Oct 02, 2005 21:58
due to not having a working printer and me needing stuff printed for a class tomarrow i am going to post my work and print it out at school. i am a freaking genius:
Hollis Crapo
The article by Ronald Bailey reviewed the book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg and generally agrees with the view points expressed therein but not all. He appreciates the seemingly unselfish motivation for the book and the truth that is found in it. But he also criticizes some of the short comings such as taking for granted the trends of prosperity and progress in the global economies, and fails to address the issues, but rather just disproves other’s claims.
The article by David Pimentel sharply criticized Lomberg and his views on the environment. He goes on to refute Lomberg’s key points such as the increasingly better state of soil erosion, food production, and world resources.
I feel that I side more strongly with Bailey because he gives credits to the merits of Lomborg’s book while still recognizing faults. I agree that much of the information gave by lobbyists is in the best interest of the lobbyists, but I also agree that because things are getting better, that doesn’t mean things will be alright in the future. Some of Pimentel’s arguments and facts are vague and possibly misleading. He fails to take into account some factors in his arguments. For instance, he uses the cost of oil as a logical indicator of oil reserves in the world, but fails to take into account the many factors that contribute to oil price such as temporary inaccessibility and transport problems, as we saw in the wake of hurricane Katrina, and new reserves coming into the market, as with those recently opened in Canada. I don’t fully agree with either article, I am skeptical of both skeptics, but I side more so with Bailey.