Reflection on Bjorn Lomborg’s and William F. Baxter’s Views on Climate Change

In The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg argues that we should be aware of tradeoffs
when assessing policies to address global warming. He also advocates for realistic solutions that
have the potential to improve human lives such as geo engineering. Despite the controversy over
his opinions on global climate change policies, Bjorn Lomborg uses low-ball estimates of
climate costs and disregards fossil fuel subsidies. He attributes this to a notion of moral good that
is founded on a simple metric of money. He supports research and technology to make renewable
options to energy cheaper (Lomborg 684). In the meanwhile, those who cannot afford renewable
technology should be encouraged to use low-cost fossil fuels. I agree with Lomborg’s model on
the social cost of carbon that expresses a realistic perspective on the immense cost of the coal
industry to the economy. The continuation of fossil fuel emissions would be worsening the state
of climate change, especially due to the known effects of high fossil fuel emissions.
I also agree with Lomborg’s opinion that these approaches are problematic due to the global
context in which many economies are not able to efficiently adopt climate policies. It is
important to consider the cost-benefit analysis of different environmental and social initiatives in
an attempt to establish more effective solutions based on scarce financial resources.
The four goals that Baxter’s “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”
proposes inform solutions to problems in all societies across the globe. “1. The spheres of
freedom, 2. Waste is a bad thing, 3. Every human being should be regarded as end rather than as

Surname 2
a means to be used for the betterment of another, and 4. Both the incentive and the opportunity to
improve his share of satisfactions should be preserved to every individual” (Baxter794-795).
Baxter argues from an anthropocentric approach in which human beings are the only beings with
intrinsic value. Baxter’s argument also proposes the idea that every human is an end and that
incentives and opportunities exist to improve individual satisfaction. According to his objective
on spheres of freedom, Baxter argues that human beings are free to do as they wish as long as
their pursuit of their desires do not infringe on others interests. Baxter also thinks that waste is
bad, hence the need for people to strive to achieve maximum benefit from resources while
protecting the need of other human beings on earth. The article urges people to strive for an
optimal state of pollution where tradeoffs are negotiated through consideration of human
satisfaction.
I do not agree with Baxter’s argument because it disregards the intrinsic value of plant or
animal life. Baxter maintains that the environment has instrumental value, to mean that they are
only valuable to the extent that humans perceive value. However, I agree with Baxter’s
proposition that people should regard each other as end rather that as a means to be used for the
selfish interests of another. In an environmental perspective, leaving environmental conservation
initiatives to an individualistic capacity is the least compelling because just as in a social
contract, people need to collectively agree on the usefulness of an institution that sets
environmental policies for the protection of the ecosystem at large, not just immediate resources
for human use.

Surname 3

Works Cited

Baxter, William F. “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution.” Pojman, Louis P, Paul
Pojman and Katie McShane. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application.
Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016. 793-797.
Lomborg, Bjorn. “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” Pojman, Louis P, Paul Pojman and Katie
McShane. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. Boston: Cengage
Learning, 2016. 682-686.