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: #581115 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

Outstanding rebuttal of corporate funded contrarian rhetoric
This book should be essential reading in the curriculum of all undergraduate biology classes. However, I should initially say that it is patently obvious that none of the readers below who have attacked the book or the authors have even bothered to read it, to digest its message, and to evaluate the significance of its content. At present, a largely uninformed society is being bombarded with more anti-environmental rhetoric than at any time in human history, in books, magazine articles, by right-wing radio show pundits, on television, and, more recently, over the internet, and we have to ask ourselves, why.

Like Paul and Anne, I am a senior scientist, an ecologist, whose research focuses on understanding the link between micro-evolutionary, largely 'stochastic' processes occurring over small scales, and emergent, homeostatic poperties, operating at much larger spatial and temporal scales. Consider that our species is simplifying natural systems worldwide with staggering and worrying efficiency, through the combined activities of paving, ploughing, damming, dredging, slashing and burning, logging, dousing in persistent organic pollutants, alteration the carbon and nitrogen cycles, co-opting much of primary production, and ultimately threatening the sustainability of systems upon which we are utterly dependent for our survival.

Whether we like to admit it or not, ecosystems and the species they contain generate the conditions which nurture life and humanity, though the services the freely provide us. But, in this world of wounds, we - the ecological community - have barely begun to understand the stupendous complexity underpinning the continuation and existence of these natural systems, and therefore we have no real idea how much they can be reduced in size before they begin to break down, and fail to generate the life-sustaining services which permit our existence.

Now, contrast our uncertainty as to the outcome of the planetary "experiment" humanity is conducting on its own life-support systems with the wholly anti-scientific rhetoric being generated from a number of generally right wing, corporate-funded think tanks, political idealogues and public relations firms. Employing a variety of tactics, they are attempting to manipulate public opinion, as well as that of policy makers, to deflect from the real need for societal and corporate reform, in essence to maintain a "business-as-usual" mentality while our planet slides gradually but inexorably towards ecological catastrophe. The aim is simple: to ensure corporate profit maximisation through the prevention of sensible regulations being implemented to protect public health and the environment. This tactic, of course, can only succeed if the public perceives environmental issues as being of secondary importance to other issues. In effect, they are "lobbying for lethargy", and sadly, this strategy is succeeding.

I haven't the time nor the space here to elucidate upon the myriad of ways in which the "brownlash", as the Ehrlich's aptly call it, are manipulating science to provide a pre-determined outcome, but this book does a better job than I ever could. However, let me point out that Paul and Anne make an outstanding point of expanding upon the areas in which the scientific community is in broad agreement. There is consensus over the effects of humanity in perturbing the biogeochemistry of carbon and nitrogen cycles, which operate over stupendously large scales. These effects are manifested through changes not only in global climate patterns, but also in eutrophication of the biosphere. There is also consensus amongst our peers over the effects that humanity is having on land cover, through some of the processes that I discussed earlier. I should again reiterate that none of these areas are in dispute amongst our colleagues around the world. None. What we cannot accurately predict with any certainty at present is the effects that these changes will have on natural ecosystems. There will be ecological consequences, but we cannot, with any degree of statitical certainty, say exactly what these will be. However, given our limited understanding of ecosystem functioning, they are likely to be severe, and will not only have direct effects upon human society but will exacerbate the current extinction episode currently underway. Although ecosystems undeniably exhibit some resilience to human-inflicted change, even at current rates, there is no guarantee that they will be so resilient in delivering to us the free flow of services upon which we depend.

For their part, the contrarians are not taking this consensus lying down, and have attempted, deviously in my view, to apply the principle of uncertainty over the outcome of processes that we know are occurring to describe the entire process itself, thereby rendering mute any public and political will to address these problems. Through greenwashing, aggressive mimicry, scapegoating and cynicism, the voices of a few dissident, bought-and-paid for scientists are being blown out of all proportion to create the image that issues such as species extinction rates, global warming and ozone depletion are broadly disputed amongst the scientific community, whereas they are not. As the authors correctly observe, there may not be many contrarians out there amongst our peers but their paymasters have bought them veritable megaphones.

Ignore the reviews of those who haven't actually read the book - their minds were made up long ago - and read the volumes of peer-reviewed scientific evidence the Ehrlichs use to counter the brownlash.

An extraordinary contribution to the environment.
This book lines out important scientific findings about critical environmental problems such as global warming and dwindling bio-diversity. It carefully unravels the irrational "reasoning" of those who don't want to see what's wrong with the excesses of carbon dioxide and other factors that are likely to lead to major famines and economic instability. I have read a dozen books on the environment in the last few months. Although there are a number of very good ones, this is my favorite.

Essential reading for thinking, caring humans
In an age where Rush Limbaugh can sway millions with emotion-charged arguments based on misinterpretation of facts, this book should be required reading.

The authors--both scientists-- present the environmental facts, and the scientific community's consensus interpretation of the facts, in unambiguous and unequivocal terms. These facts just plain refute just about everything Rush and his kind have ever said about the state of the environment. Thank God for reason. Let's hope it's not too late.

The book's only shortcoming is that the people who need to read it most--average citizens--probably won't make it through because of its technical/scientific content and level of difficulty. So I am worried that the Erlichs are preaching to the saved. Perhaps a TV special on this topic would reach more of the critical audience??