Public policy is fraught with competing interests and goals. I believe
that Lomborg has introduced a useful alternative point of view into the
dialogue.
I think public policy discussions by lay people, including myself, suffer
from a number of critical short comings.
1. Sole source of information
It is very tempting to read some information that is agreeable to one's point
of view and simply adopt it wholesale. I don't care what the source is,
Greenpeace to the Cato Institute to the UN, any single point of view is
insufficient if one is truly committed to being informed and understanding
the issues.
2. Shortage of critical thought
Related to sole sourcing one's information, is the tendency to avoid serious
thought on the issues. Nothing in these areas is simple. Take for example
the debate over the relative polluting effects of diesel and petrol. If one
simply examines the vehicular emissions it's easy - burn petrol. If on the
other hand you look at the whole system, from refining to consumption, the
answer is much murkier. And if you really want to get a head ache add in
engine lifetimes and raw materials usage in the construction of diesel and
petrol burning engines.
3. Criteria for judgment
Once you have gathered information and thought it over. How do you judge
the best solution. The answer is highly subjective - environmental
quality, economic growth, quality of life or some complex calculus
combining all of the above. One thing that Lomborg brought to my
attention was the concept of 'The Cost of Saving One Year of One Persons
Life'. By the way, it seems to have been a concept originate in the
journal
Risk Analysis. Regardless of the source, it is a very
interesting guide in assisting in making choices about environmental
policy. In fact, it makes a very compelling case for potable water
being the best use of public funds, which was certainly contrary to my
'conventional wisdom' on the matter.
On a related note, much of the criticism of the Lomborg opinions are
insulting. There is an implied message that we are too stupid to be
able to process information, apply critical thought and arrive at a sound
point of view.
If we are to be effective grass roots voices on public policy we must do our
homework and think seriously about the issues rather than simply repeat a
point of view espoused by some organization or person on a particular mission.
Final thought: if you care about an issue, get educated on all points of
view and then make up you own mind.
Hopefully this point of view stirs at least one synapse to fire.
Slashdot Mirror
Public policy is fraught with competing interests and goals. I believe that Lomborg has introduced a useful alternative point of view into the dialogue.
I think public policy discussions by lay people, including myself, suffer from a number of critical short comings.
1. Sole source of information
2. Shortage of critical thought
3. Criteria for judgment
On a related note, much of the criticism of the Lomborg opinions are insulting. There is an implied message that we are too stupid to be able to process information, apply critical thought and arrive at a sound point of view.
If we are to be effective grass roots voices on public policy we must do our homework and think seriously about the issues rather than simply repeat a point of view espoused by some organization or person on a particular mission.
Final thought: if you care about an issue, get educated on all points of view and then make up you own mind.
Hopefully this point of view stirs at least one synapse to fire.
el_rocinante