In response to:

Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice

Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 3:41 PM
Thanks, q_r. Interesting history. As you know, I like Lomborg's cost-benefit methodology. It puts things into context instead of looking at them as absolutes. The main reason I agree with Prager today is that enviromental groups seem to look at things as absolutes, as good or evil. There are always gray areas and trade-offs to consider. If we could keep some of these discussions out of the political realm and allow a rational discussion to take place we could do the thing that would benfit people most while harming the environment least. Politics is what brings us things like ethanol, harming the environment while increasing the cost of food and fuel.

Last week, Bjorn Lomborg, the widely published Danish professor and director of one of the world's leading environmental think tanks, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, published an article about the Philippines' decision, after 12 years, to allow genetically modified (GM) rice -- "golden rice" -- to be grown and consumed in that country.

The reason for the delay was environmentalist opposition to GM rice; and the reason for the change in Philippine policy was that 4.4 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. That deficiency, Lomborg writes, "according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind...