Response to Steven Hayward

In his lecture “Is Sustainable Development Sustainable” Steven Hayward critiqued the modern environmental movement’s failure to consider important economic tradeoffs and the alarmist nature of environmental advocacy groups. Yet Hayward’s optimistic attitude toward environmental issues such as climate change, population growth, and the depletion of non-renewable resources lacks scientific foundation.

Hayward accuses the environmental movement of failing to recognize crucial tradeoffs between ostensibly “environmentally friendly” goods and “other” goods. In presenting his facts, however, Hayward incorrectly attributes the counterfact to the environmentalism movement, thus unfairly portraying environmental groups as “alarmists”. Using oil to illustrate his point, Hayward shows the “environmentally friendly” alternative, ethanol, leads to equally serious environmental hazards. In doing so, he implies that modern environmentalism encourages substituting ethanol for crude oil. In truth, most environmentalists are against ethanol for the same reasons that Hayward provided: Nitrate runoff in the Mississippi, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and excessive use of land to grow corn. Similarly, Hayward begins his lecture by declaring the little known truth that air pollution is declining, implying that environmental advocacy groups would attest to the contrary. Environmentalists are aware that air pollution is declining; they just choose not to emphasize this small, yet significant success in order to focus on areas in desperate need of improvement.

By misrepresenting the knowledge and perspectives of environmentalism, Hayward portrays environmentalists as alarmists. Yet the direction that environmental economists have taken in the past few decades is one of carefully weighing costs and benefits. The assertion that modern environmentalism lacks a consideration of tradeoffs is simply untrue. Hayward points out the opportunity costs of leaving oil in the ground for future generations, implying that advocates of sustainability are blind to such implicit costs. But he fails to recognize that environmental economists are constantly analyzing the same set of tradeoffs in policy-making and analysis. These eco-economists simply intend to wean society off of non-renewable energy before it is too late. They understand that if we do not begin the process of researching and developing new, sustainable energy sources today, then future generations will suffer the consequences. Yet costs remain at the very forefront of environmental economist’s minds as they search for sustainable alternatives that are also economically practical. Perhaps the most important cost to be considered, which Hayward neglects to address, is the environmental cost of human activities. While subsidizing environmental research or implementing pollution taxes may seem costly to society, the net effect of these efforts is good when the long-term costs to society are properly considered.

Although Hayward argues that environmentalists overemphasize climate change, his skeptical view simply lacks scientific foundation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a non-partisan scientific body composed of many of the best scientists in the world has declared in their consensus statement that not only is the planet getting hotter (this is not a point of debate), but humans are contributing to such warming in a major way. Additionally, the National Academy of Scientists has also affirmed that human activities contribute significantly to global warming. While there is surely some degree of uncertainty regarding the magnitude of global warming’s impacts, there is widespread consensus among leading climatologists that even an increase of just two degrees Celsius will have colossal impacts on the environment. Scientists are already witnessing these impacts firsthand as animals are being driven out of their natural habitats, glaciers are melting, and sea levels are rising. These are only a few of the many consequences of global climate change that simply cannot be contested. Skepticism surrounding this issue is mostly found in politically-minded publications often funded by self interested oil companies.

Although Hayward claims environmentalists have overestimated the magnitude of population growth, citing the forecasted decline in population growth in about forty years, he neglects to address the colossal impacts of population growth in the meantime. Leading demographers have forecasted what they call a “demographic transition”, which predicts that the world population will flatten in the next 50-60 years. In the meantime, the world will experience a 30% increase in population, leveling around 9-10 billion. Although the fact that population will not increase indefinitely, the 30% increase our planet will experience in the meantime is grounds for concern. Poverty, famine, and environmental impacts are just a few of the significant ramifications of such an increase.