I am sure that I have long since been ex-communicated by most “environmental” groups, but I still regard myself as an environmentalist in that I believe that the natural world should be preserved when it can be shown that such action will also be economically beneficial. My goal is to improve both human welfare and the environment; the current environmental groups claim that they are reducing the impact of humans on the environment. But they are actually making humans and the environment worse off in most of their high profile activities. I do not see how anyone can call himself or herself an “environmentalist” and advocate any of the following goals of many “environmental” organizations:
- o Reducing Earth’s level of atmospheric CO2. As discussed previously, if there is any real danger from the level of CO2 in the atmosphere it is that it is dangerously low. Making CO2 emissions lower increases the risk of CO2 plant starvation during the next ice age, and with it, the food supply for most of the world’s human, animal, plant populations. Those who advocate lowering the atmospheric CO2 levels are really advocating mass starvation of most plants and animals, including humans. I find this absolutely reprehensible, particularly when every climate-related argument for reducing CO2 emissions has been found to be scientifically invalid, including the claim that human activities are increasing atmospheric global warming by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
o Chopping up or frying millions of birds and bats who encounter wind or solar farms. Birds and bats are probably the biggest consumers of insects injurious to humans and other animals. Decimating them by the use of ultra costly wind and solar projects is both unwise and anti-environmental. We need as many birds and bats as we can get, and we need as low a population of injurious insects (which many birds and bats eat) as possible.
o Preventing the use of DDT, the only economical pesticide with a proven record of preventing malaria but not harming humans or birds, in less developed countries. Outlawing the use of DDT condemned tens of millions to death and hundreds of millions to one of the most debilitating diseases still rampant in the less developed world. A recent video discusses the impact of radical environmental policies on control of tropical diseases such as malaria in less developed countries such as India.
o Opposing the use of fracking to lower the cost of extracting oil and natural gas. Fracking and associated technology is quite safe and one of the best technologies to increase production of oil and natural gas at a lower cost. It is forcing OPEC to keep prices of these vital fuels lower than they otherwise would be. It does have the disadvantage that fracking for natural gas reduces emissions of CO2 compared to coal, but this is well worth it for providing the advantages of improving human lives by using plentiful, inexpensive gas and oil. There are alleged to be some minor risks, but there are ways to reduce even these rather than banning the use of fracking. Fracking increases human welfare, which is strongly associated with an improved environment.
o Increasing the cost of using energy to assist humans in their daily tasks by favoring unreliable, intermittent, and more expensive sources. Increasing the cost of using energy by raising its cost will decrease its use and thus human welfare and economic productivity, which are strongly associated with an improved environment as humans turn to such issues as their basic needs are satisfied.
o Pushing down the reliability of electric power systems. The poster child for this is the State of South Australia, which has now suffered from five state electricity blackouts in the last six months as a result of closing down dependable fossil fuel generating stations in favor of unreliable “renewable” sources.
o Pushing a very intolerant version of climate alarmism which according to one study has had a cost of roughly $1.5 trillion per year and is based on invalid science. These resources could have been used to really improve human welfare and the environment.
It is long past time for “environmental” groups to do something constructive that will make life on Earth better rather than worse. What they have done in recent years have resulted in all costs and no benefits. They have been taken over by left wing radicals, who are now trying to control the use of energy, which is drastically decreasing human welfare. This hurts humans including lowering their standard of living, which means they will do less to preserve the environment because their basic needs will be less adequately met.
CDC’s predecessor, the Office of Malaria Control in War Areas, had been established in 1942 to limit the impact of malaria and other vector-borne diseases (such as murine typhus) during World War II around military training bases in the southern United States and its territories, where malaria was still problematic.The center was located in Atlanta (rather than Washington, DC) because the South was the area of the country with the most malaria transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html
DDT is not legally available in the United States, yet malaria is not rampant in the US.
This suggests there are effective means of controlling malaria without DDT. this also makes DDT a disracting side issue from refutations of climate alarmism.
Good list Alan,
The comment the US is not malarial shows ignorance of infectious diseases. With the arrival of Europeans, then Africans, North American became malarial. In the US, outbreaks were common east of the Rockies and in California. The Center for Disease Control was established to control malaria and other diseases around WWII training bases. https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/ourstory.htm
The EPA banned DDT on the false claim that DDT can cause cancer, after malaria was suppressed in the US in the 1950s, in part by using DDT.
Ken Haapala
Dr. Carlin,
I like yourself and Dr. Pielke Sr. appreciate the value of model simulations, but do not consider them data that prove a scientific theory. As an augmentation for experimental design they really are a “Catalyst For Revenue Growth Through Innovation” :see http://www.experimentationbydesign.com/html/ECHIP_Highlights.php
Recent posts at Fabius Maximus https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/04/06/climate-scientists-discuss-the-house-hearing/ and by the Risk Monger (who also questions the effectiveness of the DDT ban)
https://risk-monger.com/2017/03/26/cargill-how-to-stop-a-freight-train/ took me back to why Scientists use to be esteemed by society as their efforts have given us the modern world.
It’s been a few decades since I used one of Dr. Box’s CCD experimental designs to improve a process, but I have a feeling he would find the whole exercise unfit for use as far as setting policy goes. As Dr. Hardin noted so many years ago in the Tragedy of the Commons the role of corrective feedback is the way we move forward. It’s time to acknowledge the models run to hot and to rerun the economic models based on the lower sensitivity which will show that society is enjoying a NET economic benefits not a losses with adding co2 into the atmosphere and this will continue for quite a while.
The intolerance of climate advocates approaches evil.
But how else to sell the idea, save with junk science and intolerance and sick news media reporting? Intolerance is important for protecting the fraudsters.
Someday the silliness has to be exposed and there will be a tremendous loss of credibility for proponents. There is no other possible outcome. A bridge to no where.
Missed “against” as in anybody who advocates against insecticides in a malarial zone is not highly interested in human health
I don’t claim knowledge of mosquitoes or pesticides, but it’s a hard to imagine only DDT kills them.
However anybody who advocates any insecticide in a malarial zone is cruel.
Nowadays the frontier of controlling mosquitoes may be sterilizing males and taking down the population more cleverly by interrupting the reproduction. Even educated fleas fall in love.
I agree with your major substantive points. I doubt it helps these to attack smaller matters with potentially less accuracy.
I am doubtful of millions of birds dying from wind and solar.
Plenty of birds hit the glass windows of High rise buildings. How do windmills compare to Windows as a killer of birds?
How about hunters? Did windmills wipe out the passenger pigeon? Or did hunting and chopping down trees?
A few narrow objections. US environmentalists did not condemn millions to death by cancelling DDT. The USA is not malarial, so we were never losing millions in this country before introduction of DDT.
If governments in malarial areas banned DDT, this was the sole choice and responsibility of these governments. These governments should not have listened to poor public health policy advice.
claiming DDT was proven not to hurt birds is iffy. It is hard to prove things in environmental science. It could be said there was not clear or reliable suggestion that DDT hurt humans or birds, before it was cancelled in the USA. This seems a more defensible statement.