Bad, Bad Environmentalists
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.16.06
We recently posted on the three major fronts in the battle over how to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. One we named Charge of the Risk Brigades, epitomizing the disagreements over priority. The Charge involves repeated skirmishes about which ‘horse of the environmental apocolypse’ to work on first. And, wouldn’t you know, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a.k.a. the Big C, has joined the fray with an op.ed. piece published in the Washington Times . Here’s the portion of that commentary that reminds us of ‘The Charge’: “Beginning in the 1970s, regulators around the world followed Rachel Carson's suggestion that lawmakers ban the pesticide DDT, once used to control malaria, because they figured bed nets and other measures were enough. After millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of people falling sick every year for a couple decades, World Health Organization regulators and officials finally decided DDT should be used to curb the death toll. Tragically, millions had to die before officials realized the Greens were wrong”. Who knew that the World Health Organization was a regulatory body?
This fits with CEIs tactics; such as we’ve covered them previously, here, and here, for example. The author of this particular piece, CEI’s expert, Ms. Angela Logomasini, (check out the expert’s bio-sketch here) lists several other examples of the death, destruction, and mistaken projections left on the world’s doorstep over the years by Tree-Hugger types.
Apparently, CEI has an insufficient fact-checking budget; else they would have noted that DDT was never fully “banned” from manufacture; that it continued to be available where developing nations preferred that option. It is true, however, following emergence in the 1970s of evidence that DDT posed a developmental hazard to wildlife, and in response to growing awareness of the resistance that mosquitoes had built up after decades of high DDT use rates, that other pesticides were used extensively for malaria control programs, with varying degrees of success. In recent decades, unfortunately, malaria control measures were inadequate for the poor and especially for the young of developing nations, sometimes through failures of national governance, or from lack of financial resources and training. This trend overlapped with a trend of booming population growth in developing nations, with children highly exposed in flooded slums or in poorly drained agricultural areas, far from malaria control resources and know-how. Hence, the present day epidemic of malaria is serious indeed: but not due solely to absence of DDT as a malaria control resource.
Had CEI bothered to look, they may also have discovered what credible environmentalists know: early investigations which gave indication that DDT may be a human carcinogen were viewed with less certainty as more investigations were completed (although we seem to recall more recent evidence that a breakdown product, DDE, is hazardous to humans). That is how science works. More importantly, DDT’s endocrine disrupting effect on wildlife, infamously shown to have caused widespread reproductive failures of the Bald Eagle, Osprey, and other treasured North American birds, was the symbolic issue behind the phase out.
Saving the Bald Eagle and Osprey from extinction is an accomplishment that US environmentalists are still very proud of. What patriot would not be? (No offense to those of our readers too young to have lived through the infant years of the environmental movement, when the symbol of the US Federacy was saved.)
Failing to provide sufficient malaria fighting resources, either through the UN or directly to nations experiencing a malaria epidemic, especially a juvenile epidemic, is not something we environmentalists would ever be proud of. No one wants kids to get sick.
TreeHuggers love eagles and kids. Just in case there might be any misunderstanding.
In contrast to the profile in the CEI piece, some things were done right. Besides saving the Bald Eagle, modeling the ozone depletion over the earth’s poles was effectively done. Implementing a worldwide program to mitigate the ozone depletion problem is a success in progress.
EPA’s Green Lights program turned out to be cool: compact fluorescents are so popular now that Wal-Mart customers love them. LED lights are so practical that even the Amish favor them.
Can’t build those wind farms fast enough. But, we’re watching the eagles to make sure they can handle the exposure. Just in case.
Teddy Roosevelt did such a great job with the National Parks that the idea has been emulated in many nations.
And, let’s not forget the hazardous waste program that USEPA oversees, which was responsible for closing down hundreds of dangerous ‘sham recyclers.’ Good for property values and healthy kids.
Perhaps our readers would help CEI by adding more successes to this list we’ve just started. Then, next time CEI wants to mount a charge, they can check here to help focus on the real mistakes. Example: Promotion of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate. Or was that an industry idea? Not sure. Anyhow, comment away.
Photo credit: Richard Mosel, represented by Fox Park Gallery.
Bravo John! That was a great piece.
"Apparently, CEI has an insufficient fact-checking budget; else they would have noted that DDT was never fully “banned” from manufacture"
The article never claimed that DDT was banned from manufacture.
"that it continued to be available where developing nations preferred that option."
Given the fact that foreign aid agencies in most developed countries, including USAid (the single largest foreign aid source for poor nations) subsequently refused fund DDT programs, in response to political pressure from environmental groups, it was a defacto ban.
"Had CEI bothered to look, they may also have discovered what credible environmentalists know: early investigations which gave indication that DDT may be a human carcinogen were viewed with less certainty as more investigations were completed"
Then your definition of "credible environmentalists" must necessarily exclude Rachel Carson, who famously (and falsly) claimed DDT is a carcinogen.
"Failing to provide sufficient malaria fighting resources, either through the UN or directly to nations experiencing a malaria epidemic, especially a juvenile epidemic, is not something we environmentalists would ever be proud of. No one wants kids to get sick."
The facts would seem to indicate otherwise. Prior to the 2001 Stockholm Convention, numerous environmental groups furiously lobbied for the complete ban of DDT for any use whatsoever --
"The official mandate of the treaty was to "reduce and/or eliminate" twelve POPs, of which DDT was one. This led groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibilty and over 300 other environmental organizations to advocate for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007 in some cases."
Thankfully they failed in their task. (http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html)
"TreeHuggers love eagles and kids. Just in case there might be any misunderstanding."
As I said, the facts would seem to indicate otherwise. You'll have to work a little harder to polish that turd.
" In contrast to the profile in the CEI piece, some things were done right. Besides saving the Bald Eagle, modeling the ozone depletion over the earth’s poles was effectively done. Implementing a worldwide program to mitigate the ozone depletion problem is a success in progress."
'Success in progress' -- now there's a great euphemism! But go ahead, give yourself full credit for that, too. Surely the expiration of patent protections on most CFC compounds wouldn't have anything to do with reduced enthusiasm for their production, in favour of more profitable CFC alternatives. Certainly you'll claim environmentalists invented them.
Next you'll be claiming it was environmental activists who successfully planned the D-Day invasion, and invented Polio vaccine.
"Example: Promotion of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate. Or was that an industry idea?"
Considering increased MTBE concentration in motor fuel was in response to Congressional mandate in The Clean Air Act (which, in turn, was a response to political pressure from environmental groups) -- you're welcome to take full credit.
"Not sure."
Then your memory is both short and highly selective.
Next you'll be claiming it was environmental activists who successfully planned the D-Day invasion, and invented Polio vaccine.
Let me guess - you have no friends, right?
=== author's response follows ===
Suppose Carlos was right and the eagle's gift is consciousness? The Internet would be the mirror in which we see ourselves.
OK I was being silly.
Suppose, though, that you live in a remote African village, bound to a culture that does not teach the germ theory of disease and in which mosquitoes are seen as an inconvenience: like the heat and drought. Your annual income is only a handfull of coin and some grain. Along come strangers with a choice to offer you. One is to bring in each year a squadon of airplanes and spray trucks and tons of pesticide, to be applied by outsiders at great expense. Not sustainable from your perspective. THe other is to exclude mosquitos from your home with relatively small amounts of spray that and relatively inexpensive bed netting (windows and doors do not exist). The former makes you dependant on people and technology you do not understand. The latter is under your control. Which would you prefer?
Dear Anonymous Author,
The option I would prefer is to have my children, my neighbours, and myself not die of malaria.
Your argument is incomprehensible. Malaria is an inconvenience??? Your argument is a ridiculous and stunningly ignorant hypothetical analogy which betrays a shocking level of condescencion and contempt toward malaria victims and the people of Africa, in general.
But go ahead, and continue to be 'silly'. The idea of Human beings killed by controllable diseases is wacky, isn't it? Keep flattering yourself with your vapid, self-important ideology, and excessive self-congratulation.