Category: Green Hell

WHO wouldn’t want to save this child?

For right now, we’ll just leave that as a question.

The WHO summary document concerning its program to rollback the use of DDT states that,

Malaria is one of the greatest public health challenges facing the developing world. World Health Organization (WHO) data indicate that malaria causes over 1 million deaths per year, with
over 90% of those deaths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria causes over 300 million cases of acute illness each year. Children account for over three-quarters of these cases, and malaria kills an African child every 30 seconds. Beyond the immediate disease burden, malaria incurs devastating costs on local economies, both direct costs of treatment and prevention and indirect costs of lost productivity. This burden is especially great in the tropical developing
world where malaria most often occurs.

So it sounds like you’d want an effective tool for combating a disease that kills a child every 30 seconds, right? The WHO document says that,

Spraying indoor surfaces with DDT has been highly effective in interrupting malarial transmission in many developing countries.

So why, then, does the WHO want to phase out DDT? The WHO says,

Because of its chemical stability, it is slowly metabolized, it accumulates in the environment through food chains and in tissues of exposed organisms and is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans.

So the WHO wants to phase-out the “highly effective” DDT because it is “potentially” harmful. But what does “potentially” harmful mean and does it offset a-dead-child-every-30-seconds?

Next, the WHO says,

DDT and its residues build up in the food chain, and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not applied in accordance with WHO guidelines and recommendations.

So the WHO wants to phase-out DDT because some applicators don’t use it properly? Isn’t it worth ensuring that DDT is used properly (whatever that actually means) given that a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria?

The WHO continues,

Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides such as DDT, which became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in living tissue, and can affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable debate and increased suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt the endocrine systems of mammals.

Debate? Are you kidding me? Who is debating what? There seems to be no debate that a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria. How many children need to die while unknown people allegedly debate who-knows-what?

Finally, the WHO says,

New evidence is being published about links between low-level DDT exposure and adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and to diabetes.

Even if these claims were true — and they’re not (see e.g., sperm count and breast cancer claims debunked) — since when does any of this outweigh the tragedy of a-dead-child-every-30-seconds?

So there’s no more question — the WHO wouldn’t want to save this child.

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world’s poor will suffer as a result.

The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim “is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner,” said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6…

“Sadly, WHO’s about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists,” says Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria. “Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also don’t benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes.”

The 14th century witnessed the “Black Death.” We’ll witness “Green Death.”

The House Energy and Commerce last night approved an amendment introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to the Waxman-Markey bill that would require the EPA to explore establishing a national program for labeling products with their “carbon content” — that is, labeling products to show much CO2 was emitted in their manufacture and the warming impact of that CO2.

Click here for Rep. Baldwin’s carbon labeling amendment.

The goal of this amendment is to stigmatize the use of energy at a consumer product level and would undoubtedly lead to a host of dubious-to-fraudulent marketing claims about the climate-friendliness of consumer products.

In the immediate wake of President Obama’s announcement of more stringent mileage standards by 2016, California air czar Mary Nichols told Reuters yesterday that,

“California will be immediately getting to work on what the standards should be for beyond 2016,” and that she expects, “a much more stringent standard.”

Now that California voters have forced Gov. Schwarzenegger to start cutting state employees to stave off the state’s fiscal crisis, a good place to start would be pink-slipping Nichols and the rest of the California Air Resources Board.

Courtesy of CEI’s Myron Ebell:

“Here are some of the key votes on amendments [to the Waxman-Markey climate bill] so far. Most were straight party-line votes, but a few Democrats strayed on several votes.

• Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if China and India don’t adopt similarly stringent emissions reductions. Defeated on a party-line vote with all members of the committee voting, 23-36.
• Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if electricity prices go up in any region more than 10% after inflation. Defeated, 23-32.
• Fred Upton (R-MI) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if unemployment reaches 15%. Defeated, 21-34.
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced an amendment requiring full disclosure to consumers of cost increases due to the Act. Defeated, 19-35.
• Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if gasoline prices hit $5. Defeated, 25-31.
• Tim Murphy (R-PA) introduced an amendment suspending Act if 10,000 steel jobs lost. Defeated, 20-35.
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced an amendment prohibiting using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases (H. R. 391).Defeated, 23-33. John Barrow of Georgia was the only Democrat who voted yes.
• Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced an amendment requiring 100% auctioning of ration coupons, with proceeds going to the States. Defeated, 4-52. This vote shows how tied the Republicans as well as the Democrats are to big business special interests.”

As for a the Democrats are concerned, damn the economic and social downsides, full speed ahead on the costliest, junk science-fueled special interest boondoggle of all time.

is right here.

… in 2008, according to a report released yesterday by the Energy Information Administration.

That’s no surprise as economic activity and energy use are highly correlated.

The greens want us to use less energy, so you can probably predict the impact that will have on economic growth. Don’t bother coming back with the “efficiency” argument — been there, debunked that.

The Obama administration’s proposed mileage standards that will be announced today may kill more Americans at a faster rate than the Iraq War — his signature issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama’s standards will require automakers to meet a 35 miles-per-gallon standard by 2016 — four years earlier than the same standard imposed by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007.

As discussed in my new book Green Hell, the only way for carmakers to meet these standard is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.

The National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards with about 2,000 deaths per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715.

In contrast in the more than six years since the Iraq war began, there have been 4,296 deaths among American military personnel.

There’s also another lesson hidden in the proposed standards — one that applies to businesses trying to game global warming legislation.

Carmakers lobbied hard against overly stringent mileage standards in the 2007 energy bill, finally negotiating with Congress a compromise standard they thought they at least had a chance to meet. President Obama has now pulled the rug out from under the carmakers and their 2007 deal.

This ought to serve as a lesson for businesses trying to negotiate a climate deal they think (hope) they can survive. Rest assured that as soon as business groups agree to a climate deal, the greens and the Obama administration will go to work the next day figuring out ways to bulldoze the deal in order to make greenhouse gas limitations more stringent and more expensive.

Businesses often operate under the mis-impression that they can cut lasting, win-win compromises with environmental groups on public policy. But such dealing is an impossibility since the greens are ideologically driven and won’t be happy until capitalism is stamped out. The greens are not interested in compromise. Like blood in the water to sharks, compromise by businesses signals its weakness and vulnerability, and, therefore, opportunity for the greens.

May 18, 2009

Dear Al Gore,

How will the Waxman-Markey bill — legislation that you have endorsed — save the planet from the disaster that you claim is imminent?

You have said that,

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. [Emphasis added]

But under the fantasy emission-reduction scenario of the Waxman-Markey bill, the U.S. would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from more than 7 billion tons today to about 5.6 billion tons in 2020 — the level at which U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were in 1988 when NASA’a James Hansen famously sounded the alarm about global warming in congressional testimony.

So in a sense, after ten years of Waxman-Markey we’d only be back at square one.

Meanwhile, worldwide CO2 emissions are projected to increase from about 30 billion tons in 2009 to about 37 billion tons in 2020. Even if the Waxman-Markey fantasy came true and U.S. emissions were reduced by 1.4 billion tons, worldwide CO2 emissions would still increase to about 35.6 billion tons annually.

Pray tell, Mr. Gore, how will Waxman-Markey avert the “major catastrophe” that you say we only have ten years to avoid?

And while you’re spinning the answer to that one, Mr. Gore, would it be possible to get a list of your investments that would benefit from the Waxman-Markey bill?

Sincerely,

Your friends at JunkScience.com

Checkout the amendments to be offered by Republicans at today’s mark-up of the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

The Waxman-Markey climate bill will be marked up Monday, May 18, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

Click here for a summary of the complete bill.

From the Detroit News:

It was supposed to be a shining example of the green movement — a completely independent solar-powered house with no gas or electrical hookups.

Seven months ago, officials gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the $900,000 house owned by the city of Troy that was to be used as an educational tool and meeting spot.

But it never opened to the public. And it remains closed.

Frozen pipes during the winter caused $16,000 in damage to floors, and city officials aren’t sure when the house at the Troy Community Center will open…

“The system was designed to kick a heater on to keep water from freezing,” [the superintendent of parks for the city] said. “The heater drew all reserve power out of the battery causing the system to back down and the pipes froze.”

Yeah, but shouldn’t the first clue of failure have been the very idea of building an 800 square-foot house in Troy, MI that cost $900,000 — that is, $1,125 per square foot? The median price of homes in Troy is about $159,000 and that’s for an 1,800 sq. ft home — about $88 per square foot.

Even if the solar system hadn’t malfunctioned, who in their right mind would consider the house a success?

I suppose it’s fitting that this tragi-comedy occurred in a place called Troy — the greens are trying to deceive us in adopting their nutty policies and goofy technologies with a Trojan House.

Beware of greens bearing grifts.