Links
- Aging Disgracefully
- Devas Folk
- Majid Zohari
- Nima Rashedan
- Becker-Posner Blog
- The Econ Review
- EconPhD
- Blank
Archives
My personal reflections on current issues, culture, and of course economics!
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
State of Confusion
This week, I finished reading Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”. It is an interesting book, to say the least. The style is rather strange, since at times you feel like you are reading a scientific paper. But once you start reading the book, you’ll see that he is justified to take precautions. My timing for reading the book was rather lucky, since it deals with climate change, and this week Kyoto treaty officially takes effect.
Crichton has the guts to write about issues that other writers treat warily. He may get things wrong, as he did in The Rising Sun, but he has his points and he writes well. His criticisms of modern environmental movement are well known. He is an outspoken critic of many environmental groups and activists. His speeches at CalTech or at Commonwealth Club do not leave you with any illusions where he stands. Curiously, he is qualified to talk about these issues.
The truth is that environmental movement often does not take the cost of their pet policies into account. Last year, the economist ran a three piece series on methodological problems in documents pertaining to climate change debate. Instead of countering the points raised by experts, the authors of flawed documents started a smear campaign. Many activists and leaders of the environmental movement have played fast and loose with facts. Noticeably, many of major predictions of the movement failed to materialize. The language used by many believers in this cause reminds a bystander of religious faith rather then scientific theorizing. Crichton has courageously taken on these issues. Like anyone else, I am concerned about the environment. In fact I am a rather old fashioned conservationist. But there is a serious problem when any idea becomes an ideology. Also, there is a real concern that fringe groups like PETA or ELF may become more violent. UK is home to some of the most rabid enviro-fundamentalist groups, and their activities are disrupting scientific research and business practices. It is not hard to believe that few people want eco-terrorism added to Islamic fundamentalism as a scrooge in 21st century.
I may add two more books to read, now that we are about to see how effective Kyoto treaty is: if you have the mathematical and scientific training required to understand this book, read “Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg. This is a level headed, meticulous, and well-written book. I recommend it without any hesitations. For a quick fact checking, read Paul Driessen’s “Eco- Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”. The book is not impartial. But it delivers many insights. Sometimes it is useful to read contrarian’s views.
There is absolutely no problem with scientific research on environmental issues, being concerned where there are legitimate reasons for concern, and action after careful analysis of costs and benefits. But turning an essentially scientific debate into an ideology is a very bad idea.
Crichton has the guts to write about issues that other writers treat warily. He may get things wrong, as he did in The Rising Sun, but he has his points and he writes well. His criticisms of modern environmental movement are well known. He is an outspoken critic of many environmental groups and activists. His speeches at CalTech or at Commonwealth Club do not leave you with any illusions where he stands. Curiously, he is qualified to talk about these issues.
The truth is that environmental movement often does not take the cost of their pet policies into account. Last year, the economist ran a three piece series on methodological problems in documents pertaining to climate change debate. Instead of countering the points raised by experts, the authors of flawed documents started a smear campaign. Many activists and leaders of the environmental movement have played fast and loose with facts. Noticeably, many of major predictions of the movement failed to materialize. The language used by many believers in this cause reminds a bystander of religious faith rather then scientific theorizing. Crichton has courageously taken on these issues. Like anyone else, I am concerned about the environment. In fact I am a rather old fashioned conservationist. But there is a serious problem when any idea becomes an ideology. Also, there is a real concern that fringe groups like PETA or ELF may become more violent. UK is home to some of the most rabid enviro-fundamentalist groups, and their activities are disrupting scientific research and business practices. It is not hard to believe that few people want eco-terrorism added to Islamic fundamentalism as a scrooge in 21st century.
I may add two more books to read, now that we are about to see how effective Kyoto treaty is: if you have the mathematical and scientific training required to understand this book, read “Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg. This is a level headed, meticulous, and well-written book. I recommend it without any hesitations. For a quick fact checking, read Paul Driessen’s “Eco- Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”. The book is not impartial. But it delivers many insights. Sometimes it is useful to read contrarian’s views.
There is absolutely no problem with scientific research on environmental issues, being concerned where there are legitimate reasons for concern, and action after careful analysis of costs and benefits. But turning an essentially scientific debate into an ideology is a very bad idea.
