Environment: The Zika virus is spreading, we’re told, and
some public health officials seem to be near panic. Whatever happens, don’t
blame the mosquitoes. This is a man-made problem.
Maybe the Zika outbreak will fade without having become too
widespread, the way the Ebola scare never lived up to the hype. But for now,
Zika is apparently on the move and government health officials believe it will
spread throughout the Americas, except for Canada and Chile.
That doesn’t have to happen. There is a way to stop the
virus, which is transmitted through bites from infected mosquitoes. But the
environmentalist left won’t approve of it. It considers the insecticide DDT,
which was banned in 1972, as the devil’s dust.
The devil, though, is not in the dust but the details, and
they show that the DDT ban has killed about 50 million <http://www.investors.com/politics/viewpoint/green-movement-policies-lead-to-death-misery-in-third-world/>. Most of the victims have been poor children in Africa,
where malaria kills more than 500,000 a year. DDT effectively controls malaria
by killing the mosquitoes that carry the disease and would have the same effect
on Zika, halting its largely unchecked spread. It would be the right thing to
do, especially since DDT poses a threat to neither humans nor the environment
when properly applied.
<http://www.investors.com/politics/on-the-right/environmental-extremists-mean-well-but-are-deadly/>
But the eco-activists would rather tolerate tens of millions
of Third World deaths for the sake of a political agenda. That’s the cruel and
inhuman way of the environmentalist. He will trade lives — and jobs, and
economic liberty, and others’ wealth — in exchange for actually making the
world … worse.
This hallmark of environmentalism has driven decades of poor
public policy. Some policies have brought with them harm, though nothing on the
level of the DDT ban. Here are a few to consider:
Genetically modified food: Superstitious opposition to GM foods
by the environmentalists left has caused starvation in the Third World.
Genetically modified crops have probably saved a billion lives and are the
strongest defense against hunger. <http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ban-genetically-modified-crops-causing-starvation-food-experts-say>
Carbon dioxide emissions: The effort to cut CO2 emissions
because some people believe they cause global warming and/or climate change has
been, and will continue to be, costly. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan could
increase retail electricity costs 12% to 17%. Overall federal attempts to cut
man’s greenhouse gases might cost $45 billion a year. <http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/03/how-much-will-obamas-clean-power-plan-co> <http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/10/30/good-news-obamas-global-warming-campaign-to-cost-45-billion-a-year-in-regulatory-costs-n2072791>
The “fight” against global warming is counterproductive. Why
burn that much money if there has been no warming for almost 20 years <http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/noaa-says-there-is-no-global-warming-hiatus/>?
And why go to all the trouble if the Paris climate
agreement, reached late last year, won’t even achieve the temperature control
that the global warming alarmists want it to?
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/10/again-why-are-we-there-john-kerry-admits-at-cop21-that-us-emissions-cuts-accomplish-nothing-for-climate/>
Recycling: No one has been hurt by local ordinances
requiring recycling or by the hectoring of those who see it for what it is — a
useless exercise that makes some people feel good. But it is a waste of time
and resources <http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/recycling-is-still-a-pile-of-garbage-and-a-waste-of-resources/>. Two decades ago, New York Times columnist John Tierney said
“recycling is garbage,” and he’s just as right today as he was then.
Brazilian Rain Forest: In the 1980s, we were told that the
clear-cutting of the Amazon jungle was an environmental and human threat. It
was a crisis we had to deal with. But it turned out that the claims of the
volume of destruction were exaggerated, and disaster was never imminent.
Eat local: Complying with this would mean that tens of
millions would be unable to eat fresh fruits and vegetables during long
stretches of cold months, something the food nannies would frown on. Eating
locally is also an inefficient practice raising the price of food and sharply
altering land use.
<http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/>,
There are more examples, of course. The environmental left
has racked up an extensive record of harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment