an analysis of a brownlash report

oitisolu

1. Introduction

commit itself to the establishment of social institutions that

calities (169) and argues that ecological economics should

In this paper we identify a widespread and influential

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i rec t . com

m/promote the goal of strong sustainability. To make a differ-ence, ecological economics must identify the major institu-tional obstacles to the achievement of this goal, challenge theagents that benefit from and support existing, unsustainablesocial structures, and offer theoretical support to those social

political obstacle to the achievement of strong sustainabilityand offer a critical analysis of a representative example of it.The problem we focus on is brownlash interventions in publicdiscourse. Addressing the ecological crisis depends on therebeing public consensus as to its scope and sufficient publicVarious writers in ecological economics have called forecological economics to engage with political and socialproblems that impede the development of ecological sustain-ability. Gale (1998) argues that ecological economics must

take into account the influence of political ideologies.M'Gonigle (1999) argues that the challenge for ecologicaleconomics is far less a technical, policy one than it is one ofdeveloping a broad process of social transition and that this isa profoundly political and social task (24).forces constructing sustainable alternative(1999) observes that [g]etting closerecologically sustainable society cannot be

An earlier version of this paper was pSaskatchewan, August 1999. Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0921-8009/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevidoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.005Keywords:BrownlashDiscourseEcological trendsEnvironmental indicatorsMedia representationPublic perceptionsAddressing the ecological crisis depends on there being a public consensus as to its severityand sufficient public concern to motivate political action. A significant influence on publicrepresentations of ecological issues is what has been termed the brownlash, which works tominimize the seriousness of ecological problems and to fuel a backlash againstenvironmental regulations. In this paper, we provide a critical analysis of a representativeexample of brownlash writing. The selected report has been published in several editionsand has received favourable notice in mainstream media. We assess the means by whichthis report arrives at its conclusions, including the report's narrow scope and variousproblematic omissions. We then assess the report's analysis of its 10 selected indicators andidentify the various means by which it downplays ecological problems. We conclude bysuggesting that brownlash interventions in public discourse are a problem that shouldconcern and engage ecological economists.

2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Article history:Received 3 January 2003Received in revised form15 March 2006Accepted 22 April 2006Available online 30 August 2006A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C TANALYSIS

An analysis of a brownlash rep

Hilda McKenziea,, William E. Reesb

aResource Management and Environmental Studies, University of BrbSchool of Community and Regional Planning, University of British C

www.e l sev i e r. cos (132). Sderbaumto a socially andreduced to techni-

resented at the confere

c.ca (H. McKenzie).

er B.V. All rights reservedrt

h Columbia, Canadambia, Canada

l oca te /eco l econconcern to motivate political action. In order for there to bepublic support for policy initiatives to address ecologicalproblems, there must be widespread understanding of the

nce of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics, Regina,

.

tions are unfounded, that the relevant facts indicate overall

M I Cseverity of such problems, and thus the way ecologicalproblems are represented in public discourse is crucial. Despitescientific consensus on the seriousness of problems such asclimate change and biodiversity loss, such issues are stillregularly contested in mainstream media. A significantinfluence on media representations of ecological issues iswhat has been termed the brownlash, which works tominimize the seriousness of ecological problems and to fuela backlash against environmental regulations (Ehrlich andEhrlich, 1996). Brownlash publications claim that ecologicalproblems are overblown and that economic growthwill propelthe world to new levels of prosperity with little or no risk toecological systems; such publications have successfully soweddoubt among journalists, policy makers, and the public aboutthe existence and importance of ecological problems (Ehrlichand Ehrlich, 1996). Over the past three decades, public pressurehas forced the development of protectivemeasures on variousscales; the environmental gains of that period are a directresult of successful efforts to inform and shape public opinion.Currently, such gains are being attacked, and often negated, bygovernments with opposing priorities. Brownlash interven-tions in public discourse obstruct efforts to confront theecological crisis and provide justification for dismantlingenvironmental protection measures.

A prolific and frequently cited source of brownlash pub-lications is the Fraser Institute, a Canadian right-wing thinktank. In recent years, in April (to coincide with Earth Day), theFraser Institute has published a series of EnvironmentalIndicators reports. The first two editions, published in 1997and 1998, were titled Environmental Indicators for Canada and theUnited States. The third and fourth editions added data onMexico and Britain (Hayward and Jones, 1999) and South Korea(Jones et al., 2000), while leaving the earlier editions' discus-sions of Canada and the United Statesand overall argumentsagainst environmental regulationsessentially unchanged.The fifth and sixth editions, also largely unchanged, appearedin 2002 (Jones et al., 2002) and 2004 (Brown et al., 2004). Thereport has been commended in mainstream media forproviding Good news about the environment (Nankivell,1998) and for go[ing] against the trend of finding environ-mental gloom under every rock (Sullivan, 2000). Consideringthe attention accorded to the report's conclusions, we thoughtit would be worth determining what those conclusions arebased on. This paper assesses the means by which the reportarrives at its conclusions. Page references are to the secondedition (Hayward and Jones, 1998).

Why does the report reach the conclusions it does? Giventhat the Fraser Institute, as its publications' inside front coverssay, has as its objective the redirection of public attention tothe role of competitive markets in providing for the well-beingof Canadians, it is not surprising that its publications arguefor economic expansion and against regulation. The Environ-mental Indicators report is explicit about its intended role in thepolicy process. It stresses the importance of public perceptionsin influencing policy decisions, arguing that incorrect publicperceptions about environmental trends can have importantconsequences for policy since, not only do they causeanxieties that may be unwarranted by facts or out of

506 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N Oproportion to the true risks involved, but they can also leadto skewed policy priorities (Hayward and Jones, 1998, 5).improvement in (North American) environmental quality,that risks are low, and that further regulations are thereforeunnecessary. The report finds that, contrary to publicopinion, in most instances objectives for protecting humanhealth and the environment are being met, pollution andwastes are being controlled, and resources and land are beingsustainably and effectively managed (6). Even as polls showthat people think the environment is getting worse, by mostmeasures environmental quality has dramatically improvedover the last generation and is continuing to improve (4). Inshort, the report asserts that public opinion is not in harmonywith the general facts (4) and that environmental concern ismisguided, caused partly by a lack of good, clear measures ofenvironmental quality and progress that could functionanalogously to economic indicators (5).

There are, of course, many signs that the load of the globalhuman economy on the ecosphere is causing increasing stress(Lubchenco, 1998; Vitousek et al., 1997; WWF, 2004). Atmo-spheric carbon dioxide has increased by 30% in the industrialera and is now higher than at any time in at least the past160,000 years. Mean global temperature is at a record post-glacial high, the climate is increasingly variable, and extremeweather events are occurring more frequently. Land clearingand conversion to accommodate human demand has shrunkthe planet's forests by half and is now proceeding at over130,000 km2/year; similarly, development claimed half thewetlands in the twentieth century. Half the planet's landmasshas been altered for human purposes and more than half theaccessible fresh water is being used by humans. As a result ofthe vast scale of habitat destruction, the extinction rate is nowa thousand times the background rate. As Brown points out,the key environmental indicators are increasingly negative:Forests are shrinking, water tables are falling, soils areeroding, wetlands are disappearing, fisheries are collapsing,rangelands are deteriorating, rivers are running dry, tempera-tures are rising, coral reefs are dying, and plant and animalspecies are disappearing. The global economy as nowstructured cannot continue to expand much longer if theecosystem onwhich it depends continues to deteriorate at thecurrent rate (Brown, 1998, 4). If the ecological economics viewof the economy as a growing subsystemwithin a finite systemis accurate, then such trendsmany of which have directeffects in the countries that are the focus of the EnvironmentalIndicators reportindicate indisputably the necessity of de-creasing the damage the human economy is inflicting on theecosphere. The question for this paper is, how does theEnvironmental Indicators report reach conclusions that divergeso markedly from the growing consensus on the seriousnessof ecological problems?

2. Significant omissions

Determinant influences on the Environmental Indicators report'sAnxieties, facts, risks, and policy priorities, and the connec-tions between them, are recurrent topics. Specifically, thereport claims to show that anxieties about ecological condi-

S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5conclusions include the report's narrow scope and variousproblematic omissions.

M I CFirst, the report is biased from the outset by its anomalousselection and weighting of indicators. The report explicitlydefines global problems as beyond its scope of analysis. Itjustifies its omission of what it refers to as global controver-sies on grounds that it is designed to give the reader anoverview of national environmental quality in Canada and theUnited States: the goal of this study is to provide a bigpicture of general, nationwide environmental trends in bothcountries. It does not attempt to develop indicators for globalcontroversies such as tropical rainforest deforestation, cli-mate change, and biodiversity (Hayward and Jones, 1998, 6).For comparison, the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development's OECD Environmental Data Compendium 1999provides data on emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases (OECD, 1999, 503), and the first indicatorin the OECD's set of 10 key environmental indicators isClimate change CO2 emission intensities (OECD, 2001).Similarly, the set of six indicators recommended by theCanadian National Round Table on the Environment and theEconomy includes greenhouse gas emissions (NRTEE, 2003).Insofar as the Environmental Indicators report does refer toclimate change and biodiversity lossarguably the mostsignificant indicators of the state of the ecosphereit doesso superficially and dismissively, in two sections, Carbondioxide emissions and Wildlife, that are among theindicators it defines as secondary. The report defines airquality, water quality, natural resource use, land use andcondition, and solid waste as primary indicators, because theyprovide direct information about environmental quality, andcarbon-dioxide emissions, oil spills, numbers of wildlifespecies, use of pesticide, and toxic releases as secondary,because they provide only indirect information about envi-ronmental quality (6) and because [i]n some cases, such ascarbon dioxide, it is unclear whether the indicator contributesto an environmental problem, such as global warming (46).The report's indicators thus foreground regional environmen-tal quality and omit, or relegate to secondary status, globalecological effects.

Abstracting North America from the rest of the world andthe ecosphere enables the report to focus on local and regionaltrends in isolation from and without making connections tolarger issues. The report does not acknowledge, for example,that wealthy industrialized countries including the UnitedStates and Canada are largely responsible for the energy andmaterial consumption that causes global ecological effects.The fact that global consumption now exceeds natural incomeis largely attributable to consumption by the richest quarter ofthe world's people, who account for 86% of private consump-tion. This gross inequity is highlighted by ecological footprintanalysis (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996; Rees, 1996, 2006). Inglobal average hectares, Canada and the US have per capitaeco-footprints of 6.4 ha and 9.5 ha respectively, compared toan average eco-footprint of half a hectare in the poorestcountries. Most significantly, the world average eco-footprintis 2.2 ha, while available ecological space per capita is 1.8 ha(MEA, 2005). These data show that the ecological footprint ofthe present world population/economy exceeds the totalproductive land and water area on Earth by as much as a

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N Othird. Thus, even present levels of consumption are unsus-tainable, since theyare achieved inpart through the liquidationof natural capitalfish stocks, productive soils, groundwater,petroleum, etc.and the over-flowing of waste sinks. Thereport's silence on the global ecological effects and implica-tions of rich countries' consumption enables a decontextua-lized and inaccurate portrayal of high consumption with nosignificant ecological effects.

Second, the report fails to compare improvements in theUS and Canadawith those in other high-income countries.Weacknowledge that in some areas improvements have beenmade. Looking at such improvements with no context forcomparison with the improvements made by comparablecountries, however, gives a misleading picture of Canada andthe US as having achieved a respectable degree of progress. Anassessment of Canada's environmental performance relativeto that of the other countries in the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development shows that Canada has one ofthe poorest environmental records of the industrializedcountries (Boyd, 2001, 1). The data show that [f]or thetwenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada'soverall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of29 (Boyd, 2001). The US's ranking is 29th (Boyd, 2001, 5). Evenin areas where progress has been madein reducing airpollution, for exampleCanada and the US tend to be near thebottom of the list. The Environmental Indicators report statesthat [a]ir quality in Canada and the United States shows theclearest trend of improvement among all environmentalcategories during the last two decades (7) and that emissionsof sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic com-pounds, and carbon monoxide have all decreased (914).However, in comparison with other OECD countries, Canadaand the US rank as follows: in per capita and total sulphurdioxide emissions, 27th and 26th respectively out of 28; in percapita and total nitrogen oxide emissions, 25th and 26th out of28; in per capita volatile organic compound emissions, 25thand 23rd out of 26; in total volatile organic compoundemissions, 25th and 26th out of 26; in per capita carbonmonoxide emissions, 26th and 25th out of 27; and in totalcarbon monoxide emissions, 25th and 26th out of 27 (Boyd,2001, 912; OECD, 1999, 19). In carbon dioxide emissions, whichthe Environmental Indicators report does not include in its Airquality section, Canada and the US rank 27th and 28th out of29 on per capita emissions and 25th and 29th out of 29 on totalemissions (Boyd, 2001, 13; OECD, 1999, 53). But despite theirlow rankings, are Canada and the US, as the EnvironmentalIndicators report claims, making impressive improvements?Not compared to most other OECD countries. While it is truethat Canada's and the US's domestic air quality is improving,most other OECD countries are achieving greater improve-ments. Since 1985, 16 of the 19 other countries for which trenddata are available have made larger reductions in sulphurdioxide emissions than Canada hasmade; since 1980, 11 out of19 other countries have made larger reductions in nitrogenoxide emissions; since 1980, 11 out of 15 other countries havemade larger reductions in volatile organic compound emis-sions; and since 1980, 13 out of 16 other countries have madelarger reductions in carbon monoxide emissions (Boyd, 2001,912). In improvements made on reducing these emissions,Canada thus ranks 17th out of 20, 12th out of 20, 12th out of 16,

507S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5and 14th out of 17. The US ranks 18th out of 20, 13th out of 20,5th out of 16, and 8th out of 17 (OECD, 1999, 2148).

Table 1 How the Environmental Indicators report downplays ecological problemsBlaming natural processes; claiming

that human-caused effects aresimilar to or are dwarfed by

natural processes

Exaggerating uncertainty Misframing scale of problems; limitingscope of solutions

Downplaying leg ate/majorconcerns, often ubstituting

invented/m r ones

Questioning need for regulation;obscuring role of regulation in bringing

about improvements

Airquality

Estimates of emissions do notinclude releases of the pollutant fromnatural sources (7). The primarysynthetic sources of these pollutantsare automobiles and industrialactivity such as smelting, mining,fossil fuel production, pulp and paperproduction, chemical production, andmanufacturing (7; emphasis added).

[T]here is not a simple or predictablecorrelation between emissions caused byhuman activities and ambient airquality (7).

The most cost-efficient way to continuereducing emissions may be to targetpoorly tuned, polluting vehicles for repairor replacement (13). (Does not considerthe possibility of decreasing automobileuse.) Does not discuss exporting ofpollution.

Acid rain in large eno concentrationscan cause the acidific n of lakes andstreams, accelerate th orrosion ofbuildings and monum ts, and impairvisibility (7). Acid ra as not damagedforests or crops in eit the US orCanada and has had bservable effecton human health (19

Refrains from questioning whetherregulatory objectives are stringentenough (8). Questions whetherimprovements are needed and whetherfurther regulations are called for (9).Obscures role of regulations in thechange to unleaded gasoline and lead-free paint (17).

Waterquality

Some bodies of water are of poorquality due to inherent chemical,physical, and biologicalcharacteristics (20). Heavy metalsoccur in water from the weathering ofrocks. They also reach the watersystem directly from industrial andmining activity (20).

Water quality is among thoseenvironmental problemsmost difficult toassess on a nationwide basis. The dataused in this section do not representcomplete ambient water-qualityinformation due to the lack of availabledata and the magnitude and complexityof measuring water quality. Thereappears to be an unfortunate trendoccurring in this age of fiscal restraint.Those in the field of data collection andanalysis have begun to feel a constantpressure to produce results that justifythe budgetary expense of theirdepartment. This, coupled withdwindling resources, has resulted in aconcentration upon crisis managementand site-specific studies are, thus, oftengiven priority over systematic andconsistent monitoring. Data analysisbecomes very difficult without a soliddatabase from monitoring stations (20).

Reported data on wat uality mayactually under-estim ater quality:states have a bureau tic incentive toassess those waters w re problems aremost likely to be foun he EPA itselfnotes that it is likely t unassessedwaters are not as pol d as assessedwaters (21).

Questions the cost-effectiveness of theover US$500 billion [spent] on waterpollution control since the enactmentof the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct (1972): Despite this expenditure,there is still no adequate nationaldatabase of water quality to evaluatethe results of such efforts" (20). Arguesthat because water quality hasimproved, no further improvement isnecessary, and that therefore no furtherregulations are called for: [O]ver thelast 20 years Canada and the UnitedStates have spent over $9 billion toclean up Lake Erie. These efforts haveimproved water quality (26); Despitethe improvements, however, theInternational Joint Commissionremains [unwarrantedly] pessimisticabout water quality in the Great Lakes.They recently recommended anextreme measure: a ban throughoutNorth America on the production ofproducts using chlorine chemicals (27).

Naturalresourceuse

[T]he [forest] area harvestednationally [in Canada] is minimal incomparison to the annual extent ofnatural disturbances (32).

Assumes that forests should be primarilyresources for human use and hencetreats total forest resources ascoextensive with total forests: only asmall portion of total forest resources areharvested each year. EnvironmentCanada reports that of the country's 418million hectares of forestland, 119million hectares are accessible andactively managed for timber production(31).

The fear that we sha n out of treesdates back more than entury in theUnited States (29). I e world wereclose to running out o ergy, as somebelieve, one would ex to see a declinein production and an ease in prices inrecent years. Instead, opposite istrue (35).

508ECOLOGICAL

ECON

OM

ICS

61

(2007)505515itimby sino

ughatioe cenin hherno o).

er qate wcrahed. Tthalute

ll rua cf thf enpectincrthe

Blaming natural processes; claimingthat human-caused effects aresimilar to or are dwarfed by

natural processes


Downplaying legitimat ajorconcerns, often by sub ting

invented/minor on


about improvements

Land useandcondition

Soil erosion is a natural process thatremoves topsoil. Most eroded soil ismerely moved from one field toanother. Soil is continuously beingcreated by natural processes (42).

Claims that agricultural growth inoutput far outweighs any threat tofarmlands posed by incremental urbanexpansion on farmlands (40). Definesurban sprawl mainly in relation tofarmland, not in relation to habitat forother species (3940). Does not discusscities' ecological footprint effects.

Claims about a crisis rban sprawlare exaggerated. Agricu al lands arenot in danger of being run by townsand cities. Wilderness s are not indanger of disappearing 0).

In the United States, 75 percent ofwetlands are on privately owned land.Regulations for the protection ofwetlandsare usually imposed withoutcompensation; this places a heavy burdenon the landowners and causescontroversy (39).

Solid waste Recycling is not possible for all products.For example, it is impossible at currentprices and with current technology torecycle burned out light bulbs (43).(Accepts the production ofnonrecyclables; does not consider thepossibility of requiring that alternativesbe developed.)

Solid waste has becom leadingenvironmental issue in ent years.Occasionally it is even d as a crisisbecause of the perceive ck of landfillspace (42). Re the fea at NorthAmerica is running out space forlandfills: this popular ief isunfounded: North Ame is not runningout of space for landfil 43).[C]ommunities worry ut odour, dust,litter, and scavenging a als that havebeen associatedwith la lls in the past(43). (Does not list leach as a concern.)From the report's intro tion: Twenty-five years ago, most en nmentalconcern centered on pr ms ofpollution and scarcity view that wewere fouling our own n and wouldquickly run out of natu resources.Today it is clear that an ties aboutscarcity were unfounde nd concernhas shifted to problem globalwarming and biodiver for which welack uncontested scien theory andobjective data (5).

Implies that no further improvementsare necessary: Both the US and Canadahave adopted ambitious solid-wastereduction targets and recyclingprograms. There is no shortage ofroom for landfills (45).

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued )

509ECOLOGICAL

ECON

OM

ICS

61

(2007)505515e/mstitues

of ulturoverarea (4

e arecbilled lar thofbelricals (abonimndfiateducviroobletheestralxied, as ofsity,tific

Table 1 (continued )Blaming natural processes; claiming

that human-caused effects aresimilar to or are dwarfed by

natural processes


Downplaying legitimate/majorconcerns, often by substituting

invented/minor ones


about improvements

Carbondioxideemissions

Carbon dioxide is a vital nutrient forplants. Oceans absorb and produceCO2 in great quantities through acomplex cycle, and store about 50times more carbon than does theatmosphere. The combustion of fossilfuels by humans also generates CO2(46).

Although some now claim that theincrease in CO2 levels in the atmospherewill cause a catastrophic warming, thereare many credible challenges to thistheory (47). It is clear that a great deal ofuncertainty surrounds the issue ofclimate change and many importantquestions remain unanswered. [W]ecannot afford to take action until we arereasonably certain that we have aproblem (48). CO2 is believed tocontribute to global warming but thetemperature record does not support thistheory. The sophisticated computerclimate models, upon which the globalwarming theory is partly based, havecome under heavy criticism (50).Canadian [d]ata are only available forthe 10-year period from 1976 to 1987(figure 44). Both the number of eventsand the volumes of oil spilled fluctuatewidely during this period (49). (Figure 44in fact shows a marked upward trend.)

The report's introduction defines climatechange as a global controversy beyondthe scope of the report: This document isdesigned to give the reader an overviewof national environmental quality inCanada and the United States. It doesnot attempt to develop indicators forglobal controversies such as tropicalrainforest deforestation, climate change,and biodiversity (6). A massiveeconomic downturn would be needed toreduce CO2 emissions radically (50).(Implies that this is unthinkable.)

Some argue that we must take drasticregulatory action to control greenhousegases without delay. However, becauseof the uncertainty and the unansweredquestions, this is a simplistic approachto policy. In fact, we cannot afford totake action until we are reasonablycertain that we have a problem (48).

Oil spills Since oil is a natural substanceproduced by the decomposition ofmicroorganisms, it degradesnaturally in the environment. Within48 hours of an accident, 40% of spilledoil evaporates. Bacteria and othermarine species break down andconsume over 90% of the remainingoil (50).

Fluctuation in number of spills and involume spilled can be attributedprimarily to differences in the numbersof vessels involved in collisions,groundings, and sinkings. It is also due tochanges in the number of accidentsoccurring when oil is being transferredfrom one vessel to another (49).(Obscures the fact that the volume spilledis increasing. Does not provide data onthe volume shipped.)

While oil spills are never desirable, andthe immediate damage can be alarming,in time nature will effectively deal withspilled oil (48).

In some cases, active cleanup [of oilspills] can actually cause more harmthan good (4849).

Pesticides [T]he risk from carcinogeniccompounds that occur naturally infood is much greater than the riskfrom pesticide residues (52).

[F]ears of greatly increased pesticide usehave not materialized (49).

Obscures role of regulations and impliesthat there is no need to improvestandards: Pesticides today aresubstantially changed from what theywere when first introduced. Research hasproduced pesticides that have a muchshorter half-life and are, therefore, lessdangerous to human and animal health(49). Although DDT and several othernotorious pesticides have beendiscontinued, pesticide use remains[unwarrantedly] controversial (49).

510ECOLOGICAL

ECON

OM

ICS

61

(2007)505515

Blaming natural processes; claimingthat human-caused effects aresimilar to or are dwarfed by

natural processes


Downplaying legitimate/majorconcerns, often by substituting

invented/minor ones


about improvements

Toxicreleases

The EPA's Toxic Release Inventory doesnot distinguish between releases thatpose environmental problems and thosethat do not (50). Further, the TRIdefinition of releases makes nodistinction between releases into theenvironment and instances where toxicwastes are disposed of in well containedenclosures. In light of these problemswith the data, the decline in releasesmaybe a positive sign of environmentalimprovement but the magnitude of thisimprovement is difficult tomeasure (53).[D]efinitions [of what constitutes anendangered species] within each countryhave changed over time and now includemore species (53). There is no standardby which to determine the threatshuman activity actually poses toecosystems. The rate of speciesextinction, the practice of relating speciesdecline to habitat destruction, and eventhe total number of species that exist areall hotly disputed issues in the scientificcommunity (54).

Wildlife Presents numbers of endangeredspecies as minuscule compared tooverall numbers of species (53).

The report's introduction definesbiodiversity as a global controversybeyond the scope of the report: Thisdocument is designed to give the readeran overview of national environmentalquality in Canada and the UnitedStates. It does not attempt to developindicators for global controversies suchas tropical rainforest deforestation,climate change, and biodiversity (6).

From the report's introduction: Twenty-five years ago, most environmentalconcern centered on problems ofpollution and scarcitythe view that wewere fouling our own nest and wouldquickly run out of natural resources.Today it is clear that anxieties aboutscarcity were unfounded, and concernhas shifted to problems of globalwarming and biodiversity, for which welack uncontested scientific theory andobjective data (5).

The [U.S.] public originally supported[the Endangered Species Act] on thegrounds that it would protect animalssuch as the bald eagle and the grizzlybear. Today, however,more than one-halfof the species listed are plants (53).[P]rivate landowners are being forced tobear almost the entire burden ofprotecting listed species and habitat. Inthe United States, critical habitat isheavily regulated without compensationfor the landowners, a practice that hasalready begun to erode political supportfor species and habitat protection (54).

Table 1 (continued )

511ECOLOGICAL

ECON

OM

ICS

61

(2007)505515

the solid waste entry in the index shows a worsening, not an

M I CThird, the report fails to identify the causes of the improve-ments it documents. One major factor here is increasedregulationwhich the report argues against at every turn.The report obscures the role of regulations in bringing aboutimprovements and, more generally, the role of governmentsin protecting the public interest against risks imposed by theprivate sector. For example, the Air quality section assertsthat [t]he decline in lead emissions and ambient leadconcentration is the greatest success story in the efforts toreduce air pollution (15) and that [m]ost of th[e] dramaticreduction [in lead emissions] was due to the introduction ofunleaded gasoline and the elimination of lead compounds inpaints and coatings (17); this statement omits the fact thatthe introduction of unleaded gasoline, here presented as aconsumer choice provided by industry, and the eliminationof lead compounds in paint, unattributed to any agent, wereachieved through regulations implemented despite strongresistance from the industries concerned.

A second major cause of domestic environmental qualityimprovements within Canada and the US is the off-loading ofpolluting industrial activity to other parts of the world. Thereport's limiting of its analysis to selected indicators withinthe borders of the countries it studies allows it implicitly toendorse the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesistheidea that the strong correlation between incomes and theextent to which environmental protection measures areadopted demonstrates that, in the longer run, the surestway to improve your environment is to become rich (Becker-man, 1992, 491). As critical examinations of the EKC hypoth-esis have shown, some indicatorsfor example, access toclean water, urban sanitation, and urban air qualitydo showimprovement with increased income, but other indicatorsincluding carbon dioxide emissionscontinue to worsen asincomes rise (Rothman, 1998). Most indicators that improvewith economic growth have local impacts and low abatementcosts (Rothman, 1998). It is these sorts of environmentalconditions that the report focuses on in claiming that generalimprovement is occurring. Ecological effects that are distantin space and/or time, however, tend to continue to worsen asincomes rise (Rothman, 1998). Inter-regional trade's delinkingof local consumption from its global effects obscures people'sperceptions of their obligate dependence on, and contribu-tions to the dismantling of, the biosphere (Rees, 1990), anddemand by the citizens of a wealthy country for environ-mental quality does not lead to a shift to a cleaner productionprocess within that country but rather to a movement of theindustrial production process to a location outside thecountry (Rothman, 1998). To the extent that the EKChypothesis implies that wealthy individuals and countriesimpose a lighter load on the ecosphere than poor people andcountries, it is fatally flawed. In a globalizing economy,improved local environmental quality by no means impliesthat local residents' ecological footprints have becomesmaller. For example, decreased emissions, particularly ineastern North America, of industrial pollutants such assulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds,and carbon monoxide, are due in large part to the relocationof offending industries. In short, decontextualized measure-

512 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N Oments of improvements in local environmental quality as thedomestic economy matures (in conformity with the EKCimproving, trend. In sum, the index shows improvement inonly 3 categories out of the report's chosen 10. The index doesshow overall improvement across the four categories whenthe four are combined into an average: the report states that[o]n average, overall environmental problems in the UnitedStates in these categories were 19.2% less severe in 1995 thanin 1980, and 13% less severe in Canada (56). The 2002 editiongives these figures as 19% and 17%: overall environmentalproblems in Canada in these categories were 17% less severein 1999 than in 1980. The United States showed a decrease of19% between 1980 and 1995 (Jones et al., 2002, 109). (The 2004edition does not include an index.) Given the methodologicaldistortions behind the construction of the index, the precisionof the index's final figures can be seen as an instance of whatHoldren (1982) terms crackpot rigour.

3. The report's 10 indicators

3.1. Recurring strategies

The report's analysis of its 10 selected indicators is consis-tently biased. In every case it downplays the problem underdiscussion through one or more of the following means:minimizing human-caused effects in comparison to effectscaused by natural processes; exaggerating uncertainty; mis-framing the scale of problems by obscuring their extent;downplaying major concerns; and obscuring the role ofregulations in bringing about improvements and denying theneed for further regulations. Table 1 shows the occurrence ofthese strategies in the 10 sections of the report. Consider thefollowing examples.

Minimizing human-caused effects by blaming natural processesor by presenting human-caused effects as indistinguishable from ordwarfed by natural processes. The Land use and conditionsection says that soil erosion is a natural process thatremoves topsoil. Most eroded soil is merely moved from onehypothesis) obscure the fact that the world as a whole isactually worse off when dirty industries relocate to countrieswhere regulations are less stringent or less stringentlyenforced and environmental impact per unit of productionis therefore more severe.

Fourth, the index that presents the report's overall conclu-sions contains further omissions and distortions. The indica-tors defined as secondary are left out entirely. The report'sintroduction claims that [i]n the final section of the report,the trend in environmental performance for the primaryenvironmental indicators is compiled into an index. The indexshows considerable improvement in the environmentalperformance of both Canada and the United States (6). Infact, however, the index covers only four of the five indicatorsthat the report defines as primary: air quality, water quality,natural resource use, and solid waste. The report asserts that[t]he trend in each country is clear: relative to the situation in1980, environmental pollution is declining in severity in the[se] categories (56). Even this statement is not supported bythe index itself, if the categories are looked at separately, since

S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5field to another. Soil is continuously being created by naturalprocesses (42).

M I CExaggerating uncertainty and misrepresenting the state ofscientific consensus. The Wildlife section says [t]here is nostandard by which to determine the threats human activityactually poses to ecosystems. The rate of species extinction,the practice of relating species decline to habitat destruction,and even the total number of species that exist are all hotlydisputed issues in the scientific community (54).

Misframing the scale of problems by obscuring their extent andhence limiting the scope of solutions. The Air quality sectionsays [t]he most cost-efficient way to continue reducing[automobile] emissions may be to target poorly tuned,polluting vehicles for repair or replacement (13). The reportdoes not consider the possibility of reducing automobile use(and also seems to imply that only poorly tuned vehiclespollute).

Downplaying legitimate and major concerns, often by substitut-ing invented or minor ones. Some sections simply assert thatwidely held concerns are unfounded. Some refer to imaginedfears, while leaving actual concerns unaddressed. Someridicule supposed fears that we are running out of trees, orenergy, or space for landfills. For example, the Naturalresource use section says [t]he fear that we shall run out oftrees dates backmore than a century in the United States (29)and [i]f the world were running out of energy, as somebelieve, one would expect to see a decline in production andan increase in prices in recent years (35). The Wildlifesection, which presents numbers of endangered species asminuscule in comparison to overall numbers of species (53),stops just short of asserting that we are not running out ofother species.

In dismissing physical scarcity as a non-issue, the reportfails to address the fact that we as a species have exceededthe planet's carrying capacity and are in a state ofovershoot. The report also errs in its confidence in marketprice as an indicator of ecological scarcity. For example, 70%of fish stocks are in jeopardy, but supplies (and to a lesserextent, prices) are being maintained, partly because com-mercial fisheries are fishing down the food web, shiftingsequentially to species at lower trophic levels as superiorhigher-value stocks are decimated (Pauly et al., 1998).Similarly, the market price for petroleum, which at bestreflects short-term market supply, was quite recently nearits lowest in real terms since the 1970s, despite the fact thatdiscoveries of recoverable reserves have increasingly laggedbehind consumption since 1980; reserves are being depleted,and global oil production is thought to be peaking withinthe current decade (Bartlett, 2000; Campbell, 2006; Laherrere,2006). While market price does affect drilling effort, there isno corresponding relation between price and discovery rate.In recent years, discovery has averaged about 6 billionbarrels of oil annually, compared to consumption of 28 to 30billion barrrels. In sum, as Daly points out, production ofcaught fish is currently limited by remaining fish popula-tions, not by number of fishing boats; timber production islimited by remaining forests, not by sawmills; barrels ofpumped crude oil is limited by petroleum deposits (orperhaps more stringently by the capacity of the atmosphereto absorb CO2), not by pumping capacity; and agricultural

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N Oproduction is frequently limited by water availability, not bytractors, harvesters, or even land area. We have movedfrom a world relatively full of natural capital and empty ofman-made capital (and people) to a world relatively full ofthe latter and empty of the former (Daly, 1994, 28).

Obscuring both the role of regulation in bringing about improve-ments and the need to improve standards further.Where the reportmakes reference to existing regulations, it ignores critiques ofregulations' adequacy and implies that current regulations aresufficiently (if not excessively) stringent. For example, the Airquality section asserts that [t]he United States has metannual good' objectives [for sulphur dioxide levels] since 1981;Canada has met annual good' objectives since 1978 (8),without providing any contextual discussion or assessment ofthe adequacy of current standards.

3.2. The strategies in combination

All five obfuscating strategies come into play in the report'sCarbon dioxide emissions section. The report states thatcarbon dioxide emissions correlate with GDP (46): [i]ndus-trialized economies produce great amounts of carbon dioxide.A massive economic downturn would be needed to reducecarbon dioxide emissions radically (50). The pro-growthorientation of the report determines that the report does notconsider questions of appropriate scale or biophysical limits.Moreover, since according to this worldview we are notrunning out of anything, the report does not consider thefeasibility of technological efficiency gains, of producing morewith less.

Because it rules out carbon dioxide emissions reductions,the report must delink carbon dioxide emissions from climatechange in order to advance arguments against policies tocontrol emissions. It therefore questions both the existence ofclimate change and whether carbon dioxide emissionscontribute to it. The report stresses that carbon dioxide is anaturally present substance and presents human-causedemissions as dwarfed by natural levels (46). It stressesscientific uncertainty and misrepresents the state of scientificconsensus: Although some now claim that the increase inCO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause a catastrophicwarming, there are many credible challenges to this theory(47). It raises four questionsincluding the question Wouldglobal warming cause widespread problems? (48)andasserts that because these questions have not been answered,no action should be taken:

It is clear that a great deal of uncertainty surrounds theissue of climate change and many important questionsremain unanswered. Are we experiencing a trend towardsglobal warming? Do humans contribute to the trendthrough the emission of greenhouse gases? How signifi-cant is the human contribution? Would global warmingcause widespread problems? Some argue that we musttake drastic regulatory action to control greenhouse gaseswithout delay. However, because of the uncertainty andthe unanswered questions, this is a simplistic approach topolicy. In fact, we cannot afford to take action until we arereasonably certain that we have a problem. (48)

513S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5Leaving aside the question of whether warming shouldbe presented as the most important aspect of climate change,

polluting industrial activity to other parts of the world) that

Are brownlash interventions in public discourse a problem

M I Cwould undermine its own premises and ideological objectives;including only 4 of its 10 indicators in its summary indexshowing improving environmental quality; minimizinghuman-induced effects in comparison to the alleged effectsof natural processes; exaggerating uncertainty and misrepre-senting the degree of scientific consensus on key issues;misframing the scale of problems; dismissing major concerns;and providing no critical assessment of the adequacy ofcurrent regulatory standards. Despite all these flaws, thereport's good news conclusions are reported on in main-stream media as if based on sound analysis.

This last point is the crux of the matter. As we noted at theoutset, the Environmental Indicators report states that incorrectpublic perceptions about environmental trends can haveimportant consequences for policy and can also lead toskewed policy priorities (Hayward and Jones, 1998, 5). Weagree that incorrect public perceptions can have importantconsequences for policy. Brownlash publications such as theEnvironmental Indicators report, reported on in mainstreamit is clear that the report's claim that there is uncertaintywithin the scientific community about the link between CO2and global warming (47) is simply false. As Ehrlich notes, theremaining uncertainties concerning climate change pertainto the scale of its long-term effects and to the possibleeffects of particular measures to slow it. He points out that[i]n considering any strategies for dealing with uncertainty,one must be careful to analyze the risks of both action andinaction. Generally, with respect to major environmentalproblems, the latter risks are far greater since deleteriousenvironmental effectsare often irreversible on time scales ofinterest (Ehrlich, 1994, 50). Ehrlich further observes thatmany would keep dumping greenhouse gases into theatmosphere until the last glimmer of uncertainty about theresults can be removed (489). That is exactly what theEnvironmental Indicators report advocates; the Carbon dioxideemissions section provides a textbook example of uncertaintyused as justification for inaction.

4. Summary and conclusions

The Environmental Indicators report claims that in Canada andthe US, in most instances objectives for protecting humanhealth and the environment are being met, pollution andwastes are being controlled, and resources and land are beingsustainably and effectively managed (6). However, the reportprovides scant evidence to support its claims. It arrives at itsconclusions by the following means: confining its attention toselected domestic indicators; excluding climate change andbiodiversity loss from its list of primary indicators; ignoringthe distant ecological effects of consumption in the countriesit studies and the expansion of the eco-footprints of thesecountries into available ecological space all over the planet;avoiding comparing the performance of the countries itstudies with the superior performance of other countries;ignoring the reasons for the improvements it does document,reasons (government regulations and the movement of

514 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N Omedia, are a significant source of incorrect public perceptions.Scientists tend to be reluctant to engage in what they see asthat should concern ecological economists? Daly, in review-ing Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource, remarks that [l]ots ofbad books are written, and the best thing usually is to ignorethem. He says that he would have preferred to ignoreSimon's book, except that it was likely to be hailed as atriumph by peoplestarved for optimism. Daly urges thatwe abandon the shallow, contrived optimism of growthma-nia. The end of growthmania is no cause for despair; it is ahopeful new beginning (Daly, 1991, 268). Within ecologicaleconomics, it is well known that realistic hope does not lie inputting a favourable spin on current ecological trends butrather in reversing those trends and decreasing our destruc-tive effects on the ecosphere. In broader public discourse,however, publications that promote contrived optimism arewidely given an uncritically favourable reception. Althoughwe might prefer to ignore such publications, perhaps we needto take on the task of contesting them.

R E F E R E N C E S

Andersen, M.S., 2001. Introduction to the debate. Some Repliesfrom Danish Scientists to a Contrarian. http://www.au.dk/~cesamat/debate.html.

Bartlett, A.A., 2000. An analysis of U.S. and world oil productionpatterns using Hubbert-style curves. Mathematical Geology 32,117.

Beckerman, W., 1992. Economic growth and the environment:whose growth? whose environment? World Development 20,481496.

Boyd, D.R., 2001. Canada vs. the OECD: An EnvironmentalComparison. Eco-Research Chair of Environmental Law andPolicy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Brown, L.R. 1998. The future of growth. In: State of theWorld 1998.Worldwatch Institute. New York: Norton, pp. 320.

Brown, J.S., Green, K., Hansen, S., Fredricksen, L., 2004. Environ-mental Indicators, 6th ed. Fraser Institute, Vancouver.

Campbell, C.C., 2006. Regular conventional oil to 2100 andresource-based production forecast. Available at: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/.value-ladenpublic debate,while brownlash authors display nosuch reticence. Moreover, scientists who submit critiques andrebuttals of brownlash claims often encounter difficultygetting them publishedas was the case when, at the timethe first edition of Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalistwaspublished, the Danish newspaper Politiken published fourarticles by Lomborg: a number of scientists and researcherswrote letters and newspaper articles countering Lomborg'sclaims, but it proved difficult to have them accepted forpublication in Politiken, as the editor found them too complexand convoluted for the paper's readers (Andersen, 2001).When newspapers do publish scientific rebuttals, balancedreporting commonly means the duelling scientists model, inwhich a brownlash authority is accorded the same space andweight as a serious scientific source. The result is that issuessuch as whether there is a significant anthropogenic compo-nent to climate change are debated and kept in question inpublic discourse long after scientific consensus has beenreached.

S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 5Daly, H.E., 1991. Review of The Ultimate Resource, Steady-StateEconomics, 2nd ed. Island, Washington, DC, pp. 262269.

Daly, H.E., 1994. Operationalizing sustainable development byinvesting in natural capital. In: Jansson, A., Hammer, M.,Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: TheEcological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island,Washington, DC, pp. 2237.

Ehrlich, P.R., 1994. Ecological economics and the carrying capacityof earth. In: Jansson, A., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R.(Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological EconomicsApproach to Sustainability. Island, Washington, DC, pp. 3856.

Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., 1996. Betrayal of Science and Reason:How Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future.Island, Washington, DC.

Gale, F.P., 1998. Theorizing power in ecological economics.Ecological Economics 27, 131138.

Hayward, S., Jones, L., 1998. Environmental Indicators for Canadaand the United States, 2nd ed. Fraser Institute and PacificResearch Institute for Public Policy, Vancouver.

Hayward, S., Jones, L., 1999. Environmental Indicators for NorthAmerica and the United Kingdom, 3rd ed. Fraser Institute,Vancouver.

Holdren, J.P., 1982. Energy risks: what to measure, what tocompare. Technology Review 3238 (April).

Jones, L., Griggs, L., Fredricksen, L., 2000. Environmental Indica-tors, 4th ed. Fraser Institute, Vancouver.

Jones, L., Fredricksen, L., Wates, T., 2002. Environmental Indica-tors, 5th ed. Fraser Institute, Vancouver.

Laherrere, J., 2006. When will oil production decline significantly?

Nankivell, N., 1998. Good news about the environment. FinancialPost 19 (21 April).

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,2003. Environment and sustainable development indicatorsfor Canada. www.nrtee-trnee.ca/Publications/ HTML/Report_Indicators_E.htm.

OECD, 1999. OECD Environmental Data Compendium 1999.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,Paris.

OECD, 2001. Key Environmental Indicators. Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres Jr., F.C.,1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860863.

Rees, W.E., 1990. The ecology of sustainable development. TheEcologist 20.1, 1823.

Rees, W.E., 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indica-tors of sustainability. Population and Environment 17, 195216.

Rees, W.E., 2006. Ecological footprints and bio-capacity: essentialelements in sustainability assessment. In: Dewulf, J., VanLangenhove, H. (Eds.), Renewables-Based Technology: Sus-tainability Assessment. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Rothman, D.S., 1998. Environmental Kuznets curvesreal prog-ress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-basedapproaches. Ecological Economics 25, 177194.

Sderbaum, P., 1999. Values, ideology and politics in ecologicaleconomics. Ecological Economics 28, 161170.

Sullivan, P., 2000. So where are those frogs? Globe and Mail A13(19 April).

Vitousek, P., Mooney, H., Lubchenco, J., Melillo, J., 1997. Humandomination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277, 494499.

515E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) 5 0 5 5 1 52006. Vienna, Austria, 3 April. Available at: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/EGUVienna2006.pdf.

Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: anew social contract for science. Science 297, 491497.

MEA, 2005. Living beyond our means: natural assets and humanwell-being. Statement from the Board. Millenium EcosystemAssessment. Available at: http://www.maweb.org//en/Products.BoardStatement.aspx.

M'Gonigle, M., 1999. Ecological economics and political ecology:towards a necessary synthesis. Ecological Economics 28, 1126.Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint:Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society, GabriolaIsland, BC.

WWF, 2004. Living Planet Report 2004. Worldwide Fund for NatureInternational. Gland, Switzerland.Presented to the EuropeanGeosciencesUnionGeneral Assembly

An analysis of a brownlash reportIntroductionSignificant omissionsThe report's 10 indicatorsRecurring strategiesThe strategies in combination

Summary and conclusionsReferences

an analysis of a brownlash report

Documents