The Skeptical Environmentalist Bites the Bullet, Or Does He?

Bjorn Lomborg, the self-proclaimed "Skeptical Environmentalist," has long been known as one of the world's most dangerous global warming critics. Even U.N. climate panel chair Rajendra Pachauri, a man known for his verbal restraint, once compared him to Hitler.

So imagine my surprise when a few days ago I opened my window to the Guardian and found this headline: Bjorn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune. I was overjoyed!

But was Lomberg's public turnabout as big a deal as everyone, from The Guardian to USA Today, seems to be making of it?

I dug a little deeper. I found out that, at least as far as Hitler analogies go, it turned out Bjorn Lomborg's case is a false one. Like so many people who run their mouth about people with whom they disagree, Rajendra Pachauri had overreached.  Comparing someone to Hitler automatically makes that person look not worse but better; unless he or she really is responsible for the systematic slaughter of millions, anything else sounds tame.

In fact, this Swedish academic has never even denied global warming science. Here's an excerpt from his 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist: "The chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming." Either Lomborg was the worst climate science skeptic I'd ever heard, or ...

...most of the time labels do more to obscure their subject than represent them. Unfortunately for us, in this avatar world we call the internet, labels rule. It took me four different articles from three different sources to get an image of Lomborg that was more true to his life-and-blood self, safe from the pixels.

What he has been saying, in his own words, is that man-made climate change is not important enough to pull attention away from other, more pressing considerations such as disease and hunger. Example: "...for the money it would take to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives." If that's true, it's a reasonable concern. And the fact that he suggests diverting $100 billion toward solving climate change through technology research and development in his newest book isn't even a particularly new revelation. He suggested the exact same thing in the Wall Street Journal article that supplied the above quote, almost nine months ago.

Which isn't to say that I agree with what this man says. I think some of his ideas concerning far-fetched geoengineering schemes are really bad; and even he has admitted that road could lead to very dark woods indeed. He cynically dismisses changes in human behavior as a viable component of an environmental solution, while I think it hinges on just that. It's complicated, and I haven't even read his book. I guess I'll have to reserve judgment on what exactly he is until I do.

But to throw him in with the last 17 percent of Americans who don't think we need to do anything about climate change? That's just rude.

Follow Change.org's Environment page  on Facebook and Twitter.