Indeed, scientists must determine what's behind the mysterious Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) affecting honeybees. But the “bee-pocalypse” buzz has grown so loud and is so at odds with reality that it's reminiscent of the most overblown global-warming alarmism.
Writing in the Ottawa Citizen, Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” says the actual number of disorder cases “undermine much of the catastrophic rhetoric.”
Colony numbers actually were higher in 2010 than in any year since 1999, Mr. Lomborg says. And he reminds that there were reports of mass honeybee die-offs as far back as 1853.
Researchers are closing in on the disorder's cause. And it's not pesticides, as some have charged. “Recent science articles ... point clearly to mites and viruses,” Lomborg says, noting that France “has seen no marked reduction in CCD” despite its 1990s ban of pesticides blamed for it.
And as for Colony Collapse Disorder's economic effect, consumers can expect to pay all of 2.8 cents more per pound for “the worst affected commodity, almonds,” he says. (Remember, there are many other pollinators.)
Yes, the disorder is a problem. And it must be tackled. But it's not, “by any stretch of the imagination,” as bad as it is made out to be, Lomborg says.
His is a much-needed perspective that's been sorely lacking in the debate.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- An independent Scotland? Think again
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Those Penn State sanctions: Rescinding them is premature
- Drilling laws: Your rights
- U.N. Watch: The aid ingrates
- Saturday essay: Saving Catalpa
- A misdialed number suggests a criminal conspiracy in the IRS scandal
- Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on