JunkScience.com

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.