Customer Reviews

Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is the best book available on debunking apocalypse scares. The chapters on climate change and population growth are particularly valuable. Each chapter is written by an expert, in clear nontechnical fashion. Plus there is a wealth of data.

TANSTAAFL - It's just that simple.

This acronym, meaning "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is at the heart of this book- understanding and embracing it not as a phylosophy, but as a law of the universe.

Earth Report contributors understand that there is absolutely nothing in this world that comes without some cost. This understanding helps them make suggestions that encourage using laws of supply and demand to improve our economy.

Overfishing: There is always a cost to fishing. When no one is responsible for absorbing the costs of fishing, the cost is in the fish resources- populations of fish dwindle and we run out of the supply. But if someone has a vested interest in a fishing area, they can pass the cost onto the human economy. Their profits ensure that the area remains sustainable. Healthy fish need a healthy environment. Would you let someone dump toxic waste into your private fishery? Of course not.

Environment: This old topic has been hashed over again and again- usually with people arguing about whether or not humans are responsible for warming. But beyond this is the compelling argument of, "WHo Cares!" What is the cost of trying to stop HUMAN caused global warming? Huge. But we know that in the past, the earth has warmed even more without our help. If we pay the cost to stop human global warming, and natural global warming (or even worse- cooling) occurs, will our crippled economy be able to handle it? Most likely not. There is a real and dangerous cost to limiting our economy- one that this book points out when comparing the affects of natural disasters on robust economies versus weak ones. Any guess which one is more apt to deal with natural disasters?

This book is one sided, and presents one point of view. Read it along with the other information out there and I think you will be well on your way to forming your own opinions.

I find it interesting that people who disagree with those like the authors of Earth Report almost all respond like the reader below. They say "the science does not back them" and then find it too much trouble to be specific about even one point. Of course he did go right to the favorite attack of those who read Mother Jones: "my opponents have no credibility" that's right let's not talk about the arguments let's just sling mud.

"Earth Report 2000" was written by ten scientists, each with excellent credentials, each writing on a different environmental topic. Here are the ten section titles:

1. Population, Food and Income
2. Pesticides: Increasing Food Supplies While Preserving Biodiversity
3. Global Warming
4. The Coming Age of Abundance
5. Causes and Prevention of Cancer
6. Forests
7. Conserving Biodiversity
8. Water Options
9. Rescuing the Oceans
10. Global Air Quality

It's a tour-de-force of all the important environmental concerns, and paints a much more optimistic scenario than we hear from some environmentalists and politicians. The book was edited by Ronald Bailey, who has also written on the subject in his book,"Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocolypse."

Ron Bailey was formerly producer of a national PBS series called "Technopolitics." His style is confrontational and expresses more than just skepticism. He points out various statements of some politicians and more extreme environmentalists that suggest they are willing to resort to deception to gain public support for an anti-growth environmental program aimed at the goal of a more egalitarian society. He may be a little TOO confrontational for some readers, but exposure to his points seems to me to be essential for ANYONE to reach an informed view about the environment. I srongly recomment it!!!

. . . you'll enjoy this informative, well researched book. Offers a wealth of layman-friendly data on climate, population and other sensitive subject matter and best of all, expert assurance that the sky ISN'T falling, and what we should be doing instead of panicking.

If you believe that global warming is a hoax and we are maintaining 'no net loss' of wetlands in the US, then this book is for you.
If you have any sort of scientific knowledge about the environment you will find numerous assumptions and 'facts' that are simply awful and give naive readers the wrong impression about the actual state of the planet.
This book is in my recyling bin.

I have been researching the motives of the good news industry for some time. As a population ecologist, my area of research concerns our understanding of the relationship between species richness and ecosystem function, as mediated through diffuse and strong multi-trophic interactions and feedbacks. What's scary is that, at present, we really have very little idea how large scale processes, such as nutrient and energy transfer in food webs, stabilization of the atmosphere and other life-sustaining ecosystem services at broad scales are generated at much smaller scales, where selection works at the level of individuals organisms. We do know that global ecological systems generate processes which serve as our life-support systems, and that their simplification impairs the ability of the biosphere to generate these life-sustaining processes for humanity. That's the state of the field right now. Many of my eminent colleagues across the world are working hard to understand how our continued assault on the natural world might affect the services upon which we depend for our own survival. In the background, are those, with virtually no scientific credibility, and who represent very vested interests (their paymasters in the corporate world) who dish out the news that everything in Eden is fine, without a shred of scientific credibility to support this. The alarming fact is that our current knowledge of ecological systems and their functions is too limited to support the argument that Bailey and his ilk (Easterbrook, Budiansky etc.) have been constantly dishing out to the masses: that the Earth is in a fine shape and can withstand everything that our species is throwing at it. While systems are somewhat resilient to change (bearing in mind that they are dynamic and become new systems in the face of environmental stress), there is no reason to believe that these same systems will be so robust in providing those services which permit our survival. This is a hard fact.

I am particularly dismayed by the non-scientific propoganda which spews forth from a long line of libertarian think tanks - The CATO Institute, the Hudson Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Reason Foundation, are just a few - which contain very little credible science but considerable misinformation. Consider the so-called blurb at the beginning of the piece, which says that the list of writers are scientific "experts". Ronald Bailey's scientific credibility is about as thin as it can get: he has covered science as a writer for Forbes magazine and as a producer for PBS. That's it. And the ecological "authority" obtained a diploma in field ecology from the University of Zimbabwe. Unbelievable: considering the wealth of expertise available, they can only recruit someone with these credentials? I think that this is indicitive of the backlash and of their motives. I checked to see how many peer-reviewed papers this ecologist has published in relevant journals, and I couldn't find any. His chapter is a mish-mash of misinformation, misinterpretation of facts, and a basic misunderstanding of many important areas in conservation biology. I do not have the time here to expand upon this in detail: however, his take on the rate of current biodepletion and the consequences for nature and humanity was appalling. Invoking the use of classic species-area models to defend the backlash view that current extinction rates represent a fraction of the extant global biota was disturbing enough, but many key parameters were omitted in his thesis. For instance, diversity is multi-dimensional: extinctions at the species level are one problem, the other, hidden in this deceitful tome, is that of losses in genetic variation within populations. There is profound evidence which suggests that many, many species, particularly in tropical biomes, are declining rapidly and are therefore losing the genetic variation which enables them to respond evolutionarily to changing environmental conditions. Its part of a two-edged sword which may lead to a cascade of extinctions: reduction in habitat reduces the number of populations, which further reduces the ability of species to adapt to habitat reduction. Species lose their economic and conservation value long before they approach extinction. Furthermore, a reduction in the population diversity of a species coincides with the potential disruption of interactions with other species. Multiple interactions function by anchoring the stability of communities, and serve as cornerstones in our understanding of food webs.

There is an unspoken belief pervading these right-wing organizations that all government is harmful and that corporations are a boundless good, which underpins the motives of Bailey and his ilk in writing this patent nonsense. I would gladly debate any of these individuals on these issues, to expose the degree of their scientific illiteracy, which stands out in the pages of books like this. It seems to me that these publications are meant to dupe the nonexpert into believing the corporate line. However, these publications do serve a dual purpose: they have inspired me and my colleagues in environmental science to enter the public forum and to expose Bailey and his backers for what they really are.

I haven't actually read this book I admit, but I wanted to address a few things that the detractors have in mind. First, big government actually harms the environment. Public ownership of lands takes away the private conservation that could otherwise occur. Price floors in the economy are another good example of government waste, as price ceilings take away from the conservation efforts of consumers and price floors create excess supplies, which eventually go to waste, forcing producers to produce even more, which is more taxing on the environment than producing and selling without price floors. Property rights also create incentives for keeping forests clean, as privately owned forests almost never burn due to their owners clearing underbrush and taking personal responsibility for them, as even loggers take care of, set limits on cutting down, and replant land that they privately own moreso than those loggers on private land. Another problem with government is that it catters to conflicting interests. Suppose someone invented a kind of solar power technology that was cost-efficient, capable of massive abundance of energy use, didn't have any emmission whatsoever, but was capable of killing hundreds of people a year, due to misuse or accidents. Government would likely outlaw it even though the technology would stop global warming and potentially save far more lives in the process. The "consumer advocates" get their way instead. The welfare state is another problem as it tends to produce irresponsible breeding due to an unending supply of funds for people. Many people on welfare stopped having so many children after President Clinto himself proposed reform. Also, increased technology in the marketplace and freedomt to try new products creates parenthood planning technologies like condoms, birth control, etc. which have helped slow down and in some cases diminish population in some parts of the world. But THE GOVERNMENT. Well, in many places the government either bans or sets limits on the sale of things like birth control, such as here in the U.S. where you need to get a prescription from a doctor before you can order it. Restrictions on International Trade also prevent cleaner, more environmentally-safe products from being accessed by many people as well. And if you think that government decreased toxing being pumped into the air, well read Idur Goklany's "Clearing the Air" and while you're at it, read "Eco-Nomics" by Richard Stroup. Market Solutions and property rights have always helped out the Environment more such as when Defenders of Wildlife applied the tenets of free market environmentalism to its wolf compensation program, or when World Wildlife Federation had successfully launched the CAMPFIRE program in southern Africa to reward native villagers who conserve elephants or when the Oregon Water Trust uses water markets to purchase or lease water for salmon and steelhead habitats. As for other things, well there is the emerging field of biotechnology, which itself has many environmentally good applications.

When the authors get close to something I am very familiar with, like the recycling rates, the presented "facts" fall apart. This causes me to question the book. Also, the authors must be very embarassed by the current price of gasoline in the states, having asserted that we are immune to energy shocks. It is too easy, and often not very helpful, to say what we don't know and to call things into question. This paralyzing approach will not save endangered species, or improve our environment.

What a great read. Nothing like a good political book. We rightwingers enjoy books like this because it provides science that we know to be false that we can use to back up our profit-driven agenda through the usual propoganda outlets such as talk radio. For example, in the excellent chapter on Air Quality, the authors talk about whether or not we humans are actually causing the air quality to go down or not. Although we all know that pollution is real, when folks like me own stock in large factories, the financial bottom line is all that matters. If the Big Government puts heavier restrictions on such companies, that means their costs will go up, and folks like me will lose money in our stock portfolios. Not a good thing. The chapter on Pesticides provides another example of misinformation that we can use on our talk radio shows to make sure the masses will vote Republican. I don't really care if pesticides are hurting people or not; what matters is when I, like Tom Delay, have a vested financial interest in a pesticide company, the last thing I want are the liberal scaremongers causing the government to force us to shut down our companies, causing us more financial losses. It's all about money. And that's why a book like this is such a good thing. Sure, the science is bad and absurd, but it helps us push forward our agenda.