Chresten Anderson wrote: Lomborg's primary problem is not accepting the economics behind his claim; that we are not running out of ressources. And without the understanding that a market is necessary to price the environment he does not get the reasons why the environment is getting better rather than worse.
My reading of the book suggests that this is not completely true, but maybe I'm reading more into Lomborg than I should. To take just two examples, consider Lomborg's take on water resources (p 156 of The Skeptical Environmentalist): "It is likely that more sensible pricing will both only secure future water supplies but also increase total social efficiency" and "Adequate pricing turns out to be the main issue for water problems. When water is a free resource - as it typically has been throughout the ages - we consume as much as we can (given our private costs). Or, consider his view of private property rights in China (p 67): "The crucial change occurred when the Chinese leadership initiated economic reforms in the 1970s...Equally significant was the fact that they now allowed people to own property and sell goods: China's production potential was set free and it experienced a drastic increase in production". It sounds to me like he understands economics just fine. Alex Dr Alex Robson School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Commerce Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200. AUSTRALIA Ph +61-2-6125-4909 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chresten Anderson Sent: Friday, 19 July 2002 4:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SV: Q for environmental economists Being from Denmark I have been able to read the two previous books by Lomborg. The first is essentially the same as the sceptical environmentalist and the second is an answer to some of the attacks on him by the Greens. In his English version he has updated the first book and incorporated some of the valid points from the greens that he acknowledged in the second. However both versions of the Sceptical Environmentalist are essentially updated versions of Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Ressource" (both versions), but without the explicit theoretical framework. Lomborg is pro-government and does therefore not present the pro-market arguments that explain why the state of the environment is as it is. As understood by Chresten Anderson -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Pa vegne af john hull Sendt: 18. juli 2002 07:14 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Q for environmental economists Howdy, As ad hominem arguments fly around the internet, I seem unable to get an impartial opinion. Would those who study the envirnment give me the straight dope on The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg? His economic arguments seem pretty sound, and this statistical methods, from what I can tell (not much?) seem good. However, I would really enjoy an unbiased review (however brief it may be) from someone more knowledgeable than me. Sincerely from a barefooted, gap-toothed mouthbreather, -jsh ===== "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes http://autos.yahoo.com
