Abstract
In the short time following its release, Bjorn Lomborg's book, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', has proven to be a lightning rod for controversy and polarized reaction. The work has attracted downright fawning reviews in The Economist, The New York Times, and The Washington Post while simultaneously garnering absolute scorn from such ordinarily staid publications as Science, Nature, and Scientific American. To this author's knowledge, however, no academic journal yet has published a sustained analysis of the work and its implications for environmental science, law, and policy. This review essay attempts to fill that niche by undertaking a thorough assessment of Lomborg's argument, his evidence, and his significance to the environment-development discussion. Part I provides a critical review of Lomborg's claim that available scientific research undermines the 'Litany' of fears and concerns espoused by advocates of environmental protection. Part II examines Lomborg's argument that environmental policy, risk regulation, and other subjects of social decision making are best addressed through an exclusive and narrowly defined use of cost-benefit analysis. Some thoughts on less technocratic forms of cost-benefit analysis conclude the essay.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
