Seafood News - Industry Events - Seafood Market

The Jerusalem Post    11/04/2005 10:30:51

S. Fred Singer

Forgive me if I approach reports of impending doom with a certain amount of skepticism. This is especially true of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) prepared by "1360 scientists from 95 countries" under the direction of World Bank chief scientist Robert Watson and released by the Royal Society in London.

Watson headed the first assessment of stratospheric ozone that eventually led to the Montreal Protocol's ban of CFCs (Freons). After much hype, the best data cited by the World Meteorological Organization show stratospheric ozone depleted by only 4 percent before stabilizing. There is no evidence whatsoever of an upward trend in the much-feared solar ultraviolet radiation held responsible for skin cancer.

Watson then went on to chair the UN-sponsored IPCC that brought us the Kyoto Protocol, designed to limit the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from the use of energy fuels. But, again, the best measurements we have, from weather satellites, show no significant global warming – in spite of a 35% increase in CO2 levels.

To those of us with longer memories, its "like deja vu all over again," to quote the great American baseball player Yogi Berra. It was in 1972 that the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth study announced the end of the world by the year 2000, or shortly thereafter, as resources became depleted and pollution killed of most of humanity. Even earlier, doomsday prophet Paul Ehrlich had forecast a poisoned ocean, cancer epidemics from urban pollution, famines galore, etc. etc.

So here we are facing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, with the usual cast of hundreds of scientists of carefully assigned nationalities. They tell us – so claims the March 30 headline in The Guardian (UK) – that "two-thirds of world's resources [have been] 'used up.'"

The paper goes on to report that "The human race is living beyond its means. A report backed by 1,360 scientists from 95 countries – some of them world leaders in their fields... warns that the almost two-thirds of the natural machinery that supports life on Earth is being degraded by human pressure."

They don't provide an answer to the obvious question: How much longer before it's all used up? And what can really be done – short of getting rid of most of the world's population? All we get is tiresome statistics and a "stark warning."

Now it is a fact that population pressures are leading to deforestation in many parts of the world. But in other places, aided by increased atmospheric CO2 levels, forests are growing as less land is needed for agriculture (the US), or as arid, deforested areas are turned into forests (Israel). We learn that many fish stocks (those for which there are no property rights) are over-exploited; but aquaculture is growing rapidly. We learn that humanity is "using" nearly 50 percent of fresh water resources.

Actually, "borrowing" would be a better word; the water doesn't disappear, as if by magic. It reappears, but requires clean-up – the removal of pollutants, or of salt. This takes energy; and in spite of the fact that fossil fuels are gradually becoming depleted, energy in various forms is essentially inexhaustible.

This World Bank-supported study of 2,500 pages cost $20 million, nearly $10,000 a page – a relative bargain, provided it doesn't lead to a new bureaucracy. The major conclusion of the report seems to be that a damaged environment will make it impossible to eliminate poverty and hunger. But perhaps it should be the other way round: If we can eliminate poverty and raise living standards, then people will put greater value on environmental amenities and make the necessary investments to clean up water and air.

Economist Jagdish Bhagwati, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues cogently in "A chance to lift the aid curse" (Wall Street Journal, March 22), that the developed world should be wary about how much it spends on foreign aid and where the funds go, because of waste and corruption. Cynics have suggested that development money could more efficiently be put directly into the Swiss bank accounts of kleptocratic rulers rather than into ambitious development projects; it would save lots of money.

Paul Wolfowitz, take note.

The writer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and coauthor and editor of Is There an Optimum Level of Population?