Environmental skepticism
|
|
Environmental skepticism is an umbrella term that describes those that believe certain claims put forward by environmentalists particularly alarming claims, are exaggerated to some degree.
Sometimes Environmental skeptics hold opinions that run completely counter to environmentalists opinions, for example their stance on second-hand tobacco smoke, recycling, global warming or nuclear power.
Some skeptics believe that human damage to the environment is either minimal or less important in its likely consequences than the benefits that damaging economic development brings, others believe that any significant future damage will be fixed by yet-to-be invented technology, while yet others believe that major elements of the environment are in fact improving over time. There are few skeptics who believe that human activities have not caused any environmental damage, and the skeptical movement is more often opposed to specific environmentalist claims.
Environmental skeptics, like all skeptics use the scientific method to evaluate concerns such as:
- Asbestos fibres in building insulation (which may cause cancer)
- Reductions in the strength of the ozone layer (which would allow more ultraviolet light to reach the earth's surface and increase the risk of skin cancer)
- Global warming
- Changes in the number of species of animals and plants and the impact on biodiversity
- Balancing the adverse effects of toxic substances such as DDT against the benefits in malaria reduction
Historically, a small number of extreme Environmental skepticism have been linked to the interests of large, polluting industries such as Rachael Carson's Silent Spring ("dilution is the solution to pollution"). This has cast doubt into the minds of Environmentalists on the motives of all Environmental skeptics.
A particularly controversial paper published by an arguably extreme environmental skeptic is the political scientist Bjørn Lomborg who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist. His papers when published in peer reviewed papers have suffered scientific criticism, even from other environmental skeptics.