Environmentalism the supreme killer 31

Environmentalists “refuse to look at or admit the existence of the carnage they have created and continue to perpetuate worldwide.”

So writes Robert Zubrin in an article at PJ Media.

He contends that more people have died as a result of the environmental movement than at the hands of the most extreme mass-murdering dictators. In fact, he argues, millions of those deaths in the dictatorships have been caused, indirectly, by the environmental movement.

How good is his case?

Let’s look at the record.

Some of the worst atrocities can be laid at the feet of the population control ideologues such as Paul Ehrlich and his co-thinkers who argued — in direct contradiction to historical fact — that human well-being is inversely proportional to human numbers. As a result of their agitation, since 1966 U.S. foreign aid and World Bank loans to Third World countries have been made contingent upon those nations implementing population control programs. In consequence, over the past four decades, in scores of countries spanning the globe from India to Peru, tens of millions of women have been … subjected to involuntary sterilizations or abortions, often under very unsafe conditions, with innumerable victims suffering severe health effects or dying afterwards.

We are against foreign aid. But we are even more against the forced reduction of populations by “population control programs” including compulsory abortion and  sterilization.

Ehrlich also called for the United States to create a Bureau of Population and Environment which would have the power to issue or deny permits to Americans to have children. While rejected here, this idea was adopted by the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, who were convinced of the necessity of such measures by the writings of the Club of Rome* after these were plagiarized and republished in China under the name of one of its top officials. Thus was born China’s infamous “one-child policy,” which has involved not only hundreds of millions of involuntary abortions and forced sterilizations, but infanticide and the killing of “illegal children” on a mass scale.

There have been tens of millions of cases of murder-by-default: people being allowed to die by keeping from them a remedy for fatal disease:

The anti-technology wing of the antihuman movement also has its share of human extermination to account for. …

… by getting governments to ban the highly effective pesticide DDT – not always for scientific reasons, but precisely because it saves lives:

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase of agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable. But the role of DDT in saving half a billion lives did not positively impress everyone. On the contrary, as Alexander King, the co-founder of the Club of Rome put it in his 1990 biography, “my chief quarrel with DDT …  is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” …

Scientific arguments were also used, for instance that DDT endangered birds. To these lunatics (what else can one call them?), the preservation of bird life was more important than the preservation of human life.

Rachel Carson … in her 1962 book, Silent Spring, … made an eloquent case that DDT was endangering bird populations.

Which wasn’t even true:

This was false. In fact, by eliminating their insect parasites and infection agents, DDT was helping bird numbers to grow significantly. No matter. Using Carson’s book and even more wild writing by Ehrlich (who in a 1969 Ramparts article predicted that pesticides would cause all life in the Earth’s oceans to die by 1979), a massive propaganda campaign was launched [in the US] to ban DDT.

The EPA – not yet the storm-trooper arm of a dictatorial administration as it has now become – carried out an investigation into the effects of the pesticide:

In 1971, the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency responded by holding seven months of investigative hearings on the subject, gathering testimony from 125 witnesses. At the end of this process, Judge Edmund Sweeney issued his verdict: “The uses of DDT under the registration involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. … DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.”

But dedicated environmentalists are never put off by facts:

No matter. EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus (who would later go on to be a board member of the Draper Fund, a leading population control group), chose to overrule Sweeney and ban the use of DDT in the United States.

Subsequently, the U.S. Agency for International Development adopted regulations preventing it from funding international projects that used DDT. Together with similar decisions enacted in Europe, this effectively banned the use of DDT in many Third World countries. By some estimates, the malaria death toll in Africa alone resulting from these restrictions has exceeded 100 million people, with 3 million additional deaths added to the toll every year.

The harm done by the EPA, itself a creation of the environmental movement, has not been limited to stopping DDT. It is no coincidence that U.S. oil production, which had been growing at a rate of 3 percent per year through the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, peaked in 1971, immediately after the EPA’s creation, and has been declining ever since. In 1971, the U.S. produced 9.6 million barrels of oil per day (mpd). Today we are down to 5.6 mpd. Had we continued without environmentalist interference with our previous 3 percent per year growth in the period since — as the rest of the non-OPEC world actually did — we would today be producing 35 mpd, and the world economy would not be groaning under the extremely regressive tax represented by $100 per barrel oil prices. The environmentalist campaign against nuclear power has made its promise for plentiful, cheap electricity impossible as well.

The genocidal effect of such support for energy price-rigging should not be underestimated. Increasing the price of energy increases the price of all other products. It is one thing to pay $100 per barrel for oil in a nation like the USA which has an average income of $45,000 per year. It is quite another to pay it in a Third World country with an average income of $1500 per year. An oil price stiff enough to cause recession in the advanced sector can cause mass starvation among the world’s poor.

While we think the phrase “genocidal effect” is not well chosen, we follow Dr. Zubrin’s argument.

Again, the evil that he accuses environmentalists of is choosing not to allow the saving of lives that could be saved: 

European greens also have much horror to account for, notably through their campaign against genetically modified crops. Hundreds of millions of people in the Third World today suffer from nutritional deficiencies resulting from their cereal-dominated diets. This can now readily be rectified by employing genetically enhanced plants, such as golden rice, which is rich in vitamin A. Other genetically modified crops offer protection against iron or other vitamin deficiency diseases, dramatically increased yields, self-fertilization, and drought or insect resistance. But as a result of political pressure from the green parties, the European Union has banned the import of crops from countries that employ such strains, thereby blackmailing many governments into forbidding their use. In consequence, millions of people are being unnecessarily blinded, crippled, starved, or killed every year.

Taken together, these campaigns to deny billions of people the means to a decent existence have racked up a death toll exceeding that achieved by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any of the other tyrants whose crimes fill the sordid pages of human history.

*And here is a very important footnote that explains how and why environmentalists decided to exploit pollution, global warming, and famine in order to make a case for global unification [ie for world government] as long as the earth is peopled, but also against the human race, which they perceive as the planet’s enemy. What their ultimate aim is –  whether absolute power over the human species or its total annihilation – is not clear. Is preservation of the environment the pretext for, or the goal of world government? Perhaps they are not sure themselves.

From Wikipedia:

The Club of Rome raised considerable public attention with its report Limits to Growth … It predicted that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil. …

Mankind at the Turning Point was accepted as the official Second Report to the Club of Rome in 1974. … [It claimed] that many of the factors [affecting the environment] were within human control and therefore that environmental and economic catastrophe were preventable or avoidable. …

In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers [to the planet] are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

  • P.S.: That “500 million lives saved figure” was an editing error. You could think about it for a moment and realize that for 500 million lives to have been saved in 24 years (1946 to 1970), there would have had to have been a death toll of more than 20 million annually to malaria in 1946.

    Not so.

    But more important, you fail to note what the National Academy of Sciences really said. In that book where they made that error, and said DDT saved 500 million lives, they said DDT’s dangers far outweigh DDT’s benefits, and DDT must be phased out.

    You could look it up:

    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/encore-post-rebutting-junk-science-100-things-to-know-about-ddt-point-6/

    • Thank you, Ed Darrell, for the link. We see that “500 million lives” is there claimed to be an error. The revised figure is 69 million deaths might have been prevented.

      However, nothing in the article persuades us to change our minds about the danger environmentalists pose to human beings of helpless age, and of frail and poor cultures.

      • 96 million deaths prevented since the DDT “ban” went into effect in the U.S. We saved bald eagles and several dozen other species AND reduced malaria deaths to the lowest in human history. If great progress against disease does not persuade you to change your minds, why?

        • 69 million deaths MIGHT HAVE BEEN prevented if DDT had been used. Not WERE prevented.

          Where does your 96 come from anyway? A misreading of 69?

    • liz

      I’d be more inclined to give the argument presented on this link the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t accompanied on the same site by fawning praise and hero worship of Obama, Obama care, Al Gore, the EPA, and the rest of the far left lunatic socialists destroying the country, who use “environmentalism” as a cover to advance their agenda. If Mr. Darrell can’t see this, what else might he be missing?

  • You’d do well to read what Sweeney actually wrote, and study what actually happened.

    Ruckelshaus freed up DDT to fight malaria again — in that order you condemn. But that was 9 years after DDT advocates had ruined the stuff by overusing it in Africa, killing the malaria eradication campaign run by WHO and Fred Soper.

    Ignorance is our enemy; it’s an enemy easily defeated.

    See: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/oh-look-epa-ordered-ddt-to-be-used-to-fight-malaria-in-1972/

    And especially note the links to Mike Easter’s digging out Judge Sweeney’s full report.

    • The article you refer us to is an exercise in special pleading. It does not argue the points critics have made. if you would care to do that, put “Rachel Carson’s lethal claptrap” into our search slot and engage the arguments. We would be glad to host a point-by-point rebuttal.

      • It’s not special pleading to point out that you are wrong on a key point of history.

        There has NEVER been a ban on DDT use to fight malaria. Your claims are false, hoax, dangerous and malicious claptrap.

        If the basic premise of your claim is false, how can anything else be correct?

        • I’m still waiting for your arguments against those put forward in “Rachel Carson’s lethal claptrap”.

          Please note that I am not a scientists but was persuaded by certain arguments that you have not refuted. I make no “claims” of my own. I repeat the claims of others. I choose them because I like arguments against environmentalists, whose political agenda is anathema to me.I do not think my opposition to their malice is itself malicious. I hope it is dangerous to them.

          So “there has never been a ban on DDT use to fight malaria”? Why do so many people believe there was? Why was it not used in Africa when it could have been?

          • Extending my reply to Ed Darrell:

            I have found there WAS a ban in the US.

            And apparently in other countries too.

            Here’s a quotation from an article that strives to be objective:

            In the 1970s DDT was banned in the United States and many other countries.

            The ban set into motion a major controversy between two camps:
            Those who wanted to use DDT because it didn’t harm humans.
            Those who wanted to ban DDT because it hurt the environment.

            After the almost forty years since the ban, scientific studies have suggested a truce that has been tepidly accepted, albeit reluctantly, by both camps. Many
            people now believe DDT can be used as a last resort to save human life as long as its use is limited so that it cannot hurt wildlife. This can be done by
            spraying it indoors on walls in malaria infested areas.

            http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263

            • Extending it further:

              From Wiki here:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#U.S._ban

              Quoting:
              “In 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.”

            • As for the birds, the eagles: so your ban on DDT (which you say did not exist) saved them – only to be mashed up by your windmills.

            • Eagles were being killed by DDT sprayed on crops, outdoors. Did nothing for health, but killed entire ecosystems. EPA banned that.

              Eagles were not being killed by DDT sprayed on walls of huts in Africa, nor anywhere else, targeted specifically to mosquitoes that carry disease, and very specifically targeted against most Anopheles spp. the genus that carries malaria.

              Eagles rarely fly into huts to rest on the walls and get dosed with DDT. But DDT runoff from fields treated with DDT biomagnifies into fish in nearby streams, and hits the eagles that eat the fish with doses millions of times greater than applied to the land.

              The fish don’t swim through the huts, either.

            • The ban the court said was fine banned DDT use on crops in the U.S. The order the court said was quite well-backed by science lifted the trial court’s ban on DDT for public health protection against insect vectors of disease, for use in Indoor Residual Spraying — the only way DDT is effective to fight malaria.

              Follow links here to read the rather short EPA order, and link to the full several pages of explanation, obiter dicta, and legal jots and tittles: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/oh-look-epa-ordered-ddt-to-be-used-to-fight-malaria-in-1972/

            • If you can show us the documents that ban DDT from being used by public health officials to spray onto the walls of residences to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes, please produce it. No one else has found such a document in 30 years, nor the 20 years previous to that — except for the U.S. federal court order, which William Rucklshaus lifted with his order of June 30, 1972.

              See: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/oh-look-epa-ordered-ddt-to-be-used-to-fight-malaria-in-1972/

              See explanation from Drs. Quiggin and Lambert: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson#.U6aVArGsjSg

      • I see at “Rachel Carson’s lethal claptrap” that you’ve been victimized by almost every one of the DDT/malaria hoaxsters — the “no poison’s too destructive not to use” Henry Miller, the lamentably off-his-game Gordon Edwards, industry hacks Meiners and Morriss. Will it be possible to overcome the crappy, completely false claims you’ve been handed?

        Would it not have been prudent to check with the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, EPA, or any organization with expertise in the issues? Yes.

        Did you? It appears not.

        Well, you’ve been hoaxed. I can respond point-by-ridiculously-exaggerated-or-completely imagined point. But you would do well to start with Drs. Quiggin’s and Lambert’s debunking of the myths: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson#.U6aVArGsjSg

        Continuation by Quiggin here: http://crookedtimber.org/2014/07/14/zombie-ddt-ban-myth-reanimated/

        Specific refutation of your citation of Henry I. Miller by Quiggin here: http://crookedtimber.org/2014/08/31/hoover-channels-larouche/

        And my explanation of Miller’s errors, here: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/laissez-faire-today-lazy-and-unfair-as-yesterday-on-issues-of-ddt/

        With all thy getting, get accuracy first.

        • I’ve read all the articles you provide the links to. I find little in them that is persuasive. They are full of invective against opponents as if that will make their case. The authors hate the Heartland Institute. Of course they do – the Heartland Institute challenges the environmentalist ideology. They hate the tobacco industry and believe that showing a connection between people who write against Carson and Big Tobacco will inevitably prove the writers to be liars. They claim that a policy of getting malaria-prone Africans to take certain drugs and sleep under nets has cut the incidence of malaria in half – which may be true, but doesn’t make a case against DDT. The only respectable argument is the claim that malaria-carrying mosquitoes (and other insects) develop an immunity to DDT. If so, there will obviously be no sense in continuing to use DDT against them. That case could be put without the invective and the slurs. As for Rachel Carson – I read “Silent Spring” years ago and it convinced me that the environmentalist agenda was dangerous. In one of the articles you link to there’s a quotation from Rachel Carson, about the death of a bird, that is supposed to sear the hearts of readers, and gives the flavor of her concerns. It is highly sentimental, and typical of the emotive approach of environmentalists. You save eagles from being harmed by DDT only to have them mashed by your windmills.

          • I would never contact the EPA. They’re the Stasi under another name. They would probably come after me and fine me for having a pool of water under the fountain in my backyard.

          • First: You mean THIS Heartland Institute: http://tfninsider.org/2014/08/29/ouch-texas-judge-slams-right-winger-for-wasting-his-time/ ?

            In his January 2013 testimony in the school finance base, Bast claimed that the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Program, a voucher scheme that failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011, would save the state about $2 billion over the first two years. As Dietz points out in his opinion, state officials strongly disputed Bast’s ridiculous math. In fact, Bast’s claims aren’t remotely close to reality. But here’s the best part of what Dietz wrote:

            Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.

            Ouch.

            • Let’s be clear about the case you’re making, and how it could not be so.

              1. You claim that the EPA ban on DDT in 1972 caused WHO to stop using DDT in 1965. There’s a calendar impossibility there that I’d like you to explain.

              2. You claim that EPA’s ban on DDT use on crops in the U.S. somehow caused mosquitoes to be more virulent, or numerous, or something, 9,000 miles away in Africa. There’s a geographic impossibility there I’d like you to explain.

              3. You claim that EPA’s ban on DDT use on crops in the U.S. somehow carried over to stop DDT use against a disease vector in Africa and Asia, though the EPA order specifically allowed DDT to be used against disease vectors in the U.S. and the rest of the world, AND the order sent all U.S.-made DDT to export, to Africa and Asia, to fight diseases. There’s a legal and historical set of impossibilities there I’d like you to explain.

              4. You claim that malaria incidence and deaths rose after the U.S. ban on DDT use on crops in the U.S., although almost every year after that ban, malaria deaths and incidence declined — with an 80% drop in deaths by 2013.

              EPA is good, but it’s jurisdiction stops at the U.S. borders. EPA has not demonstrated any ability to travel back in time to effect rules in made at a later date; EPA has not yet demonstrated an ability to fold space so that actions in Arkansas affect insects in Africa.

              That we have eagles at all in California, where a few dozen have been killed by windmills, is testament to the accuracy of the science Rachel Carson cited. Is it a tragedy that California windmills kill birds? Yes.

              But that does not excuse DDT’s threat to make extinct entire species, a threat only stopped by the cessation of outdoor spraying of DDT, per EPA’s well-documented-in-science order.

              You should pay attention to Carson’s heart-searing descriptions of bird deaths. They are accurate depictions, and worthy of avoiding.

              No piece of science Carson cited has ever been retracted, nor been refuted by later research — and in fact, research subsequent to Silent Spring and mostly subsequent to Carson’s death has, in each case, verified that what she cited was correct, or revealed even more ways DDT is deadly to birds.

              See: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/yes-malaria-is-still-a-plague-its-not-rachel-carsons-fault-and-your-saying-so-probably-kills-kids/

              You complain about my “invective.” But you demonstrate why invective would be justified in your insistence on ignoring chemistry, biology, history, law and geography, in an attempt to sully the reputation of a great writer and very good scientist. Despite the complete absence of evidence to support your case, despite the hard evidence that much of your case is pure hoax, you refuse to “believe” the facts.

              I wish you’d attack hoaxers with the same skepticism.

            • I mean THIS Heartland Institute:

              http://theatheistconservative.com/2012/02/23/fakegate/

              I quote from that post (our own):

              Here’s a new scandal in the on-going climate change drama.

              It concerns a now disreputable scientist, Peter Gleick, who “studies the hydrological cycle” and “serves as president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland, Calif.” Or did so serve.

              The Washington Post – sympathetic to warmism – reports:

              “The battle over climate science continues to
              escalate. The latest skirmish culminated in the admission Monday night by Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and author, that he assumed a fake identity to obtain documents that would expose the inner workings of a climate skeptic group.”

              The “climate skeptic group” is the Heartland Institute. Gleick (and the Washington Post, no doubt) hoped the stolen documents would expose something shady about that honest institution, but they didn’t. So in the interests of manmade global warming’s higher truth, Gleick found he had to forge a document to fulfill his hope.

              The preliminary steps of removing Peter Gleick from positions of authority and respect have
              begun: he’s ‘resigned’ from his position with the National Center for Science Education,
              and his scientific ethics task force chairmanship(!) for the American Geophysical Union.

              Ouch indeed!

            • liz

              Obviously the court that found Mr. Bast “not a credible witness” are all in favor of the socialist agenda, which destroys their own credibility.

  • 1. We need enemies to unite us.
    2. The enemy is mankind itself.
    3. Therefore we must unite mankind against itself.

    Great logic there, except for premise 2.
    Which leads to [3] … suicide.

    • Liz

      I guess the only way this scenario works is for the “chosen few” to stay in the bomb shelters while the rest of us destroy each other.  Which, when you think about it, is what the whole idea of Armageddon and the “rapture” is, too.
      So nothing really changes, I guess. Just the opinion of who the “Chosen Ones” are.

  • Frank

    George Carlin – Saving the Planet 

    • Can you say “Gaia done right”?

      The Earth does not consist of a discrete Man and a discrete Nature. Rather, its multiple components and pieces share such intimate interactions with each other that I fail to see how they can be considered “separate” in any meaningful sense. We should enjoy our stay here while it lasts and not waste a moment of it, for our descendants will surely enjoy wonders beyond our tiny brains.

      “Saving the planet” is truly nonsense, as Carlin so hilariously explained. This Earth is clearly not too worried about our own existence, so we should really do our best to make the best out of what we have. We have used less than 1% of Earth’s matter to achieve a pretty happy lifestyle, but still one fraught with plenty of hard work and never enough leisure – if we are lucky.

      Our Stone Age ideologies, combined with the children of our highest intellects, can threaten to plunge us into nuclear winter any day of the week. Environmentalists will help assist us towards that grisly end so long as they continue to deny the rest of us a much more beneficial use of that same technology which would make burning fossil fuels a thing of the past.

      America may be the richest nation in the world, both in its physical quality of life and the ideas which animate its citizens, but we are still quite poor. This current nation should look like a Fifth World hovel to the shining City Upon The Hill that our children’s children’s children will build – if we let them.

  • Liz

    I think the word “genocide” does fit here because the results of their regulations on DDT were brought about knowingly.  The deaths from malaria were the INTENDED consequences of the ban.

    • To establish genocide, one needs a pretty good cause-effect link.

      At peak DDT use years, 1958-1963, 4 million people died from malaria every year, worldwide. A half-billion people suffered at least one infection annually.

      Today, WHO estimates malaria deaths at less than 610,000 per year, a reduction of more than 80%; malaria infections have been cut by more than 50%, to fewer than 210 million/year.

      Is the absence of DDT the cause of the dramatic change in deaths and infections, the dramatic reductions in malaria deaths and malaria infections? If so, it’s time to change the rules for the Nobels, and give Rachel Carson simultaneous Medicine or Physiology, and Peace Nobels.

      • On the face of it the figures you give here are implausible. You ask a question that you do not answer. If the figures are right, it cannot be the case that NOT using something reduced deaths. That would imply that DDT had been the actual cause of a great many deaths. You do not mean that surely? So what did cause the reduction in deaths? It must have been a replacement (or replacements) for DDT. What is it (or are they)?

        • History shows that the number of deaths dropped dramatically after 1972. If the figures are correct, your claim that “millions died” as a result of an action that did NOT occur, cannot be accurate — but if you MUST claim a cause-effect relationship, since the effect is the exact opposite of what you claimed, then you must give credit for lives saved to Ms. Carson.

          The more honest way out would be to admit error and retract. But if you insist the change in malaria deaths are due to Ms. Carson, then to be self-consisten, you must give her credit for lives saved.

  • cheongyei

    Environmentalism – the god of the left.