Monday, July 17, 2017

The Skeptical Environmentalist

In my opinion, the most compelling viewpoint is delivered by the Worldwatch Institute. Hence, the ideas from Bjorn Lomborg are interesting since he supported his arguments with over 2500 footprints and more than 400 articles which in some points, it is considered logic. Although Lomborg tries to use data and interpret it as convincing as he can, his article “Earth Hour is Bad for the Poor” contradicts with my personal point of view. In his article, he stated that switching off the light for an hour ignores the poorest. We all know that electricity might not available for all people, especially for whom living in rural areas or people who are considered poor. This happens due to the bad infrastructure in certain areas, nothing to do with earth hour celebration. Limiting the use of electricity, although an hour, can reduce the use of energy and save the fossil energy. If we want to make electricity available for all people, the infrastructure should be good.
In the other hand, the Worldwatch Institute’s viewpoint is in line with my perspective. Currently, many farms are shifted to housing area, losing some of green areas as well as the job of farmers. The issue in Sumatera, Indonesia, related to the forest fires has distracted the ecosystem stability in the forest, the animals were dead and losing their homes, and the plants were gone. Not only that, the mining industry has received some critics related to low wage, longer working hours, and exploit the environment. These phenomena are real and even happening in my hometown. Therefore, as stated in the Worldwatch Institute, without taking green actions, the healthiness of people and ecosystems will become a question and no one can guarantee the sustainability of it.
Lomborg, B. (2017). Earth hour is bad for the poor. Retrieved from (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world. Retrieved from

No comments:

Post a Comment