Death - A Side Effect of Environmentalism Run Wild
Mon May 26th, 2008 22:13 MSTWe have all read reports of some environmentalists who advocate dramatically reducing human population, even by mass killing. Fortunately, they are the exception.
Far less frequently do we read about the human misery caused by mainstream environmentalism. “Global warming will cause more disease” is what we hear. We don’t hear the more plausible “fighting global warming will cause mass starvation.”
“Naw,” you say. “It won’t happen. We would hear about such tragic possibilities.”
It has already happened. It is happening today.
Millions have died and millions are dying because of environmental madness!
The first environmentalist is often said to be Rachel Carson. Her book,”Silent Spring,” led to the international banning of DDT. While this may have preserved some birds, it also led to the deaths of about 30 million African children! Environmentalists, in that one action, unintentionally killed more people than Adolph Hitler!
How? DDT is the only effective insecticide against the mosquitoes carrying Plasmodium Falciparum, the most deadly strain of malaria. Without this protection, millions of children suffer and many die, even though the amount of DDT needed to save these children is tiny. The quantity used by one large US farm (pre-ban) would suffice for all of Africa for a year.
Why don’t you hear about the petitions signed by thousands of world health officials, petitions asking for DDT production? It isn’t environmentally correct! It is heresy. That news isn’t fit to print!
How about the restrictions on automobile mileage? In the US, the death toll from the CAFE (fuel economy) standards is estimated between 1500 and 3000 per year.
But the worst is yet to come…
The climate alarmists want us to cut way back on our fossil fuel usage.
They would have us cut our energy consumption back to 1910 levels. Since energy is the primary economic “force multiplier,” the impact of such reductions would be catastrophic.
People of the first world would survive, but how about those in the second world, the third world, the fourth world? It’s not an exaggeration to estimate death tolls upwards of 500 million people.
Already people are dying just because of US corn ethanol production. We are burning their food!
And, of course, what of the violence and political strife this would cause? The wars? The terrorism?
——
And yet, we never hear about this side of environmentalism. Scientific American, an magazine long slanted towards the views of the environmental elite, just published an article on “The Ethics of Climate Change.” Not one word about the negative consequences of CO2 emissions reductions. Nothing!
Reading it, or our mainstream media, one would come to believe environmental policy is that rarest of things - a major policy change without negative side effects.
———-
Those who oppose extreme environmental rules are held to be immoral. “You are ruining the world for future generations,” we are told.
Hey… how about those who are already alive? Those who will suffer and even die as a direct result of these policies?
Well… they don’t live here, we don’t see them, so… well…. we haven’t heard of that problem…. what problem?
Morality is not on the side of the environmental extremists.
A few errors you may want to correct:
1. DDT is not, and never has been, the only pesticide effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes — and in fact, DDT is ineffective against many species that carry falciparum.
2. DDT is not banned. Even in the POPs Treaty, there is a carve out for DDT to be used against malaria. DDT has been in constant use against malaria in several nations since 1946; but alas, it was overused in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and many insects became resistant and even immune.
3. There aren’t petitions by world health authorities trying to get the nonexistant ban on DDT lifted. No ban, no need for petitions. DDT is currently in use in several African nations. But DDT is expensive to use if it is not abused. Oddly, one of the last barriers to DDT use has been the Bush administration, who refuses to allow U.S. money to purchase the stuff.
4. African kids aren’t dying because of a lack of DDT. Actually, malaria is considerably lower today than it was in the 1960s across Africa. Unfortunately, overuse of the pharmaceuticals to treat malaria in humans caused the parasites to develop resistance. Newer pharmaceutical routines are getting around that issue, but they cost more, and they require better health care infrastructure to effectively distribute them. Building health care systems is tougher, more expensive, and slower.
5. Environmental groups have endorsed selective, careful spraying of DDT. Business groups in Uganda are suing to stop it, especially tobacco companies. You’re pointing to the wrong guy as the villain.
Come over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, and see lots of stuff about DDT and malaria.
DDT is the *best* pesticide in most cases, because of its low cost, low toxicity and its durability. Yes, other pesticides kill mosquitoes. And of course, some mosquitoes are resistant to DDT. Biology is never trivial.
DDT is highly limited in its availability because it is a “pariah” chemical as a result of environmentalist exaggerations. This is killing people, as the article asserts
The following is a *result* of the petition (or demand, or outcry or whatever you want to call it):
2007 WHO:
Obviously WHO disagrees with your assertions. If African kids aren’t dying due to a lack of malaria, why would WHO come out with this statement? Likewise, the article implies a 30 year policy opposing DDT - which is part of the reason so many died.
That the malarial situation has improved, even without DDT, is not surprising, given advances in medicine. That pharmaceutical misuse lead to resistance is to be expected in a continent where people often save to buy one pill, and then take it for a disease, even if they can’t take the full course. The same has happened with other diseases.
Nevertheless, prevention of infection through suppression of the vector is the best approach, greatly reduces the need for expensive antibiotic treatment.
I’m sure some environmental groups have bowed to reality and advocated careful spraying (which is all anyone is advocating). Which ones? Most in the US give the message that all pesticides are bad, and DDT is the devil.
As for the tobacco gambit, it is largely irrelevant. First, it isn’t “largely the tobacco companies” but exporters of produce, who fear that the pesticide-phobic populations of the west will not import Ugandan produce (including tobacco). But this in itself is a problem that is a result of the scare mongering of environmentalists. If it wasn’t for the irrational fears of DDT contamination (which the truth - that the DDT is used indoors, not on crops, will never help), the objections wouldn’t exist.
……..
Check out this BBC report. It describes the dramatic impact on infant malaria that one DDT program has recently had.
See also this article by a physician on current efforts to prevent sale of DDT to Africa:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjA4ZjY2ZTBiYjAzZTJlZDliOWEwNDMyZjgxNmJlY2I