November 2007
Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet
The Economist magazine has noted that optimism about the environment is considered "beyond the pale of respectable discourse." Yet more experts and scientists are stepping forward to draw attention to the importance of understanding environmental progress as a prerequisite to setting intelligent priorities for the difficult problems that remain. Seymour Garte, a visiting professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, argues in his new book, Where We Stand: A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet (Amacom, September 2007), that excessive pessimism about the environment undermines good scientific investigation and distorts our understanding of important environmental challenges. Mr. Garte criticizes antitechnological biases prevalent among environmentalists, but he is also skeptical that market forces alone will suffice to support continued environmental progress. He is nonetheless guardedly optimistic that the creativity and adaptability of the human species will enable us to face and solve unexpected problems.
At a book forum held at AEI on November 5, 2007, Mr. Garte discussed his book, followed by commentary from Nicholas Eberstadt, AEI's Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy. AEI's Steven F. Hayward, coauthor of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, moderated.
Seymour Garte
Author, Where We Stand
While media coverage of environmental quality is almost universally negative, some surprising statistics show that the real story of the environment is closer to "planet in recovery" than "planet in peril." Guidance on how to fix remaining environmental problems can be derived from what has gone right so far.
Most things that concern humans on Earth are improving--air quality, water quality, lifespan, infant mortality, infectious disease rates, and endangered species.
Political action, research, technology, and regulation have resulted in increases in environmental quality. Democracy is good for environmental and public health.
The Endangered Species Act was a success. Superfund is working. Population growth is slowing. Environmental health and democracy are linked, and democracy is increasing around the world. Occurrences of and deaths from cancer and AIDS are decreasing in the United States. Air quality is vastly improving, and emissions of toxic chemicals have decreased in the United States. Food and metal production are increasing worldwide.
There are still problems, like diseases and global warming, but there are positive signs with regards to global warming, like the increase in wind power and biofuels.
In the 1970s and '80s, there was a war between corporate America and the environmentalists. The environmentalists won, and now corporations create sustainability plans and take steps to help themselves and the environment. Healthy environments are good for free enterprise.
Nick Eberstadt
AEI
Environmental quality is in many ways improving. However, there is a difference between what is happening in the United States and what is happening in the rest of the world. Affluent, educated, and open societies like the United States are better equipped to deal with big problems.
There have been improvements in nutrition, although use of biofuels might erode these as affluent consumers compete for land resources to use for fuel production. Also, infectious diseases remain a threat to human health, particularly diseases that jump from animals to humans. Finally, global warming is a very big question, and one that will require more research.
Population science is not good at making accurate long-term predictions. Demographers would say now that population may peak in the next hundred years, if trends continue. However, this is dependent on certain assumptions about human behavior that may not be accurate.
AEI research assistant Abigail Haddad prepared this summary.
