Time: Tue Dec 16 16:54:17 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Is the World Really Coming to an End?" by Ronald Bailey (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls, friends References: <snip> > >Is the World Really Coming to an End? > >Visions of an environmental apocalypse are very popular >-- but not very accurate > >by Ronald Bailey > >Ronald Bailey is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a member of >the Society of Environmental Journalists and editor of The True State of >the Planet. > >--- >I began a talk at American University recently by asking how many in the >audience believed that we face an imminent global ecological crisis. As a >science reporter who frequently speaks on college campuses, I wasn't >surprised that all the students raised their hands. > >I once believed that too. A generation ago brown smog clogged the air >over many American cities, and Lake Erie was dying. I remember my >high-school band trip to George Washington's home in Mount Vernon, Va. A >sign in the Potomac River warned that contact with the water could be >hazardous to your health. > >As a college student in the early 1970s, I read the experts who claimed >that we were poisoning the biosphere, running out of resources and would >soon be choking to death on pollution. The future seemed bleak. > >Yet some 25 years later I look around and, by and large, things have >gotten better, not worse. Pollution is still a problem, but the air is >much cleaner. Since 1975, sulfur-dioxide levels are down roughly 50 >percent, carbon monoxide about 60 percent, and smoke, soot and other >particulates have been reduced some 25 percent. > >Water quality has also improved. The warning sign in the Potomac has been >taken down. > >What hasn't changed are predictions of doom. Here are six popular visions >of the apocalypse you may be hearing about. The evidence shows they are >not true. > >1. There are too many mouths to feed. Thirty years ago biologist Paul >Ehrlich predicted in The Population Bomb that "in the 1970s hundreds of >millions of people are going to starve to death." Overpopulation, he >claimed, would overwhelm the food supply. > >It didn't happen. World population has more than doubled since 1950, but >food supplies have more than tripled. Life expectancy has risen from 46.5 >years in 1950 to more than 64 years today. This represents the greatest >increase in human welfare in history. > >If current trends continue, world population could top out at around >eight billion in 2040. Can all these people be fed? Yes, says Paul >Waggoner, a scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. >He estimates that if technology continues to improve at today's rate, it >will be possible to feed ten billion people on roughly the same amount of >land currently devoted to agriculture. As a result of improving crop >yields, the area that is used to grow crops--about three billion acres >globally--has increased little in the last two decades. > >2. Man-made chemicals are causing a cancer epidemic. This notion became >popular after Rachel Carson published the environmental classic Silent >Spring in 1962. "For the first time in the history of the world," she >asserted, "every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous >chemicals from the moment of conception until death." > >Her assertion is not true. "The vast bulk of the chemicals humans are >exposed to are natural, and for every chemical some amount is dangerous," >note Bruce Ames and Lois Gold, cancer researchers at the University of >California at Berkeley. > >Ames and Gold point out that "99.99 percent of the pesticides we eat are >naturally present in plants to ward off insects and other predators." For >example, many fruits and vegetables contain caffeic acid, peanut butter >contains aflatoxin, and white bread contains furfural. All are natural >carcinogens but should not scare people into giving up these foods. In >addition, the human body's "defense enzymes are equally effective against >natural and synthetic chemicals," according to Ames and Gold. > >What about the cancer epidemic? "It's not real," says Ames. While rates >of certain cancers (especially those connected to tobacco) have risen >over the past few decades, the rates of many cancers have declined in the >United States since 1950. Plus, the increase in the number of detected >cancers is due mostly to better diagnostic techniques. An article >published last year in Scientific American estimated that only about two >percent of cancer deaths in the United States are caused by >pollution--and that more cancer is caused by lack of exercise. > >3. Men are becoming sterile. In a recent book, Our Stolen Future, >zoologist Theo Colborn warned that synthetic chemicals in the environment >may be responsible for worldwide declines of 50 percent in human sperm >counts over the last half-century. Among the chemicals she names is the >pesticide DDT, which "disrupts the endocrine system." > >However, leading scientists do not accept as fact that sperm counts are >declining. Rates of infertility in the United States, noted Dr. Richard >Sherins in the New England Journal of Medicine, "have remained constant >during the past three decades." > >Moreover, levels of some of the suspect chemicals have been dropping for >decades. For example, one 1991 report indicated that concentrations of >DDT in human fatty tissue fell from about eight parts per million (ppm) >in 1970 to about two ppm in 1983. > >4. Extinctions threaten the balance of nature. In his 1979 book, The >Sinking Ark, biologist Norman Myers estimated that an average of more >than 100 human-caused extinctions occur each day, and that one million >species would be lost by century's end. Yet there's little evidence of >anywhere near that number of extinctions. For example, only seven species >on the endangered species list have become extinct since the list was >created in 1973. > >Biodiversity is an important value, according to many scientists. >Nevertheless, the supposed mass extinction rates bandied about are >achieved by multiplying unknowns by improbables to get imponderables. > >Many estimates, for instance, rely a great deal on a "species-area >equation," which predicts that twice as many species will be found on 100 >square miles as on ten square miles. The problem is that species are not >distributed randomly, so which parts of a forest are destroyed may be as >important as how much. > >What's more, says Ariel Lugo, director of the International Institute of >Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, "Biologists who predict high extinction >rates underestimate the resiliency of nature." > >One of the main causes of extinctions is deforestation. According to the >Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what drives >most tropical deforestation is not commercial logging, but "poor farmers >who have no other option for feeding their families than slashing and >burning a patch of forest." > >In countries that practice modern high-yield agriculture, forests are in >no danger. In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they >cover 737 million. Forests in Europe expanded from 361 million to 482 >million acres between 1950 and 1990. > >5. The disappearing ozone layer threatens a skin-cancer epidemic. In the >early 1970s atmospheric scientists theorized that refrigerants called >chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)--the best- known version is Freon--were >percolating into the stratosphere, where they destroyed ozone that blocks >damaging ultraviolet light from the sun. Indeed, it has since been >confirmed that CFCs are largely responsible for the ozone hole that >temporarily opens up over Antarctica every year. > >In 1978 the United States banned CFCs for use as propellants in aerosol >sprays such as deodorants and perfumes. International treaties >restricting the manufacture of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals >have also been adopted, and some scientists now expect levels of these >damaging gases to peak at the end of this century and then begin to >reverse. > >Although skin-cancer rates are up, the increase, according to most >scientists, is attributable to life-style changes, not a thinner ozone >layer. People today spend more time outside, at the beach and wearing >skimpier clothing. > >6. Global warming is the most serious problem humanity has ever faced. >There's more hype on this environmental issue than any other. In the late >1970s computer models predicted that because of the heat-trapping buildup >of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would warm up by several >degrees over the next century. A lot of bad weather gets linked to global >warming in the media, which regularly predict that more and fiercer >hurricanes, longer droughts and more severe rainstorms will result. > >What has actually been going on? One computer model says the earth's >temperature should have already increased by an easily detectable 0.3 to >0.4 degrees Celsius since 1979. Some satellite data, however, show that >the earth's temperature has actually cooled slightly over the last 18 >years. And despite seasonal variations, the frequency of intense Atlantic >hurricanes and their maximum wind speed have not increased over the past >half-century. > >If climate models turn out to be correct, it may be prudent to limit >carbon-dioxide emissions in the future. But many experts feel there is no >need to rush into drastic action. "We have a decade or so to collect data >and refine our models before we might have to act," says Jerry North, >professor of meteorology at Texas A&M. There is also time for scientists >to develop less carbon-intensive energy technologies, which we can switch >to later at a lower cost. > >"Even though it will disappoint many of you, the evidence is that you >have a very bright future." This is how I finished my presentation at >American University, eliciting a few chuckles from the audience. > >On a more serious note, I asked the students to consider a radical >proposition: Economic growth and technological progress are not enemies >of the environment but are perhaps its best friends, since they allow us >to reduce humanity's footprint on the natural world. High-tech >agriculture boosts farm productivity, which means a cheaper food supply >and more land spared for nature. Better sewage treatment means that our >rivers and streams can run freer of pollutants. Catalytic converters on >cars and better filters on power-plant smokestacks have greatly reduced >smog, smoke and soot in the air. > >But only rich societies can afford to pay for these. In the end, the best >environmental program of all is the promotion of prosperity. > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail