www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004) 668–669

Book review

The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg, B. (2001).

Cambridge University Press. pp. xxiii + 515 (reprinted

2003)

The Skeptical Environmentalist: an alternative view

I recently read The skeptical environmentalist that, thedust jacket reveals, is lauded by some commentators as a

work which corrects extreme doomsday environmental

prophesies. The book comprises six parts dealing with

environmentalist�s litanies, human welfare, whether or

not human prosperity can continue, whether or not pol-

lution undercuts human prosperity, tomorrow�s prob-

lems and, finally, an analysis of ‘‘the real state of the

world’’. With 2930 notes it is an obviously well re-searched tome.

The author, B. Lomborg, is a statistician and his

views are backed up by much empirical evidence, mostly

from North America and Europe. But are they balanced

and are they globally applicable? Lomborg�s overall

conclusions are that the Earth and mankind are not in

such dire straits as some environmentalists would have

us believe and, in numerous ways, the human conditionhas improved for many, especially in the West, over re-

cent decades (but, because of AIDS, in Africa and Asia

too?). Overpopulation is not seen to be so great a prob-

lem as that of poverty which fosters the siring of too

many children who die too young creating tragically

high infant mortality rates, especially in third world

countries, and cycles upon cycles of despair. Similarly,

the impacts of human activities and developments uponbiodiversity are argued to be greatly exaggerated and

here Lombard has my support. Just where is the evi-

dence to support the contention first put forward by

N. Myers (1979) in his book The sinking ark that the

Earth is losing �40,000 species each year? Other envi-

ronmental luminaries such as P. Ehrlich (1981) thought

that a more likely figure was 250,000 and E.O. Wilson

(1992) argued that between 25,000 and 100,000 plantsand animals become extinct annually. Possibly more

realistically and certainly more comfortingly, a United

Nations report in 1995 put the total numbers of known

animal and plant extinctions over the last 400 years to be

500 and 650, respectively. . .all such guesstimates, how-

ever, have to be put in the context of the simple fact that

we actually have no idea of how many species are alive

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.07.012

today (around 10 million?), nor of the numbers that

have existed, nor of the numbers of new ones (both fossil

and Recent) being described, or, come to that, being mu-tated (the SARS and influenza viruses for example), at

any one time. In 2003, a census of marine fishes came

up with a figure of 15,304 species plus about another

210,000 life forms in our global seas. A new fish is de-

scribed every 48 h and so are 170,000 additional plant

and animal species each year. And, the only marine ani-

mal that I am aware of being officially extinct is Steller�ssea cow which from being discovered in 1741 became ex-tinct by 1768 due to the over-enthusiasm of whalers.

Lomborg also argues that pollution problems and the

loss of resources are greatly exaggerated but it is here

that his and my views begin to diverge. For example,

the author argues that the world catch of fish is actually

rising (Fig. 57), as it is, but ignores the fact the catch per

capita has remained virtually constant for the last 40

years despite advances in aquaculture. Moreover, Lom-borg further ignores the fact that although total catch

may be increasing this is because there has been in recent

years (i), a dramatically increased fishing intensity, (ii),

new stocks of, mostly mesopelagic, fish have been tar-

geted and (iii), most damningly, there is a failure by

the author to even mention that fisheries scientists are

less concerned about total catch than they are with max-

imum sustainable yield and predictive models whichwhen applied to fisheries statistics, virtually worldwide,

demonstrate that bigger catches are associated with

greater percentages in them of smaller and yet smaller

individuals and thus that over-fishing is a reality. There

are many examples of this, especially from Asia, which

any marine scientist could have pointed Lomborg to.

The author also points out that in the European

Union and, especially, the UK and Denmark, bathingbeach water has improved considerably since the 1980s

and in fact this year, in June 2004, 98.4% of Britain�sbeaches (551 out of 560) were given a clean bill of health

and 122 UK resorts collected ‘‘Blue Flag’’ awards for

cleanliness, up from 105 in 2003. Highly commendable,

especially as I, as a small boy, remember a too graphic

image for this journal of my hometown�s beaches

onto which were directly discharged its sewage––un-treated. Notwithstanding, Lomborg�s examples of

improving coastal waters and rivers derive exclusively

from Europe and North America and therein resides a

Book review / Marine Pollution Bulletin 49 (2004) 668–669 669

second significant fallibility in his interpretation of the

state of the global environment. Asia is not factored into

it. Excluding tourist beaches in Asia where there is an

obvious vested interest in cleanliness, I could take Lom-

borg to beaches no sane person would step onto. Much

of the information about such gross contamination isdocumented in Marine Pollution Bulletin but in the bib-

liography to his book I could find only three references

to this journal and none of them pertained to Asia. So

much for statistical objectivity.

Similarly, Lomborg quotes the latest United States

State of the Coastal Environment report (1998) which

concludes that most pollution concentrations are

decreasing and not one is increasing. In contrast, theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Glo-

bal Environment Year Book for 2003 released at the

opening of the organization�s eighth ministerial summit

in March 2004, tallied 150 marine dead zones around

the world, double those identified in 1990, and some

with sea areas of 70,000 square kilometres. The cause

of such dead zones is an excess of nutrients in the form

of domestic and agricultural sewage, pesticides, fertiliz-ers and industrial runoffs. Their impacts are thought

to be double the threat to fisheries resources and it is

no coincidence that dead zones are now appearing in

the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas in Europe, but also

the East China and Yellow Seas in China and the Gulf

of Thailand in Asia. As a further example of such gross

marine pollution, some 22 billion tonnes of sewage, and

agricultural and industrial contaminants, is dischargedinto the Yangtze each year and in May 2004 this re-

sulted in the formation of a toxic red tide that covered

�20,000 square kilometres of the East China Sea. The

discrepancy between Lomborg�s statistical treatment of

North American and European data and his lack of a

broader view is particularly lamentable.

Lomborg concludes (p.352) that ‘‘children born to-

day––in both the industrialized world and developing

countries––will live longer and be healthier, they will get

more food, a higher standard of living, more leisure time

and far more possibilities––without the global environ-

ment being destroyed. And that is a beautiful world.’’ I

can identify somewhat with such sentiments, but is it

really true for many Asian, African and South American

countries? It also may not apply to the West in future.As I write this, for example, UK newspapers are full

of stories about care homes filled with rising numbers

of senile, long-lived people, the rising ranks of obese

children (and adults) and soaring cancer rates all of

which threaten to swamp Britain�s health care facilities

by 2050. I share Lomborg�s skepticism about overesti-

mated biodiversity losses. I find, however, that I cannot

agree with his observations, except in a few specificcases, such as Europe�s improving beaches, on the state

of the global marine environment. His view of a beauti-

ful world is singularly anthropomorphic, harking back

to the Judeo-Christian notion that all life exists to serve

us, and that view is not mine. Instead, I see images of

and stories about the marine environment today which

provide us with examples of human excesses at their

very worst, large deficiencies in management, grossexamples of pollution, resource overexploitation, virtu-

ally no compassion, rather, deeply entrenched cruelty

towards our companion sea species, and a continuing

history of decline. Notwithstanding, I do recommend

that marine scientists, everywhere, should read The

skeptical environmentalist because it does contribute sig-

nificantly to the debate surrounding many contempo-

rary marine environmental issues, albeit with a healthydose of skepticism of their own.

Brian Morton

Department of Aquatic Life Sciences

The Western Australian Museum

Francis Street

Perth, Western Australia

Australia

E-mail address: prof_bsmorton@hotmail.com