What is missing from the debate, particularly from the Beckerman (and
Lomborg side) are these things

o Some environmental problems are being solved, mostly by the
intrusion of government. Many are being solved on a specific basis,
i.e., pollution/unit of activity, but activity is growing fast. Other
environmental problem, particularly in the third world, are barely being solved.
People are dying because of lack of clean water, clean air, clean food.
Urbanization is happening so rapidly that Third World Cities are going
under.

o Behind most of the degradation lie the economists' nightmares --
subsidized natural resources and an underpriced environment. I side with
Beckerman: we are not running out of natural resources in any meaningful
way, because we can invent new ways, sometimes more expensive ways, to
do the things we use resources for. But we are running out of
environmental space to put the inevitable p pollution and degradation that
consumption tends to bring. And governments like my own have made it
their business to lower resource prices through
various ruses (just see the Bush/Congress Energy Plan or the House
version of the Transportation Bill), and smoke and mirror games.
Developing countries in search of a quick buck/pound/frank or riyal do
the same thing, often lured by multinationals, bribes, or the lure of a
few jobs.

o "Green" economic growth is possible, in a limited way. Beckerman's
first book described a ridiculous calculation by someone where "if we
all lived like the Dutch the earth could support
80 billion people". Well, the earth can't all live like the Dutch, who
sit on a huge fossil fuel subsidy that will not remain CHEAP for too
much longer, import -- from the World -- almost everything else -- and
are among the most energy intensive cultures in Europe, particularly
with their role in providing transit truck freight from their harbors.
Yes there are limits posed by CO2 heating and even local warming caused
simply by the energy density and release of human activity.

o Things would be much cleaner, greener, healthier, and probably on a
higher growth path if we did impose, repeat impose environmental prices
on our production and consumption, particularly as the Dutch and Nordics
have done. Prices won't solve all the problems, but without pricing, no
problems are even defined to be solved. Yes, that means "intrusion".

o The choice between environment and poverty is thus a false choice.
Today the millions of premature deaths from poor air and water in the
developing world are avoidable. But avoidance requires leadership. As
EMBARQ's experience with transport in developing country cities has
shown, that leadership is also a scarce resource.

o Transportation itself is in a despicable state.. but you already
knew that or you would not be in this conversation. Transportation in
the Third world is a hidden form of poverty because it robs the poor and
middle class of an hour or more a day getting to work in filthy buses,
unsafe pedestrian or cycle paths (or roadways), and robs them of their
lives when they are mowed down by cars and trucks.. In many countries
the majority of injuries and deaths from road accidents are not to
vehicle occupants.

As to the rest of the debate over SD, species, etc, it maybe unfair to
judge Beckerman from the review, but it sure looks like the same old
Beckerman. I'll leave it for others to decide. The spring day in
Washington DC got me off my butt to cycle the capital crescent (35 km
mostly woods paths, or along the river canal). To think that a few
decades ago they wanted to remove the canal and put in a fast road
leading northwest out of DC. That unfortunately is the model for US
development, which I fear is the model for development elsewhere.
Fortunately we can afford not to build the road and enjoy the pathways.
lamentably most of the world cannot and is not even afforded that
choice.

So I see the middle ground as an optimist, but the real world is
polarized, leaving me a pessimist.

Lee Schipper, Ph.D.
Washington DC