Environmental skepticism - Definition and Overview

Environmental skepticism runs counter to the often alarming claims of environmentalists that people are irreversibly damaging the environment. Some environmental skeptics believe that human damage to the environment is either minimal or less important in its likely consequences than the benefits that apparently 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 activites has not caused any environmental damage, and the idea is more often opposed to specific environmentalist claims.

Skeptics use statistical analysis to evaluate concerns such as:

• asbestos fibers 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 toxins such as DDT against the benefits in malaria reduction

A particularly controversial environmental skeptic is the political scientist Bjørn Lomborg who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.