1997 Series 1 Number 22 Page 15
This is a reprint of an article by Dr. Digby McLaren originally published in 1996 in the newsletter of the Global Change Program of the Royal Society of Canada. It is accompanied by an “environmentalist—economist debate,” with a note from Colin Rowat (King’s College, Cambridge, England) and Digby’s reply. There is also a comment on that exchange by Keith Wilde (Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada), a comment on Dr. McLaren’s stance from J.A.L. Robertson, F.R.S.C (Deep River, ON), and one from Dr. Terry Poulton (Geological Survey of Canada).
[At the time, J.A.L. (Archie) Robertson was at Atomic Energy of Canada and Dr. Poulton was the Chief Paleontologist of Canada and the Head of Paleontology Subdivision at the GSC. Ed.]
The salient point made by each was as follows.
Digby McLaren: Economists pay too little attention to externalities, such as wildlife and forests, and it is high time we stopped simplistically tackling problems individually, ignoring ultimate causes, such as population growth—it is not doom-saying to suggest we should use empirical facts to convince people, especially politicians, that we are destroying our life support system.
Colin Rowat: McLaren’s remarks are ill-informed folly, embarrassingly naïve and possibly dangerous.
Keith Wilde: Economists like Rowat take inappropriate values as a given and add up evidence of their popularity, putting that forward as a justification of those values and a “scientific demonstration” that we shouldn’t change course, which is circular reasoning and a danger to humanity.
Archie Robertson: We need more energy, not less. [Pollution be damned and climate change. Ed.]
Terry Poulton: We need more exchange of ideas among informed experts, and more extended analysis and synthesis, and less repetition of old arguments.
Link to | Biodiversity: Why Do We Care?
Leave a Reply