing easier
communication between ecologists and conservation policy-makers, it has
been criticized by L. S. Mills and colleagues for oversimplifying
complex ecological systems. The term has been applied widely in
different ecosystems and to predators, prey, and plants (primary
producers), inevitably with differing ecological meanings. For instance,
removing a predator may allow other animals to increase to the point
where they wipe out other species; removing a prey species may cause
predator populations to crash, or may allow predators to drive other
prey species to extinction; and removing a plant species may result in
the loss of animals that depend on it, like pollinators
and seed dispersers. Beavers too have been called keystone, not for
eating other species but for modifying the environment in ways that
affected other species. The term has thus been given quite different
meanings in different cases. In Mills's view, Paine's work showed that a
few species could sometimes have extremely strong interactions within a
particular ecosystem, but that does not automatically imply that other
ecosystems have a similar structure.
Due to the scope of the project, comprising the range of topics
addressed, the diversity of data and sources employed, and the many
types of conclusions and comments advanced, The Skeptical Environmentalist does not fit easily into a particular scientific discipline or methodology. Although published by the social sciences division of Cambridge University Press, the findings and conclusions were widely challenged on the basis of natural science. This interpretation of The Skeptical Environmentalist as a work of environmental science generated much of the controversy and debate that surrounded the book.
Some critics focus on his lack of training or professional experience in the environmental sciences or economics. Supportersargue his research is an appropriate application of his expertise in cost-benefit analysis,
a standard analytical tool in policy assessment. His advocates further
note that many of the scientists and environmentalists who criticized
the book are not themselves environmental policy experts or experienced
in cost-benefit research.
Origins
In numerous interviews, Lomborg ascribed his motivation for writing The Skeptical Environmentalist to his personal convictions, making clear that he was a pro-environmentalist and Greenpeace supporter. He has stated that he began his research as an attempt to counter what he saw as anti-ecological arguments by Julian Lincoln Simon in an article in Wired,
but changed his mind after starting to analyze data. Lomborg describes
the views he attributes to environmental campaigners as the "Litany", which he at one time claims to have affirmed, but purports to correct in his work.
Methods
The
general analytical approach employed by Lomborg is based on cost-benefit
analyses as employed in economics, social science, and the formulation
and assessment of government policy. Much of Lomborg's examination of
his Litany is based on statistical data analysis, therefore his work may
be considered a work of that nature. Since it examines the costs and
benefits of its many topics, it could be considered a work in economics,
as categorized by its publisher. However, The Skeptical Environmentalist
is methodologically eclectic and cross-disciplinary, combining
interpretation of data with assessments of the media and human behavior,
evaluations of scientific theories, and other approaches, to arrive at
its various conclusions.
In arriving at the final work, Lomborg has used a similar
approach in each of his work's main areas and subtopics. He progresses
from the general to the specific, starting with a broad concern, such as
pollution or energy, dividing it into subtopics (e.g. air pollution; fossil fuel depletion),
and then identifying one or more widely held fears and their source
(e.g. our air is growing increasingly toxic, by X measure, according to
Y). From there, Lomborg chooses data that he considers to be the most
reliable and reasonable available. He then analyzes that data to prove
or disprove his selected proposition. In every case, his calculations
find that the claim is not substantiated, and is either an exaggeration,
or a completely reversed portrayal of an improving situation, rather
than a deteriorating one. Having established what he calls "the true
state of the world", for each topic and subtopic, Lomborg examines a
variety of theories, technologies, implementation strategies and costs,
and suggests alternative ways to improve not-so-dire situations, or
advance in other areas not currently considered as pressing.
Contents
The Skeptical Environmentalist's subtitle refers to the State of the World report, published annually since 1984 by the Worldwatch Institute.
Lomborg designated the report "one of the best-researched and
academically most ambitious environmental policy publications," but
criticized it for using short-term trends to predict disastrous
consequences, in cases where long-term trends would not support the same
conclusions.
In establishing its arguments, The Skeptical Environmentalist
examined a wide range of issues in the general area of environmental
studies, including environmental economics and science, and came to an
equally broad set of conclusions and recommendations. Lomborg's work
directly challenged popular examples of green concerns by interpreting
data from some 3,000 assembled sources. The author suggested that
environmentalists diverted potentially beneficial resources to less
deserving environmental issues in ways that were economically damaging.
Much of the book's methodology
and integrity have been subject to criticism which argue that Lomborg
distorted the fields of research he covers. Support for the book was
staunch as well.
The Litany
"The
Litany" comprises very diverse areas where, Lomborg claims, overly
pessimistic claims are made and bad policies are implemented as a
result. He cites accepted mainstream sources, like the United States
government, United Nations agencies and others, preferring global long-term data over regional and short-term statistics.
The Skeptical Environmentalist is arranged around four major themes:
Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view
Human prosperity from an ecological point of view
Pollution as a threat to human prosperity
Future threats to human prosperity
Lomborg's main argument is that the vast majority of environmental
problems—such as pollution, water shortages, deforestation, and species
loss, as well as population growth, hunger, and AIDS—are area-specific
and highly correlated with poverty. Therefore, challenges to human
prosperity are essentially logistical matters, and can be solved largely
through economic and social development. Concerning problems that are
more pressing at the global level, such as the depletion of fossil fuels
and global warming, Lomborg argues that these issues are often
overstated and that recommended policies are often inappropriate if
assessed against alternatives.
1. Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view
Lomborg analyzes three major themes: life expectancy, food and hunger, and prosperity, finding that life expectancy and health levels have dramatically improved over the past centuries, even though several regions of the world remain threatened, in particular by AIDS. He dismisses Thomas Malthus'
theory that increases in the world's population lead to widespread
hunger. On the contrary, Lomborg claims that food is widespread, and
humanity's daily intake of calories is increasing, and will continue to
rise until hunger's eradication, thanks to technological improvements in
agriculture. However, Lomborg notes that Africa
in particular still produces too little sustenance, an effect he
attributes to the continent's dismal economic and political systems.
Concerning prosperity, Lomborg argues that wealth, as measured by per
capita GDP, should not be the only judging criterion. He points to
improvements in education, safety, leisure, and ever more widespread
access to consumer goods as signs that prosperity is increasing in most
parts of the world.
2. Human prosperity from an ecological point of view
In
this section, Lomborg looks at the world's natural resources and draws a
conclusion that contrasts starkly to that of the well known report The Limits to Growth.
First, he analyzes food once more, this time from an ecological
perspective, and again claims that most food products are not threatened
by human growth. An exception, however, is fish, which continues to be
depleted. As a partial solution, Lomborg presents fish farms, which
cause a less disruptive impact on the world's oceans. Next, Lomborg
looks at forests. He finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon still retains more than 80% of its 1978 tree cover. Lomborg points out that in developing countries,
deforestation is linked to poverty and poor economic conditions, so he
proposes that economic growth is the best means to tackle the loss of
forests.
Concerning energy, Lomborg asserts that oil is not being depleted as
fast as is claimed, and that improvements of technology will provide
people with fossil fuels for years to come. The author further asserts
that many alternatives already exist, and that with time they will
replace fossil fuels as an energy source. Concerning other resources,
such as metals, Lomborg suggests that based on their price history they
are not in short supply. Examining the challenge of collecting
sufficient amounts of water, Lomborg says that wars will probably not
erupt over water because fighting such wars is not cost-effective (one
week of war with the Palestinians, for instance, would cost Israel
more than five desalination plants, according to an Israeli officer).
Lomborg emphasizes the need for better water management, as water is
distributed unequally around the world.
3. Pollution as a threat to human prosperity
Lomborg
considers pollution from different angles. He notes that air pollution
in wealthy nations has steadily decreased in recent decades. He finds
that air pollution levels are highly linked to economic development,
with moderately developed countries polluting most. Again, Lomborg
argues that faster growth in emerging countries would help them reduce
their air pollution levels. Lomborg suggests that devoting resources to
reduce the levels of specific air pollutants would provide the greatest
health benefits and save the largest number of lives (per amount of
money spent), continuing an already decades-long improvement in air
quality in most developed countries. Concerning water pollution,
Lomborg notes again that it is connected with economic progress. He
also notes that water pollution in major Western rivers decreased
rapidly after the use of sewage systems became widespread. Concerning waste,
Lomborg notes once again that fears are overblown, as the entire waste
produced by the United States in the 21st century could fit into a
square 100 feet thick and 28 km along each side, or 0.009% of the total
surface of the United States.
4. Future threats to human prosperity
In
this last section, Lomborg puts forward his main assertion: based on a
cost-benefit analysis, the environmental threats to human prosperity are
overstated and much of policy response is misguided. As an example,
Lomborg cites worries about pesticides and their link to cancer.
He argues that such concerns are vastly exaggerated in the public
perception, as alcohol and coffee are the foods that create by far the
greatest risk of cancer, as opposed to vegetables that have been sprayed
with pesticides. Furthermore, if pesticides were not used on fruit and
vegetables, their cost would rise, and consequently their consumption
would go down, which would cause cancer rates to increase. He goes on to
criticize the fear of a vertiginous decline in biodiversity,
proposing that 0.7% of species have gone extinct in the last 50 years
(as compared to a maximum of 50%, as claimed by some biologists). While
Lomborg admits that extinctions are a problem, he asserts that they are
not the catastrophe claimed by some, and have little effect on human
prosperity.
Lomborg's most contentious assertion, however, involves global warming.
From the outset, Lomborg "accepts the reality of man-made global
warming" though he refers to a number of uncertainties in the computer
simulations of climate change and some aspects of data collection. His
main contention involves not the science of global warming but the
politics and the policy response to scientific findings. Lomborg points
out that, given the amount of greenhouse gas reduction required to
combat global warming, the current Kyoto protocol
is grossly insufficient. He argues that the economic costs of
legislative restrictions that aim to slow or reverse global warming are
far higher than the alternative of international coordination. Moreover,
he asserts that the cost of combating global warming would be
disproportionately shouldered by developing countries. Lomborg proposes
that since the Kyoto agreement limits economic activities, developing
countries that suffer from pollution and poverty most, will be
perpetually handicapped economically.
Lomborg proposes that the importance of global warming in terms
of policy priority is low compared to other policy issues such as
fighting poverty, disease and aiding poor countries, which has direct
and more immediate impact both in terms of welfare and the environment.
He therefore suggests that a global cost-benefit analysis be undertaken
before deciding on future measures. The Copenhagen Consensus
that Lomborg later organized concluded that combating global warming
does have a benefit but its priority compared to other issues is "poor"
(ranked 13th) and three projects addressing climate change (optimal
carbon tax, the Kyoto protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), are the
least cost-efficient of its proposals.
Conclusions
Lomborg
concludes his book by once again reviewing the Litany, and noting that
the real state of the world is much better than the Litany claims.
According to Lomborg, this discrepancy poses a problem, as it focuses
public attention on relatively unimportant issues, while ignoring those
that are paramount. In the worst case, The Skeptical Environmentalist
argues, the global community is pressured to adopt inappropriate
policies which have adverse effects on humanity, wasting resources that
could be put to better use in aiding poor countries or fighting diseases
such as AIDS. Lomborg thus urges us to look at what he calls the true
problems of the world, since solving those will also solve the Litany.
Reaction
The Skeptical Environmentalist
was controversial even before its English-language release, with
anti-publication efforts launched against Cambridge University Press.
Once in the public arena, the book elicited strong reactions in
scientific circles and in the mainstream media. Opinion was largely
polarized. Environmental groups were generally critical.
Anti-publication pressures
Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press), anticipating the level of controversy a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist
would likely provoke, took extra care with the book's peer-review
process. Instead of choosing candidates from the usual list of social
science referees, Cambridge University Press chose from a list provided
by their environmental science publishing program. Four were chosen: a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and a "pure" economist. All four members of Cambridge's initial review panel agreed that the book should be published.
While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publisher was
apparently surprised by the pressure brought against it to not publish The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a
special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite
existing pre-publication peer review),
that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly
publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent
publication of any book described as "essentially a political tract" in
the future.
In the article, entitled "Peer review, politics and pluralism", Dr. Harrison noted that "many of the critical reviews of The Skeptical Environmentalist
went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on
the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all. The post tray
and e-mail inbox of editors and senior managers at the press bore
witness to a concerted campaign to persuade Cambridge to renounce the
book." He went on to describe complaints from environmentalists
who feared the book would be "abused by corporate interests". Cambridge
University Press felt it necessary to issue a formal, written
statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not
just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to
concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market." With these
complaints and the publication of a Scientific American issue regarding the book (described below), Cambridge stated, in response to those who claimed the book lacked peer-review credentials, "it would be quite wrong to abandon an author who had satisfied the requirements of our peer-review system."
Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of
publishing proposals for books which offered an opposing argument to
Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's
knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a
proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than academic. Subsequent to Cambridge's unequivocal assertion that The Skeptical Environmentalist had been subject to peer-review, Harrison noted that
we were surprised and disappointed to see the critics' letter being quoted in an issue of Time
magazine (2 September 2002)... in which the authors repeated their
charge that the book had not been peer-reviewed despite the assurances
to the contrary that they had by then received by the press... It has
become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that this book bypassed the
usual Cambridge peer-review process... This is a charge that is
repeated in many of the public and private attacks in the press, and it
is unfounded.
Cambridge University Press maintained their position and the book was published.
Criticism of the material and methods
The January 2002 issue of Scientific American
contained, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set
of essays by several scientists, which claim that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist
misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The
magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy
point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32
pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the month's
installment. Scientific American allowed Lomborg a one-page defense in the May 2002 edition, and then attempted to remove Lomborg's publication of his complete response online, citing a copyright violation. After receiving much criticism, the magazine published his complete rebuttal on its website, along with the counter rebuttals of John Rennie and John P. Holdren.
The "separately written expert reviews" further detail the various expert opinions. Peter Gleick's assessment, for example, states:
There is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of
his criticisms have appeared in... previous works—and even in the work
of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the
scope and variety of the errors he makes.
Jerry Mahlman's appraisal of the chapter he was asked to evaluate, states:
I found some aspects of this chapter to be interesting,
challenging, and logical. For example, the author's characterizations of
the degree of difficulty in actually doing something meaningful about
climate change through mitigation and coping/adaptation are perceptive
and valuable. In principle, such characterizations could provide a
foundation for more meaningful policy planning on this difficult
problem. Unfortunately, the author's lack of rigor and consistency on
these larger issues is likely to negate any real respect for his
insights.
David Pimentel, who was repeatedly criticized in the book, also wrote a critical review.
Criticism of media handling
One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", attributes this media success to its initial, influential supporters:
"News of the pending book first appeared in the UK in early June of 2001 when a Sunday Times
article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report of claims made by
Lomborg that London's air was cleaner than at any time since 1585.
Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was
both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's
questioning of the Kyoto climate change protocol to U.S. president
George W. Bush's visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial
opposition to the treaty. The Times followed up the report the next day with a news article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle."
"With The Times reports, Lomborg and his claims had made
the Anglo media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets
followed the reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the
claims of The Skeptical Environmentalist to Bush's European visit ran later that week in the U.K's The Express and Daily Telegraph, and Canada's Toronto Star."
The media was criticized for the biased selection of reviewers and
not informing readers of reviewers' background. Richard C. Bell, writing
for Worldwatch noted that the Wall Street Journal, "instead of seeking
scientists with a critical perspective," like many publications "put out
reviews by people who were closely associated with Lomborg", with the
Journal soliciting a review from the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
Ronald Bailey, someone "who had earlier written a book called The True
State of the World, from which much of Lomborg's claims were taken."
Bell also criticized the Washington Post, whose Sunday Book World
assigned the book review to Denis Dutton,
identified as "a professor of philosophy who lectures on the dangers of
pseudoscience at the science faculties of the University of Canterbury
in New Zealand", and as the editor of the web site Arts and Letters Daily. Bell noted that:
"The Post did not tell its readers that Dutton's web site
features links to the Global Climate Coalition, an anti-Kyoto
consortium of oil and coal businesses, and to the messages of Julian Simon --the man whose denial
that global warming was occurring apparently gave Lomborg the idea for
his book in the first place. It was hardly surprising that Dutton
anointed Lomborg's book as 'the most significant work on the environment
since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement.'"
The "unrealistic" critique
Some critics of The Skeptical Environmentalist
took issue not with the statistical investigation of Lomborg's Litany,
but with the suggestions and conclusions for which they were the
foundation. This line of criticism considered the book as a contribution
to the policy debate over environment rather than the work of natural
science. In a BBC column from August 23, 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent Alex Kirby wrote:
"I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the
skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional
wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he
reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That
seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve,
interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to
the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and
competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the
only one in step, every single time."
Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them:
"What really riles me about his book is that it is so damnably
reasonable. In the rational world that Bjørn Lomborg thinks we all
inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one...But the real
world is messier, more unpredictable - and more impatient."
On September 5, 2001, at a Lomborg book reading in England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face. In a September 9, 2001, article, "Why I pied Lomborg", Lynas stated:
"Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices
- such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate
change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world,
thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the
real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with. Why not
take the $60 billion from George Bush's stupid Son of Star Wars program
and use that cash to save lives in Ethiopia? Because in a world where
political choices are not made democratically at a global level, but by a
small number of rich countries and corporations, the poor and the
environment are never going to be a priority."
The December 12, 2001 issue of Grist devoted an issue to The Skeptical Environmentalist,
with a series of essays from various scientists challenging individual
sections. A separate article examining the book's overall approach took
issue with the framing of Lomborg's conclusions:
"Lomborg begins by making the entirely reasonable point that
accurate information is critical to informed decision-making. If
information is skewed to paint a bleaker environmental picture than is
justified by reality, as he claims, then we will in turn skew our
limited resources in favor of the environment and away from other
important causes. ... Then Lomborg proceeds to weigh the causes
championed by the environmental movement against a deliberately
circumscribed universe of other possible "good causes." It is up to us,
he says, to make responsible decisions about whether to protect the
environment or "boost Medicaid, increase funding to the arts, or cut
taxes. ... The worse they can make this state appear, the easier it is
for them to convince us we need to spend more money on the environment
rather on hospitals, kindergartens, etc." A few pages later he again
claims that the purpose of the Litany is to cause us to prioritize the
environment over "hospitals, child day care, etc." ... But who is really
failing to consider how our money is spent? As Lomborg notes, "We will
never have enough money," and therefore, "Prioritization is absolutely
essential." Why, then, does he weigh the environment only against
hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies
and defense spending?"
Addressing the apparent difficulty of scientists opposing The Skeptical Environmentalist
in criticizing the book strictly on the basis of statistics and
challenging the conclusions about areas of environmental sciences that
were drawn from them, Lynas contends:
"One of the biggest problems facing the environmental community
in analyzing Lomborg’s book is that his work, as flawed as it is, has
clearly been very time-consuming and meticulous. In a busy and under
funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow
though 3,000 footnotes checking his sources. It is impressively
interdisciplinary."
Support
Influential UK newsweekly The Economist
weighed in at the start with heavy support, publishing an advance essay
by Lomborg in which he detailed his Litany, and following up with a
highly favorable review and supportive coverage. It stated that "This is
one of the most valuable books on public policy—not merely
environmental policy— to have been written for the intelligent general
reader in the past ten years...The Skeptical Environmentalist is a triumph."
Among the general media, the New York Times
stated that "The primary target of the book, a substantial work of
analysis with almost 3,000 footnotes, are statements made by
environmental organizations like the Worldwatch Institute, the World
Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace." The Wall Street Journal deemed Lomborg's work "a superbly documented and readable book.". A Washington Post
review claimed that "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment is
bad news for Green ideologues. His richly informative, lucid book is
now the place from which environmental policy decisions must be argued.
In fact, The Skeptical Environmentalist is the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement." Rolling Stone
wrote that "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the
techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate
of the planet."
In March 2003 the New York Law School Law Review published an examination of the critical reviews of Skeptical Environmentalist from the Scientific American, Nature and Science
magazines by Professor of Law David Shoenbrod and then Senior Law
Student Christi Wilson of New York Law School. The authors take the
perspective of a court faced with an argument against hearing an expert
witness in order to evaluate whether Lomborg was credible as an expert,
and whether his testimony is valid to his expertise. They classify the
types of criticisms leveled at Lomborg and his arguments, and proceed to
evaluate each of the reasons given for disqualifying Lomborg. They
conclude that a court should accept Lomborg as a credible expert in the
field of statistics, and that his testimony was appropriately restricted
to his area of expertise. Of course, Professor Shoenbrod and Wilson
note, Mr. Lomborg's factual conclusions may not be correct, nor his
policy proposals effective, but his criticisms should be addressed, not
merely dismissed out of hand.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
raised concern about the responses of certain sections of the
scientific community to a peer reviewed book published under the
category of environmental economics. The groups worried that the
receptions to Lomborg were a politicization of science by scientists.
This unease was reflected in the involvement of the Union of Concerned
Scientists and Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in "When
scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The
Skeptical Environmentalist", where Roger A. Pielke argued:
The use of science by scientists as
a means of negotiating for desired political outcomes – the
politicization of science by scientists – threatens the development of
effective policies in contested issues. By tying themselves to politics,
rather than policy, scientists necessarily restrict their value and the
value of their science.
In "Green with Ideology - The hidden agenda behind the "scientific"
attacks on Bjørn Lomborg’s controversial book, The Skeptical
Environmentalist", Ronald Bailey
stated that "The bitter anti-Lomborg campaign reveals the hidden crisis
of what we might call ideological environmentalism." He further wrote:
The Skeptical Environmentalist
obviously should be held to high standards of accuracy, but to insist
that it read like a scientific paper is both specious and disingenuous.
The book is essentially a response to such popular environmentalist
tracts as the State of the World report and the reams of misinformation
disseminated by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, The Ecologist, the Turning Point Project, Grist, Wild
Earth, and the rest of the sprawling eco-media propaganda complex.
Accusations of scientific dishonesty
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist,
Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental
scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate"
publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a
scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry
that followed. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist
contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to
the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the
three cases under one investigation.
DCSD investigation
On January 6, 2003, a mixed DCSD ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields:
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under
consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific
dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of
intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall
within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication
is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific
practice."
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
On
February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's
decision with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI),
which oversees the group.
On December 17, 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD had made a number of procedural errors, including:
Not using a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;
Defining "objective scientific dishonesty" in a way unclear in
determining whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be
deliberate or not;
Not properly documenting that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
Not providing specific statements on actual errors.
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry
indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific
dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. The Ministry also
instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate. On March 12,
2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the
complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood,
result in the same conclusion.
Response of the scientific community
The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition among Danish academics from 308 scientists, many from the social sciences, who criticised the DCSD's investigative methods.
A group of scientists published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics,
in which they concluded that most criticism against Lomborg was
unjustified, and that the scientific community had misused their
authority to suppress the author.
Kåre Fog
The claim that allegations against Lomborg were unsubstantiated was challenged in the next issue of Journal of Information Ethics
by Kåre Fog, one of the original DCSD petitioners. Fog reasserted his
contention that, despite the ministry's decision, most of the
accusations against Lomborg were valid, and rejected what he called "the
Galileo hypothesis", which portrays Lomborg as a brave young man
confronting an entrenched opposition.
Fog has established a curated catalogue of criticisms against Lomborg, which includes a section for each page of every Skeptical Environmentalist
chapter. Fog enumerates and details what he believes to be flaws and
errors in Lomborg's work. He explicitly indicates if particular mistakes
may have been made deliberately by Lomborg, in order to mislead.
According to Fog, since none of his denunciations of Lomborg's work have
been proven false, the suspicion that Lomborg has misled deliberately
is maintained. Lomborg has written a full text published online as Godehetens Pris (Danish) that goes through the main allegations put forward by Fog and others.
What environmental obligations do humans need to keep for future generations?
Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the convenience of humanity?
How should humans best use and conserve the space environment to secure and expand life?
What role can Planetary Boundaries play in reshaping the human-earth relationship?
The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day
in 1970, when environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider
the philosophical aspects of environmental problems. Two papers
published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). Also influential was Garett Hardin's later essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", as well as an essay by Aldo Leopold in his A Sand County Almanac,
called "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed that the
roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).
The first international academic journals in this field emerged
from North America in the late 1970s and early 1980s – the US-based
journal Environmental Ethics in 1979 and the Canadian-based journal The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy in 1983. The first British based journal of this kind, Environmental Values, was launched in 1992.
Marshall's categories
Some scholars have tried to categorise the various ways the natural environment is valued. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics".
According to Marshall, three general ethical approaches have emerged
over the last 40 years: Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension
and Conservation Ethics.
Libertarian extension
Marshall’s
Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a
commitment to extend equal rights to all members of a community). In
environmentalism, though, the community is generally thought to consist
of non-humans as well as humans.
Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism
(eco-humanism), the argument that all ontological entities, animate and
in-animate, can be given ethical worth purely on the basis that they
exist. The work of Arne Næss and his collaborator Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term "deep ecology".
Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth
of the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself. Their
argument, incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and
the ecologic extension.
Peter Singer's
work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He
reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to
include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be
guilty of speciesism.
Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth
of a-biotic or "non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in
his first edition of "Practical Ethics" that they should not be
included in the expanding circle of moral worth.
This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later
edition of "Practical Ethics" after the work of Næss and Sessions,
Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument
from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is plausible, but at best
problematic. Singer advocated a humanist ethics.
Ecologic extension
Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on
human rights but on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence
of all biological (and some abiological) entities and their essential
diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be thought of as flowing
from a political reflection of the natural world, ecologic extension is
best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world.
Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith's
eco-holism, and it argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective
ecological entities like ecosystems or the global environment as a
whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.
This category might include James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis;
the theory that the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure
over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of
evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a
unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.
Conservation ethics
Marshall's
category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the
non-human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the
environment in terms of its utility or usefulness to humans. It
contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology', hence is often
referred to as 'shallow ecology', and generally argues for the
preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value
– instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is
therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with mankind and
inter-generational considerations. It could be argued that it is this
ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at
the Kyoto summit in 1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992.
Humanist theories
Peter
Singer advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," unspoilt
parts of the world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over
time. Their preservation is a bequest for future generations as they
have been inherited from human's ancestors and should be passed down to
future generations so they can have the opportunity to decide whether to
enjoy unspoilt countryside or an entirely urban landscape. A good
example of a world heritage site would be the tropical rainforest, a
very specialist ecosystem that has taken centuries to evolve. Clearing
the rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil conditions, and once
disturbed, can take thousands of years to regenerate.
Pope Francis’s environmental encyclical Laudato si'
has been welcomed by many environmental organisations of different
faiths - Interfaith march in Rome to call for climate action
The Christian world view sees the universe as created by God, and
humankind accountable to God for the use of the resources entrusted to
humankind. Ultimate values are seen in the light of being valuable to
God. This applies both in breadth of scope - caring for people
(Matthew 25) and environmental issues, e.g. environmental health
(Deuteronomy 22.8; 23.12-14) - and dynamic motivation, the love of
Christ controlling (2 Corinthians 5.14f) and dealing with the underlying
spiritual disease of sin, which shows itself in selfishness and
thoughtlessness. In many countries this relationship of accountability
is symbolised at harvest thanksgiving. (B.T. Adeney : Global Ethics in
New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology 1995 Leicester)
Abrahamic religious scholars have used theology to motivate the public. John L. O'Sullivan, who coined the term Manifest destiny,
and other influential people like him used Abrahamic ideologies to
encourage action. These religious scholars, columnists and politicians
historically have used these ideas and continue to do so to justify the
consumptive tendencies of a young America around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
In order to solidify the understanding that God had intended for
humankind to use earths natural resources, environmental writers and
religious scholars alike proclaimed that humans are separate from
nature, on a higher order. Those that may critique this point of view may ask the same question that John Muir asks ironically in a section of his novel A Thousand Mile Walk to the Gulf, why are there so many dangers in the natural world in the form of poisonous plants, animals and natural disasters, The answer is that those creatures are a result of Adam and Eve's sins in the garden of Eden.
Since the turn of the 20th century, the application of theology
in environmentalism diverged into two schools of thought. The first
system of understanding holds religion as the basis of environmental
stewardship. The second sees the use of theology as a means to
rationalize the unmanaged consumptions of natural resources. Lynn White and Calvin DeWitt represent each side of this dichotomy.
John Muir
personified nature as an inviting place away from the loudness of urban
centers. "For Muir and the growing number of Americans who shared his
views, Satan's home had become God's Own Temple." The use of Abrahamic religious allusions assisted Muir and the Sierra Club to create support for some of the first public nature preserves.
Authors like Terry Tempest Williams as well as John Muir build on
the idea that "...God can be found wherever you are, especially
outside. Family worship was not just relegated to Sunday in a chapel." References like these assist the general public to make a connection between paintings done at the Hudson River School, Ansel Adams'
photographs, along with other types of media, and their religion or
spirituality. Placing intrinsic value upon nature through theology is a
fundamental idea of Deep ecology.
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is the position that humans are the most important
or critical element in any given situation; that the human race must
always be its own primary concern. Detractors of anthropocentrism argue
that the Western tradition biases homo sapiens when considering the
environmental ethics of a situation and that humans evaluate their
environment or other organisms in terms of the utility for them. Many argue that all environmental studies should include an assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human beings.
In fact, based on this very assumption, a philosophical article has
explored recently the possibility of humans' willing extinction as a
gesture toward other beings. The authors refer to the idea as a thought experiment that should not be understood as a call for action.
Baruch Spinoza
reasoned that if humans were to look at things objectively, they would
discover that everything in the universe has a unique value. Likewise,
it is possible that a human-centred or anthropocentric/androcentric
ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, and there is a bigger
picture that humans may or may not be able to understand from a human
perspective.
Peter Vardy distinguished between two types of anthropocentrism.
A strong anthropocentric ethic argues that humans are at the center of
reality and it is right for them to be so. Weak anthropocentrism,
however, argues that reality can only be interpreted from a human point
of view, thus humans have to be at the centre of reality as they see it.
Another point of view has been developed by Bryan Norton, who has
become one of the essential actors of environmental ethics by launching
environmental pragmatism, now one of its leading trends. Environmental
pragmatism refuses to take a stance in disputes between defenders of
anthropocentrist and non-anthropocentrist ethics. Instead, Norton
distinguishes between strong anthropocentrism and weak-or-extended-anthropocentrism and argues that the former must underestimate the diversity of instrumental values humans may derive from the natural world.
A recent view relates anthropocentrism to the future of life. Biotic ethics
are based on the human identity as part of gene/protein organic life
whose effective purpose is self-propagation. This implies a human
purpose to secure and propagate life. Humans are central because only they can secure life beyond the duration of the Sun, possibly for trillions of eons. Biotic ethics
values life itself, as embodied in biological structures and processes.
Humans are special because they can secure the future of life on
cosmological scales. In particular, humans can continue sentient life
that enjoys its existence, adding further motivation to propagate life.
Humans can secure the future of life, and this future can give human
existence a cosmic purpose.
These programs began to offer a master's degree with a specialty
in environmental ethics/philosophy. Beginning in 2005 the Department of
Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas offered a PhD program with a concentration in environmental ethics/philosophy.
.jpg)
_horiz.jpg)
