WSJ Profiles Lomborg: SWNID Topoi Everywhere

Mimicking the Observer, doubtless because SWNID drew attention to the article, Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal today profiles environmental contrarian Bjorn Lomborg. A trio of pull quotes will reveal why the more we hear about this guy, the more we're intrigued.

First, on why the left is a spent political force and what it needs to become a powerful force again:

Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist by training, but the charismatic, golden-haired Dane is offering me a history lesson. Two hundred years ago, he explains, sitting forward in his chair in this newspaper's Manhattan offices, the left was an "incredibly rational movement." It believed in "encyclopedias," in hard facts, and in the idea that mastery of these basics would help "make a better society." Since then, the world's do-gooders have succumbed to "romanticism; they've become more dreamy." This is a problem in his view, and so this "self-avowed slight lefty" is determined to nudge the whole world back toward "rationalism."

Second, a summary of his earlier work:

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.

Which brings us to the present, where he insists on rational prioritization of global actions to address human problems that can be addressed by the global body politic:

If you have a rational list that tells you that you do a lot more good preventing HIV/AIDS, then those in favor of such projects have slightly better arguments. Those arguing for climate change have slightly worse arguments." And while this may not change the world, it could be a start. "The Consensus isn't about getting it perfectly right," says Mr. Lomborg. "It's about getting it slightly less wrong."

Yes, getting things slightly less wrong. Seldom Wrong--a noble and perhaps attainable goal, at least some of the time.