I have from an early age been an avid outdoorsman and nature lover. I firmly believe that we should all do our part to preserve what has been given to us from previous generations. Whether its recycling whenever possible or only keeping what we are actually going to eat from a fishing trip. That is being sensible and mindful of our actions and how they affect the environment is logical and practical. Leaving to our children an environment better off than when we found it; or at least in as good a condition as we found it is a moral imperative in my view. I'm sure that most Americans would agree with me on that.
However, this sentiment can, is, and has been used against us by an ever growing so called "environmentalist" movement that has brought with it catastrophic consequences. Let us first look at one of the more infamous examples of this - the 1972 ban on DDT.
DDT, short for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a pesticide that was invented in 1874 but not put into widespread use until the early 1940's. DDT was found to be somewhat of a universal insect killer and deterrent. It was highly effective in that regard for agricultural pursuits which helped reduce crop damage and thus raise yields. Perhaps more importantly, it was found to be highly effective in controlling mosquitoes and as a consequence it nearly eliminated malaria in the United States and throughout much of the industrialized western world. It was so effective that most Americans today are unaware that malaria was ever a problem, yet before the adoption of widespread DDT use malaria was indeed prevalent in the U.S. killing thousands each year.
Then in 1962 Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was published and therein she painted a grave and deadly picture of DDT use. Carson claimed that DDT was responsible for everything from cancer in humans to the eventual extinction of birds, hence the title Silent Spring as one day we would no longer here the birds singing in springtime. The Environmental Defense Fund (we'll touch on their role again later) and other radical environmental groups of the time took the torch Silent Spring lit and ran with it. These groups took up legal action with the EPA to see that DDT was removed from the market. However, after 2 years of hearings the presiding administrative judge Edmund Sweeney declared that:
DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
Despite the findings of the court the then head of the EPA, William Ruckelshaus (a member of the Environmental Defense Fund), overruled Judge Sweeney and unilaterally banned DDT in the United States effective January 1, 1972. The rest of the industrialized west followed suit and then came the UN backed worldwide ban.
If you were to Google "most deadly creature on earth" you would find many top 10 lists where 2-10 are somewhat varied. Yet the number 1 spot common to all those lists is the mosquito. How on earth can that be? One word: malaria. Malaria, which is chiefly transmitted by mosquitoes, kills MILLIONS of third world peoples - the most substantial number in Africa. Poorer nations throughout the world have been denied access to the most effective chemical (also the most cost effective) known to man in the combat of malaria for over 30 years - you guessed it: DDT. While some have placed the death toll over that 30+ year period as high as 50 million conservative estimates have the number around 27 million.
Did I mention that there has NEVER been any sound scientific evidence that DDT poses or did pose a significant threat to human OR animal life?
In 2006 the WHO (World Health Organization) finally ended its ban on DDT to enable third world countries access to the same life saving chemical we in the United States and elsewhere used to effectively eradicate malaria. Despite this the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the organizations chiefly responsible for the 1972 DDT ban, still hail the ban as a "A Continuing Success Story" as you can see from this post on their website. I ask you: how can the deaths of 27,000,000 fellow human beings be a success story?!
Think something like this can't happen again? Wrong. For years many scientists, politicians, and concerned citizens have been questioning the validity of man made global warming only to be characterized as "uneducated", "deniers", or "corporate cronies". That is until the recent discovery of emails and documents linked to "top" IPCC scientists who were in their own words distorting, changing, and even outright falsifying evidence to preserve their theory that man made climate change is real. And yet even with the science supporting man made climate change in serious doubt President Obama recklessly asserted that, "The time for debate is over. We must act now."
"...We must act now." Is a call to pass so called "cap-and-trade" legislation which would give the federal government control over carbon dioxide emissions - the alleged culprit of global warming such as it is. So let me get this straight Mr. President: despite alarming new evidence that underscores the position of thousands of scientists who do not agree that man made global warming is in fact a reality we need to move immediately to pass legislation that will cost the average family an additional $2,000 per year in taxes and higher energy costs during the deepest recession in over 30 years?! Additionally, we know that China, India, and other countries will not follow our lead. Thus we will effectively be engaging in unilateral economic disarmament since U.S. companies will by definition be saddled with higher costs than their emerging market competitors. Does this sound like good economic policy to you dear reader?
Another example of the dangers of environmental extremism is the current man made drought along the I-5 corridor in central California. The "drought" spawns from litigation filed by a left wing group the National Resources Defense Council or NRDC along with several other environmental organizations originally in 2006. The NRDC asserted that the pumps used to push water into the San Joaquin Valley were killing an endangered species - the two inch delta smelt. The NRDC sought to have the pumps turned off as an enforcement of The Endangered Species Act. They succeeded; and the victory for the delta smelt has lead to farm bankruptcies, thousands of jobs lost, and once proud hard-working farm hands have been reduced to standing in Great Depression like food lines.
During this struggle between environmental groups, farmers, and even the State of California itself the NRDC has continually characterized opposition as "distorting the issue" or derivations thereof when opponents have said this is a "man vs. fish" battle. They use a variety of falsehoods in an attempt to divert attention from the fact that this is very much indeed a "man vs. fish" battle. Let's address those diversions for a moment:
1. "This is about more than the delta smelt. The decline in the delta smelt population has caused the closure of commercial salmon fishing." - Wrong. Years of over fishing and mismanagement are the root of the salmon decline.
2. "Delta smelt aside there is a real drought in California and we simply don't have enough water to supply agricultural demands." That is true in part, however, that has ALWAYS been true - California's central valley is an arid region. The real problem has been a mismanagement of water resources, not an actual scarcity as such. To clarify for those who are unfamiliar with the region allow me to expand... The central valley, and much of California for that matter, has its water needs fulfilled mainly by a vast number of reservoirs that capture snow melting in the mountains that comprise the near entirety of eastern California. The water is held in these reservoirs until it is needed for individual or agricultural demands, which it then delivers through a series of rivers and aqueducts. This is all overseen by dozens of "Irrigation Districts". For comparison take the Oakdale Irrigation District or OID. The OID along with neighboring districts like the Turlock Irrigation District or TID are literally just miles away from the I-5 corridor where farming has been seriously affected and yet farms fed by the OID and TID are thriving with an abundant water supply. That being the case it is beyond ludicrous to claim that the problem is simply a scarcity of water. The water is plentiful rather it is years of mismanagement and poor planning that are at fault.
3. Finally and perhaps the most ridiculously hyperbolic diversionary argument is that the levies are crumbling which will inevitably lead to a catastrophic event wherein an earthquake destroy the levies. Then after the levies are destroyed saltwater from the San Francisco bay will overrun the San Joaquin delta thereby destroying the fresh water source altogether. While it is true that many of the levies are in need of upgrade and repair what on earth does that have to do with the current injunction stopping water from being released to farmers. Moreover, even if we were to stipulate to this highly unlikely earthquake turning fresh into salt water scenario would it somehow not occur if the levies were not there? This seems particularly antithetical and incoherent given that this far flung theory is based on the fact that it would be an earthquake destroying the levies that would in turn result in a sort of California dead sea.
As you can see debunking these diversionary arguments is rather easy. Therefore we are back to where we started - the two inch delta smelt is worth protecting at all costs if you're a radical environmentalist. To hell with those intellectually inferior farmers, their families, those they employ, and their employees families as well.
These are just three of countless illustrations that could be cited where environmental extremism and zealotry have caused unnecessary hysteria, thousands of jobs lost, massive economic dislocation, and in horrible cases such as the DDT story the death of millions of human beings. All under the auspice of seemingly harmless ideals like "going green". After all who could be against "going green" or preserving the environment?
At the outset of this post I offered the supposition that our common regard for the natural world is being used against us. In all three of the above disputes those who have not thrown in with the hard left of the "environmental" movement have been delineated as everything from "uninformed fools" to "corporate cronies".
In the final analysis, there are things we can and should do to pass onto our children and grandchildren a natural world that we have not unnecessarily ravaged. However, we must be practical and pragmatic in this endeavor. Furthermore, we should be certain of the scientific validity of any cause before, not after, we adopt radical measures. Additionally, preserving the natural world should always be tempered with a greater concern for what is of paramount importance: human life.
Sources and External Links:
No comments:
Post a Comment