Peter Singer vs Bjorn Lomborg | The Planet vs The Poor

Environmental protection often comes at the expense of the world’s poorest people, who struggle to meet their subsistence needs. Children carry firewood in the eastern Indian state of Bihar. via ReutersToday’s WSJ Saturday Essay ‘Does Helping the Planet Hurt the Poor? is a twosome, written first by Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include “Animal Liberation,” “Practical Ethics” and “The Life You Can Save”.

A counterpoint is written by Bjorn Lomborg, the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It.” He directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center and is an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School. Mr. Singer replies to Lomborg.

Both essays raise valid points, although Singer relies on the essentially moral argument that the ‘haves’ must cut back for the benefit of the ‘have nots’ and also future generations.

There is also a strong moral case for saying that rich nations should cut back on their “luxury emissions” before poor nations have to cut back on “subsistence emissions.” India still has more than 450 million people living in extreme poverty, and China over 200 million. No one with any concern for human welfare could ask the world’s poor to refrain from increasing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to put more food on the table for their families, when we think little of flying down to the tropics for a winter vacation, emitting more in a week than the typical family in a developing country does in a year. Needs should always take precedence over luxuries.

Singer’s argument that Americans and the rest of the developed world should use less air-conditioning and less, heat, fly and drive less, and eat less meat is valid. Having implemented these changes in my own life, the sky has hardly fallen on my head.

Giving up my car and joining Philly Car Share is one of the simplest changes I’ve made in my own life, along with avoiding meat when possible and turning down the heat in winter.

When a spoiled woman like myself can make changes, we all can do our part. The question remains though: what is the real efficacy of my contribution?

Speaking as an American, I have no confidence that our society can and will make the kind of moral evolution that is required in his thesis about a sustainable world. Singer doesn’t tackle the challenge of economic development versus environmental damage in developing countries.

Perhaps the totality of his views can’t be conveyed in a simple essay, but he doesn’t embrace economic development as a proactive engine that can improve the environment.

Lomborg asserts that in London, which keeps the best statistics, air pollution maxed out in 1890 and has been declining ever since—to the point where the air is now cleaner than it has been at any time since 1585. He cites Mexico City and Santiago, Chile as better-off developing cities where the focus has shifted from creating to cleaning up pollution. “Today the air in both Mexico City and Santiago, Chile, is getting healthier”, writes Lomborg.

Peter Singer lets stand Bjorn Lomborg’s assertion that:

Right now, the only legally binding climate policy, the European Union’s 20-20 policy, will cost its members $250 billion in lost economic growth every year over the next century (according to research by the noted climate economist Richard Tol). Yet the net effect will be an almost immeasurable reduction in global temperatures of just 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Nor does Singer tackle Lomborg’s point that humans don’t behave in the altruistic way he envisions and especially for people in other countries, rather than family members.

The last two WSJ Saturday essays have focused on tiger moms and Asian parenting, with me citing the enormous sacrifice Asia’s immigrant families living in New York make to move their kids up the educational, socio-economic ladder in a single generation.

I sense that Singer argues that as humans in the developed world, we should exhibit this same loyalty to strangers, because it is morally right. Not wanting to offend but still be realistic, this argument verges on mental masturbation.

Bjorn Lomborg is the gadfly in the environmental debate. For environmental leaders like Peter Singer to ‘win’ the debate, if not the action plan, he must discredit arguments like this one from Lomborg:

Even if we accept Mr. Singer’s concerns, is fighting global warming through drastic carbon cuts really the best way to help people with malaria? By implementing the Kyoto protocol (at a cost of $180 billion a year), we could reduce the number of annual malaria deaths by 1,400. But we could prevent 850,000 malaria deaths a year at a cost of just $3 billion simply by providing adequate supplies of mosquito nets and medicine. For every potential malaria victim saved through climate policy, we could save 36,000 people through smarter, cheaper remedies for malaria.

With all America’s efforts focused on jump-starting our own economy and putting people back to work, it just isn’t feasible that Mr. Singer’s arguments will prevail. What the world doesn’t need is more mental masturbation on these massively important topics.

Reading both essays, I’m left wanting to know more about Bjorn Lomborg, who I’ve heard speak several times. His statistical assertions and quantitative, pragmatic arguments are almost always left standing. Anne

Here is Lomborg’s TED profile and his website Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Bjorn Lomborg Sets Global Priorities