5. How "Policy By Panic" Can Backfire for Environmentalists

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/08/lomborg_paul_krugman_is_wrong_to_say_that_climate_change_causes_extreme_weather_.html

On August 17th, Bjørn Lomborg wrote about how many people focus on the small problems in our world’s climate and make a big deal out of them without looking at the larger picture, and that this “leads to public distrust and disengagement.” He starts his essay by giving an example of this happening today, saying how health writers and respected institutions (such as Gatorade and the British National Health Service) imply that people should drink water even when they are not thirsty, but there is no scientific evidence of this, according to Heinz Valtin, and this recommendation may be harmful. Lomborg says how the media do this exaggeration to attract more readers and he gives another example to support his point using an article about the droughts in America. The author of this article claims that these droughts are the direct result of global warming and that they could cause a global food crisis. To show how this author is exaggerating, Lomborg provides plenty of evidence against this affirmation. He still gives examples of writers stretching the truth, and this time about wild fires and hurricanes. Lomborg ends by saying that these exaggerations, when proved wrong, make the people turn away from the issue and not care about the larger, real problem. He agrees that global warming is indeed something to worry about and that “there are real health problems—and many of them. But focusing on the wrong ones—like drinking a lot of water—diverts our attention from more important issues. Telling tall tales may benefit those with a stake in the telling [the media], but it leaves us all worse off.”

The purpose of the author in writing this article was to inform his readers to be aware of the way some people stretch the truth and that by doing that, their public becomes disinterested in the issue they talk about. He wants his readers to know that some things that seem important aren’t and that we should look at the problem with a broader view to confront it in a better way. Lomborg uses clear transition words such as “when”, “now”, “but”, “and”, “finally” to indicate a change of subject. He uses many examples and evidence against them, providing their sources as well, to support his view. He has a strong conclusion, returning to the initial subject and summarizing his ideas well, which make the essay’s message easy to grasp.