THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT

CMPEANU LIVIA- RUXANDRA

913 C
January 8th , 2014

Professor Alexandru Gavri

The truth about the environment

Bjorn Lomborg read a article about the scourge of Malthusian doom-slingers and ecopessimists, thereupon, intrigued, he put a team of his best students to work, and the result
was The skeptical environmentalist .
The skeptical environmentalist is a book that 'dissolved' the four threatening worries as
a population: 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; that the planet's air and water are becoming
ever more polluted .
Despite the scientists that made before, and after him studies, and tests that prove this
main four threats, he made some new findings. His findings stated that all of the other
scientists results were 'misinterpreted' and he sustained that they were controlled by the
mass-media in order to make the nation more gullible.
His findings stated that the natural resources are not running out but they are growing
Despite an increase in consumption of these materials of between two- and ten-fold over
the past 50 years, the number of years of available reserves has actually grown. . So if I
have a tablet of chocolate and I eat some of it, that means that I will have more chocolate?
I don't take the numbers as they give them to me, I know that some of them may be
wrong but if 1000 say it' s one way and just one person says it's the other way, who do you
trust?
I agree with the second part, although the population is rising, it will never remain out of
food. We are a resourceful people, and if we may come in this situation we will find a way,
the land will be prosperous and if not there are hydroponic greenhouses that use mineral
solutions in water, without soil, to grow plants.
threat of biodiversity loss is real, but exaggerated In Puerto Rico, the primary forest
area has been reduced over the past 400 years by 99%, yet only seven of 60 species of
bird has become extinct. . In this part he mentions the rule-of-tumb that indicates that loss
of 90% of the forest meant a 50% of species. In Puerto Rico only seven species of 60
became extinct. That is still a high number, he makes it sound so unimportant like 7 birds
from one species died, but here 7 species became extinct. Even if the forest grows back in
100 years, those birds won't reappear.

And last but not least The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted. .
The pollution, which is also exaggerated , of course the pollution is due to the fact that the
forests are being chopped off. Many analysis show that air pollution diminishes when a
society becomes rich enough to be able to afford to be concerned about the environment ,
but the ozone layer doesn't regenerate.
He also talks about the exaggerated results of scientific research and how it controls the
mass-media for more money. He reminds the world about that Worldwide Fund for Nature
issued a press release entitled, Two-thirds of the world's forests lost forever. The truth
turns out to be nearer 20%. .
Another thing I agree with is, his take on the mass-media and how it controls the large
public, making from small things, big scandals trying to distort the truth.
He is talking about the 1997-98 Nio, but he speaks about the damage and benefits in
money as if the icecaps didn't melt and polar bears didn't suffered or other animals,
instead he says that there were no Atlantic hurricanes due to the warming, fact that can
not be 100% sure, because the weather can always change.
Concluding Bjon Lomborg says The fourth factor is poor individual perception. .
After this, he addresses the nation about their not needed worry for the piles of garbage,
even if the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces
through the entire 21st century will still take up only the area of a square .
Radically cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will be far more expensive than adapting to
higher temperatures , the best estimates are that in this century the temperature will rise
by some 2-3C , causing considerable problems at a cost of $5,000 billion. The question
is whether the cure will actually be more costly than the ailment. .
He says that economic analysis show that cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will be more
expensive than the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The cure is not
needed, because it is too expensive. ' It's just a little pollution. That can't hurt us! ' .
There is also the Kyoto Protocol, that is an international treaty that sets bindings
obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The
UNFCCC is an environmental treaty with the goal of preventing "dangerous"
anthropogenic interference of the climate system. There are 192 parties to the convention,
including 191 states (all the UN members, except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and the
United States) and the European Union. The United States signed but did not ratify the
Protocol and Canada withdrew from it in 2011.The Protocol was adopted by Parties to the
UNFCCC in 1997, and entered into force in 2005.
The agreement predicts for industrialized countries to reduce emissions by 5.2% in
2008-2012 compared to 1990.

The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were
implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the
UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1C in
2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9C instead. Or, to put it
another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094
would be postponed to 2100.
The Kyoto agreement merely buys the world six years. So the Kyoto agreement does
not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for
the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most
pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation.
Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from
becoming seriously ill. .
This is his explanation, the temperature increase will be postponed, so ' why bother
with it? '. We bother with it because in that period, in that 6 year period, someone can
invent a new way to combat the global warming. Instead he suggests that with that money
we can solve the clean water problem. Isn't this a pollution problem, yet he advocate that
there is no pollution problem. In this article Bjorn sometimes contradicts his theories stated
earlier.
Bjorn Lomborg is not an environmentalist, nor an economist, nor both. He is a person
with a wrong approach on life, and on environment, and on economy, he is the kind of
person that doesn't think for the better of the planet, who doesn't care for the future
generations but cares all about himself.
In this article he tries to convince people to take in consideration the economic part of
the process and leave ecology on the second place. Well, there can be an equilibrium, like
in the first game we played, we just have to remember that a game always comes with
rules. In our specific case, economy and ecology could start with the rule of the second
game, they can take turns winning, equal and consolidated, and the world will be a better
place for the present and the future.

Bibliography
The truth about the environment by Bjorn Lomborg
Wikipedia