Product Description

In this hard-hitting and timely book, the authors challenge those who use appealing but misleading rhetoric--labeled "brownlash"--to downplay the reality and importance of global environmental problems. The Ehrlichs provide an eye-opening look at current environmental problems and the fundamental importance of the scientific process in solving them .

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #849974 in Books
• Published on: 1998-01-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 348 pages

Amazon.com Review
Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and a professor of biological studies at Stanford, and Anne Ehrlich, also at Stanford, are angered by what they perceive as deliberate efforts to subvert media interest in pressing environmental issues. They suggest that the planet is in real peril from overpopulation, depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, and loss of biodiversity, and that each of these threats is confirmed by solid scientific research. And yet, they suggest, these once-hot media issues have been diminished in the public imagination by a determined backlash from anti-environmental groups. What riles the Ehrlichs is that this discrediting of the work of serious biologists has been achieved through pseudoscientific counter evidence--often the output of some politically motivated foundation--examples of which the authors methodically examine and refute.

From Publishers Weekly
"The time has come to write a book about efforts being made to minimize the seriousness of environmental problems." With that opening sentence, the authors (The Stork and the Plow) take on what they see as the purveyors of environmental disinformation. In a lively style, they systematically dismantle claims allegedly made in recent books?by the likes of Gregg Easterbrook, Stephen Budiansky, Rush Limbaugh, Dixy Lee Ray and Julian Simon?that global warming is fiction, ozone depletion should be of no concern and that the earth can support many times its current population. Chapters cover population growth, food supply, natural resources, species diversity, toxic substances, global warming and economics. In each, direct quotations from the anti-environmentalists named above are presented, dissected and refuted. With ample documentation and a great deal of input from some of the world's most renowned environmental scientists, such as Stephen Schneider, Peter Raven and Nobel laureate Sherwood Roland, the overall effect is powerful. 25,000 first printing; author tour.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Recently, several popular books have concluded that nothing is seriously wrong with the environment. The Ehrlichs label these critics of themselves and other environmental activists as leaders of the "brownlash." They forcefully argue that although some improvements have occurred, most environmental problems have not been solved but are in fact rapidly getting worse. Throughout their book, the Ehrlichs address questions raised by such writers as Dixie Lee Ray, Gregg Easterbrook, and Julian Simon, responding to doubts those writers have expressed about overpopulation, global warming, and natural resource limits and asserting that there is a solid consensus among serious scientists that these issues must be addressed if humanity is not to suffer severe consequences. While not without flaws, e.g., the authors make some assumptions of their own, this is a solid addition to popular environmental literature and should spark more debate about the extent and nature of current environmental problems.?Randy Dykhuis, Michigan Lib. Consortium, Holt
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Customer Reviews

And things have only gotten worse
Between complacency on the part of many, and aggressive efforts from a few, we are in the midst of a backlash against serious environmentalism. Characterized as a "brownlash" by the authors, this reactionary phenomenon takes many forms. And if it was bad in 1998, it is only worse now. It appears as claims that conservation and pollution controls are too expensive, that green politicians favor owls and desert mice over humans, that we have turned the corner and the future is now certain and bright, or that public interest groups (e.g. Sierra Club, NRDC, Nature Conservancy, etc.) are really the same as special interests (oil, mineral, manufacturing, gun, etc. lobbies). The effect has been clear: budget cuts, reversal of legislation, a psychological spin toward "wise-use" of resources and downplaying of very imminent dangers. One congress person tried to cut funding for the new Mojave National Park to one dollar per year, another seeks to open mining on park lands, and here in my neck of the woods, Congressman Charles Taylor successfully sponsored a bill disguised as a forest health measure which allowed massive clearcuts of old growth timber in 1995-96. This last is instructive, a clear example of the subversion of green aims by the opposition. Taking earth-friendly names like "National Wetlands Coalition, The Sahara Club, The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, The National Wilderness Institute, etc." the browns wear verbal sheep's clothing while actively working against the causes their names suggest they must support. The Ehrlichs are veterans of the eco-wars, having started their public efforts four years before Rachel Carson's 1962 classic, SILENT SPRING. In their newest effort they take on the pseudo-science of the brownlash and carefully rebut the arguments, point by point, and copiously footnoted. They make it clear that the so-called "experts" and "scientists" quoted in brown literature are on the fringe of serious research, that the mass of scientific opinion wieghs in for the view that we are in deep doo-doo and better lissen up. This book is an eye-opener and excellent resource for those who seek to assure a pleasant future for spotted owls, desert mice and the human race.

Reason and Motives
Paul and Ann Ehrlich have devoted their lives to promoting environmental understanding and influencing government policy. They have endured the scrutiny of their detractors with respect to dire predictions concerning population growth and the environment. They have made mistakes-- the most famous being their ill-conceived wager against Julian Simon concerning resource depletion. Many dismissed them out of hand after that debacle-- a testament to the human tendency towards oversimplification with regard to environmental understanding (Dr. Simon, as well, made rather absurd conclusions about humanity and the planet, which the Ehrlichs address in the book).

Despite what some have concluded, Paul Ehrlich is still a highly respected professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the United States (Stanford University). He and his wife, a prominent researcher in her own rite, continue accepting invitations to lecture at colleges and conventions around the world.

The book Paul and Ann have written, expresses the passion with which they've espoused their cause. Indeed, it is a passion that should be equaled by all the planet's inhabitants, whether we agree with the Ehrlichs or not. Yet one need only to take a quick look at the Internet to find the antagonistic nature of many so-called "environmental" websites-- something the Ehrlichs refer to as "brown-lash." Many are portrayed as "green" or "earth-friendly," yet dismissive of any suggestion that humankind has desecrated the earth. Arguments, as noted by the Ehrlichs, range from dismissing the global warming phenomenon completely, to claims that such phenomenon is even beneficial to humankind (the current trend seems to be towards the latter, since arguing against global warming itself is becoming, less and less, a valid point). Statistics are presented out of context and often misrepresented as conclusive.

Indeed, even some scientists have been fooled by the seemingly authoritative nature of some "anti-environmentalist" literature (though it should be noted that the scientific community, by and large, agrees with both the theory of global warming, and its human related causes). As well, a few scientists operating outside the mainstream, such as Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer, seem motivated by the large salaries offered to them by multi-million dollars corporations with economic interests at stake regarding environmental regulation. Michaels is the primary authority on the CO2 and Climate Change website, superficially sponsored by the Greening Earth Society, which is, in turn, funded by the Western Fuels Association. The "laundering" of website sponsorship further adds to the confusion concerning ulterior motives.

Other "editorializers," such as Rush Limbaugh or Michael Fumento, routinely sway public opinion by incompetently interpreting scientific data and essentially indulging in name-calling. While their authority should be dismissed as sheer demagoguery at best, their influence over their radio listeners and column subscribers should not be ignored.

The Ehrlichs make a point that much has been done by way of regulating and improving the environment, but it will always be an uphill battle. In their words, "It's like trying to run up an escalator that's going down." The most easily perceived indicators of environmental health are air and water, yet few realize the other multifarious indicators which are just as important to humankind and the environment.

It is a truism that one should not judge a detractor by his or her affiliation alone, but rather address each particular argument in kind-- praising its merits or debunking its fallacies. One's ideology is best judged in the words and theories they express, not the labels they've been assigned. This applies to the Ehrlichs and their detractors as well. Betrayal of Science and Reason is a must read for anyone concerned about the effects of political spin upon the future of the environment. While "brown-lashing" attempts to succeed in confounding the truth contemporaneously, nature, in time, will offer irrefutable proof of its own-- how soon we heed the warnings will determine how adversely our world is affected.

A curious book, to say the least
I recommend this book, with reservations. My take on it is different than many of the reviews so far given.

The Ehrlichs' role as among the first, most persistent, and most dire of environmental Cassandras is well known and need not be revisited now. The presently-reviewed book adds little to what they have previously said in terms of areas of concern. Rather, it appears to be a valedictory of sorts, where the Ehrlichs return their critics' responses in kind.
To my view, their response, although perhaps understandable, is ineffective as being too filled with slanted prose, hyperbole, and, unfortunately, outright name-calling. A more reasoned sort of response would have been highly preferable. The form of the message so obscures and detracts from its substance as to render both rather incredible.

Also, the book is plagued with easily avoided errors. By way of a single chapter's example, the Ehrlichs contend, in their chapter on climate/global warming, that climate earlier than 1200AD is essentially unknowable because of a lack of record keeping. This is not so, as many methods, including varves, dendrochronology, ice-coring, etc., are available to do year-by-year studies. The Ehrlichs' statements and implications that warming is now more severe than at any time since the advent of the Holocene find no support. The xerothermic episode of the late 1200's that resulted in the demise of the Anasazi culture in the Southwest, and the desertification of much of Nebraska, occurred at this time. Of these, not a word. Likewise the Altithermal, or Climactic Optimum, of circa 4,000BC, or 6000BP, and not the present, has marked the warmest part of the Holocene.

The Ehrlichs'refusal to bring these facts into the equation shows either a lack of research or a refusal to change a previously-desired impression. Neither, ACCORDING TO THE EHRLICHS IN THE SAME CHAPTER, is the mark of good or effective science. Other examples abound elsewhere, but space limits their discussion here. From a factual viewpoint, I cannot recommend this book to the serious scientific reader.

However, the book is a prototypically good example of the causes of the troubles the Ehrlichs describe the environmental movement as facing. The skeptics decried by the Ehrlichs find their fuel in the Ehrlich style of crying wolf too often, and in the Ehrlichs' scientific inflexibility in the face of developing data that may be contrary to their earlier positions. Here, I need only cite the failure of their predictions in, "The Population Bomb."

The upshot is that if Green proponents want to find how to lose status and credibility with those who are undecided, this book is a must-read. Contrariwise, if skeptics wish to determine why their own claims are subject to a healthy case of doubt, the Ehrlichs show them in many instances. Note carefully that I do not say the Ehrlichs are always wrong. They aren't, and a good deal of what they say is buttressed by fact, just not enough of it to be fully persuasive. I suspect that a more reasoned approach by the Ehrlichs would have resulted in a far more important book. The best way to dispel the confusion the Ehrlichs claim their opponents create is by reasoned, honest presentation, not name-calling, slanted prose, hyperbole, and disingenuous simile and metaphor.

In closing, the book's only real value is to show each side of this important controversy the defects that plague their respective positions. Both sides should read the book with this goal in mind. Otherwise, a reading only serves the contrary purpose of reinforcing previously held biases.

I recommend the book, but subject to the foregoing substantial cautions. A pity, because so much more could have been accomplished by a disciplined writer.