Objective
In 2001, economist Bjorn Lomborg published an article in The Economist called ‘The Truth About the Environment’. In this article, Lomborg argues that the following comments are exaggerated and not supported by data:
“natural resources are running out”,
“the human population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat”,
“species are becoming extinct…forests are disappearing, and fish stocks are collapsing”, and
“the planet’s air and water are becoming ever more polluted.”.
The objective of this assignment is to critically analyze ONE of the following three counterclaims that Lomborg makes:
“Energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so” (resources)
“More food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history; fewer people are starving” (food)
“Pollution is also exaggerated” (pollution)
Note that for this assignment, we do NOT consider the emissions of greenhouse gases as “pollution”. Hence, your discussion of this counterclaim should focus on pollution (e.g., water, air, soil) and NOT climate change.
Because Lomborg wrote this article 22 years ago, your task is to critically analyze whether the counterclaim is factually supported and valid today. You will do this by finding and reviewing information from credible sources that provide supporting or refuting evidence about the correctness of his counterclaim.
Interpret and evaluate specific claims and counter-claims concerning global change;
Locate and employ internet and electronic journal research tools;
Distinguish between fact-based and opinion-based claims;
Discriminate among reliable and less reliable information sources—peer reviewed, government, advocacy, popular, etc.;
Expose personal biases and assumptions linked to environmental issues and argumentation.
Getting Started Download Lomborg’s (2001) ‘The Truth About the Environment’ article by clicking here. As you read through the article, think about questions such as:
What perspective is Lomborg taking and why? What are his biases?
What type of literature it is (ex. peer reviewed journal article, grey literature, report, opinion article, etc..) and where are his sources coming from?
What are your overall initial thoughts?
Next you will decide which ONE of the three counterclaims you will examine (food, resources, or pollution).
Download the Word template by clicking here Download here. Add the necessary information in the highlighted section on the title page: a) the counterclaim you are examining, b) your name, and c) your student ID. Then, familiarize yourself with the structure of the template.
Conduct your own research to find three (3) credible sources relevant to your chosen counterclaim that can help you understand whether Lomborg’s perspective can be factually supported or not. Focus on academic journal articles as well as intergovernmental and governmental reports. Note that we do not want you to use academic articles that explicitly review Lomborg’s book (e.g., Cole (2003) or FitzRoy & Smith (2004)) We want you to find articles with facts about the counterclaims.
Use the template and enter the information you found into the subsections. Do not change any formatting or delete any instructions in the template except for the yellow highlighting where you will put in your own information!
Use APA citation and reference formatting to cite the sources of your information in text and in the reference list.
Enter the combined word count for all your text sections on the title page of the template. Your paper has to be between 1200 and 1500 words long!
Submit your assignment by uploading it as a PDF to both Canvas and TurnItIn. See below for more details.
A Word of Warning
Do your own work, do not cut and paste from sources, websites or colleagues and friends! Plagiarism is usually detected in a few cases every term and will not be tolerated.
Content Instructions
Introduction
The purpose of an introduction is to set the stage for your paper. Your introduction will:
State and explain the counterclaim of Lomborg you have chosen to discuss, including discussing the original claim Lomborg is countering.
Clearly describe the relevant global environmental problem and discuss how the claim relates to relevant concepts of the course.
Finish with a clear statement that lets the reader know what the objective of your paper is.
The introduction should be around 150-200 words long (1-2 paragraphs).
Critical Review of Evidence
This section is composed of three (3) subsections that each review one (1) paper.
The title of each subheading should use this format: Authors (Year): Title of source (e.g., “Neweduk (2021): Assignment instructions”)
Each subsection will be structured the same and will:
Start off by introducing the source, including who wrote it and what type of publication it is. Include a statement that explains why the source is credible and relevant, and highlight potential biases if there are any.
Then present the important information from that source, ideally supported by data and statistics, and summarize the relevant takeaways. Please note that this is NOT meant to be a summary of the entire source.
Use the information from this source to assess the factual correctness of Lomborg’s claim by explaining how the source supports, partially supports, or refutes the counterclaim. Relate how the source contributes to the objective of your paper.
Make sure that you properly cite your sources in the text and add them in the reference list at the end of the template.
Each subsection should be around 250-300 words long (2-3 paragraphs).
Conclusion
In the conclusion you will:
Restate the objective of your paper.
Summarize the information you found in the three sources in a logical fashion.
Combine the evidence you found into an informed opinion on whether Lomborg’s counterclaim is factually correct, partially correct, or incorrect. This should be presented as a clear statement (ex. Based on the evidence found, Lomborg’s counterclaim is…)
Also mention any shortcomings your perspective might have since three sources definitely cannot give you the full picture.
The conclusion section should be around 250 and 350 words long (2-3 paragraphs).
