Order here and help the Citizen Review Online!

Other Laissez Faire Best Sellers

Former Greenpeace activist debunks enviro-hysteria

reviewed by Jim Powell

There's much more to this explosively controversial book than "an old left-wing Greenpeace member" (as statistician Lomborg describes himself) who, inspired by Julian Simon, debunks the environmentalist doom-and-gloomers.

The book abounds with fascinating material on almost every page. For instance, how wonderful were primitive societies, extolled by environmentalists who constantly carp about industrialism? About half the children died before age 5. Stone Age skeletons from Africa suggest that life expectancy was about 21 years. Politically-correct types have long viewed India as morally superior to the West, yet in India, as recently as 1906, life expectancy was just 25 years! Even later, in 1930, life expectancy in China was only 24. Communism was a catastrophe in which more than 30 million starved to death, but since economic liberalization, Chinese food production soared, and as Lomborg notes, about half has come from comparatively small private plots.

Lomborg affirms that many of the most densely-populated regions in the world are among the most prosperous, that prosperity goes hand-in-hand with a cleaner environment, and that we aren't running out of energy or natural resources. He maintains that while global warming might do some harm, the proposed remedies (government-mandated cutbacks of fossil fuels) would be worse.

Check out his website, which has criticisms and rebuttals of the book.

"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."
—The Economist

"The Skeptical Environmentalist marks a critical environmental moment. . . . We can forget those dreary old idols: Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown with his Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace and all the others. They have been exiled into the darkness. Eco-optimism can begin to rise over the Earth. After Lomborg, the environmental movement will begin to wither."
—National Post

"Bjorn 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."
—Washington Post Book World

". . . think of The Skeptical Environmentalist as a young geek's answer to Al Gore's Earth in the Balance. . . . 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."
—Rolling Stone

"The Skeptical Environmentalist should be read by every environmentalist, so that the appalling errors of fact the environmental movement has made in the past are not repeated. A brilliant and powerful book."
—Matt Ridley, Author of Genome

"Those who abandon long-held faiths are often strident advocates of their new views. But Dr. Lomborg displays little of the convert's zeal. His aim is not to preach free-market solutions for every problem or to deny that threats to the environment exist."
—Nicholas Wade, Science Times, New York Times

". . . a superbly documented and readable book."
—Wall Street Journal

"Mr. Lomborg, it is important to note, does not say that all is well with the world. And The Economist for that matter does not say that Mr. Lomborg is right about every issue he addresses. Environmental policy involves uncertainty, as Mr. Lomborg emphasizes; now and then this raises doubts that deserve more attention than he gives them . . . We do believe, however, that he is right on his main points, that his critique of much green activism and its reporting in the media is just, and, above all, that where there is room for disagreement, Mr. Lomborg invites and facilitates discussion, rather than seeking to silence it. The same cannot be said for many of his critics."
—The Economist