Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T23:40:37.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How ethics shape the policy preferences of environmental scientists: What we can learn from Lomborg and his critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Peter J. Balint
Peter J. Balint*
Affiliation:
Department of Public and International Affairs and Department of Environmental Science and Policy Robinson A216 George Mason University 4400 University Drive, 3F4 Fairfax, VA 22030 USA pbalint@gmu.edu
Get access

Abstract

Some environmental ethicists have proposed that different environmental values lead in principle to different environmental policy preferences. The controversy provoked by Bjørn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), has provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis in practice for scientists and other technical experts. In analyzing the language of the argument between Lomborg and his critics, I find that environmental scientists participating prominently in the debate fall into one of two camps according to whether their valuations of nature tend to be anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric. I find further that for these scientists moral philosophies correlate both with policy preferences and with interpretations of data. I conclude that unexplored differences in environmental values make important and underappreciated contributions to the politicization of science and to polarization among scientists and other technical experts involved in environmental disputes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 14 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Stenmark, Mikael, “The Relevance of Environmental Ethical Theories for Policy Making,” Environmental Ethics 24, no. 2 (2002): 135–148; Norton, Bryan G., Toward Unity among Environmentalists (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Taylor, Paul, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); Rolston, Holmes III, Environmental Ethics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988); Callicott, J. Baird, “Environmental Philosophy is Environmental Activism: The Most Radical and Effective Kind,” in Marietta, Don E. Jr. and Embree, Lester, eds., Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism (Boston: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Lomborg, Bjørn, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.“Doomsday Postponed,” The Economist, September 8, 2001, p. 89–90.Google Scholar
4.Dutton, Dennis, “Greener Than You Think,” The Washington Post, October 21, 2001, p. BW01.Google Scholar
5.“Why All Those Dire Predictions Have No Future,” The Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2001, p. A17.Google Scholar
6.Rennie, John, Schneider, Stephen, Holdren, John P., Bongaarts, John, Lovejoy, Thomas, “Misleading Math about the Earth: Science Defends Itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Scientific American 286, 1(2002):61–71.Google Scholar
7.Ibid, p. 62.Google Scholar
8.Ibid, p. 62–63.Google Scholar
9.Ibid, p. 67.Google Scholar
10.Ibid, p. 71.Google Scholar
11.Lomborg, , The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 255.Google Scholar
12.Ibid, p. 70.Google Scholar
13.Lomborg, Bjørn, “The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies,” Scientific American 286, no. 5 (2002): 14–15; Lomborg, Bjørn, “Bjørn Lomborg's Comments to the 11-page Critique in January 2002 Scientific American,” February 16, 2002, available on the Internet: http://www.lomborg.com/flles/SABLnoInf2.pdf.Google Scholar
14.Rennie, John, “A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal,” April 15, 2002, available on the Internet: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF.Google Scholar
15.Holdren, John P., “A Response to Bjørn Lomborg's Response to My Critique of His Energy Chapter,” April 15, 2002, available on the Internet: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000DC658-9373-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF.Google Scholar
16.“Defending Science” and “The Litany and the Heretic,” The Economist, February 2, 2002, pp. 15, 75–76.Google Scholar
17.Lomborg, , “Bjørn Lomborg's Comments to the 11-page Critique in January 2002 Scientific American,” p. 9.Google Scholar
18.Ibid, p. 22.Google Scholar
19.Ibid, p. 27.Google Scholar
20.Ibid, p. 19.Google Scholar
21.Holdren, , p. 5.Google Scholar
22.Ibid.Google Scholar
23.Ibid, p. 6.Google Scholar
24.Ibid.Google Scholar
25.Pimm, StuartHarvey, Jeff, “No Need to Worry about the Future,” Nature 414, 6860 (2001):149–150; Simberloff, Daniel, “Skewed Skepticism,” American Scientist 90, no. 2 (2002): 184–186. Moomaw, William R., “Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist: Refuting a Scientific Model without Science,” Conservation Biology 16, no. 4 (2002):861–862.Google Scholar
26.Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, “Decision Regarding Complaints against Bjørn Lomborg,” January 2003, available on the Internet: http://www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm.Google Scholar
27.Rennie, , p. 1.Google Scholar
28.Lomborg, , The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 3.Google Scholar
29.Ibid, p. 11.Google Scholar
30.Ibid, p. 12.Google Scholar
31.Ibid.Google Scholar
32.Ibid.Google Scholar
33.Ibid, p. 250.Google Scholar
34.Ibid.Google Scholar
35.Ibid, p. 251.Google Scholar
36.Rennie, et al., p. 70.Google Scholar
37.Tietenberg, Tom, Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 4th ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1996).Google Scholar
38.Ibid, p. 52.Google Scholar
39.Ibid, p. 256.Google Scholar
40.Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
41.Ibid, pp. 224–225.Google Scholar
42.Ehrenfeld, David, “The Conservation of Non-resources,” American Scientist 64(1976):648–656.Google Scholar
43.Soulé, Michael, “What is Conservation Biology” BioScience 35(1985):727–734.Google Scholar
44.Lomborg, , The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 32.Google Scholar
45.Ibid, p. 33.Google Scholar
46.Ibid, p. 170.Google Scholar
47.Rennie, et al., p. 71.Google Scholar
48.Leopold, , p. 202.Google Scholar
49.Ibid.Google Scholar
50.Ibid, p. 203.Google Scholar
51.Ibid.Google Scholar
52.Ibid.Google Scholar
53.Ibid, p. 204.Google Scholar