Deltag i debat om DDT her:
http://www.180grader.dk/Udland/andrew-klavan-the-highway-to-hell-leftist-remix-edition

In the 1930s, the[The National Geographic] notes, the United States was in malaria trouble up to its knees. There were millions of cases of the disease, but swamps were bulldozed, DDT was sprayed in homes to kill the mosquitoes and, by 1950, presto: disease gone.

But another part — the criminally negligent part — is that a number of environmental groups fought successfully to prevent its use even when it was applied carefully inside homes with no danger to wildlife and no scientifically persuasive evidence of any harm to humans...

Jay Ambrose: The ban on DDT pesticide is war against humanity
http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/370726

...the environmental hysteria led to DDT's suppression in Africa, where its use had been dramatically reducing deaths. American foreign aid could be used to finance ineffective alternative anti-malaria methods, but not DDT. Within a short time, the mosquitoes and malaria reappeared, and deaths skyrocketed. Tens of millions of people have died in that time.

Hooray for DDT's Life-Saving Comeback
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/hooray_for_ddts_lifesaving_com.html

Environmentalists and aid bureaucrats insisted that DDT could be replaced by other pesticides and procedures such as "integrated vector management." But mosquitoes quickly developed resistance to newer pesticides, and vector management was a gimcrack theory that failed everywhere it was tried.

Despite clear evidence as to the effects, international aid groups such as the World Health Organization and USAid ceased supporting DDT operations. By the mid-80s, malaria had reached and surpassed previous levels. Up to 500 million people were suffering attacks each year. Two to three million of them died as a result. Up to nine-tenths of the dead were children under five.

Rachel Carson and the Deaths of Millions
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/rachel_carson_and_the_deaths_o.html

"DDT is the answer to our problems," said Dr John Rwakimari, head of the national malaria program in Uganda, where malaria rates have increased five-fold in 15 years. "We must do something."

"The human cost of the Western policies is very high," said economist James Shikwat, director of the Inter Region Economic Network in Nairobi.

African nations lift DDT ban to fight malaria
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/african-nations-lift-ddt-ban-to-fight-malaria/2006/05/30/1148956344979.html

I met Dr. Edwards in the 1990s while researching the DDT controversy. We collaborated in 1999 on the fact sheet "100 Things You Should Know About DDT."

Now, even the New York Times has seen the light, running a pro-DDT editorial on Dec. 23, 2002 ("Fighting Malaria with DDT), a pro-DDT op-ed column on Aug. 7, 2003 (Is there a place for DDT?") and, most recently, a pro-DDT New York Times Magazine article on April 11, 2004. ("What the World Needs Now is DDT").

Scientist Who Warned Against DDT Ban Dies
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128165,00.html
Mere:
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

John Stossel - DDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwqandRTSQ

Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4787

Vejen til helvede er brolagt med gode intentioner – især venstrefløjens, lyder det fra tv-værten, Andrew Klavan der på kun tre minutter fremhæver de venstreorienteredes ansvar for en række politisk forårsagede katastrofer. Om miljøbevægelsen siger Klavan, at bevægelsens succes med et forbud mod DDT er skyld i omkring 50 millioner dødsfald, og at ”miljøbevægelsens krav om mindre tunge biler har øget de fatale ulykker på vejene; og bevægelsens overtroiske syn på fossilt brændstof har svækket vestlige producenter til fordel for mellemøstlige diktaturstater og terrorister ”.

Andrew Klavan: The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3DhquH12jQ

Mere om ddt og miljøbevægelsen
http://www.cfact.org/a/1809/3-billion-and-counting

A new film [ called “3 Billion and Counting” ] challenges DDT myths and lies that have caused millions of needless deaths. [...]

Paul Driessen: - Three billion humans dead so far from malaria … and counting. And green ideologues work tirelessly to ensure that the callous, needless global death toll continues to rise. See this film. Tell your friends about it. Bring it to your college, club and local theater. It will make your blood boil, and change your perspectives forever about DDT and the radical environmental movement.

http://www.cfact.org/a/1809/3-billion-and-counting

[One of Rachel] Carson's current heirs [...] Earth First! founder Dave Foreman writes: "Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

Rachel Carson's birthday should be commemorated, not with laudatory festivities, but with the rejection of the environmental ideology she inspired.

- Read more in Rachel Carson's Genocide by Keith Lockitch.

Besøg Kyoto Kritik.

I artiklen Forty years of perverse "social responsibility" kan man blandt andet læse følgende:

A year ago – after an extensive public education effort by the Congress of Racial Equality, Africa Fighting Malaria, Kill Malarial Mosquitoes NOW Coalition and other health and human rights groups– the USAID and World Health Organization finally began supporting DDT use once again. But ED, Pesticide Action Network and other agitators still promote ridiculous anti-DDT themes on their websites, claiming it is “associated with” low birth weights in babies and shortened lactation in nursing mothers.

None of these anti-insecticide pressure groups has ever apologized for their disingenuous campaigns or been held accountable for the misery and death they helped perpetuate. Instead, they blame today’s horrendous malaria rates on a new “crisis” – global warming.

- Og så også lige citatet i overskriften...

[A]larmists now say we must slash total global emissions by 60-80% by 2050, to keep CO2 at a “safe” level and “stabilize” a climate that has never been stable. If poor developing nations remain exempt (as they should), developed countries will have to go virtually carbon-free to reach this goal.

They would terminate millions of jobs, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and send living standards tumbling, while giving every US citizen a “carbon allowance” akin to what other parts of the world now “enjoy” (2.3 tons of CO2 per year in Cuba or 1.2 in India, versus our current 19.8 or Canada’s 17.9).

[...]

It’s a classic bait-and-switch tactic, repeated endlessly in a well-coordinated propaganda campaign by activists, scientists, journalists, bureaucrats, celebrities and politicians. They used similar tactics 30 years ago to excise DDT and other insecticides from disease control programs. Tens of millions died from malaria – and not one of the perpetrators has ever apologized, admitted error, or been penalized or otherwise held accountable for the unconscionable disease, brain damage and death they perpetuated.

Now they say we should trust them on climate change.

- Det skriver Paul K. Driessen i artiklen An economic suicide pact for Europe and the US.

- Jason Hoskin tør det som danske journalister viger tilbage for, det vil sige at beskrive miljøbevægelsens værdigrundlag (men i øvrigt også det statslige finansieringsgrundlag). Det gør han i California Proposition 87: Environmentalism Unites With Marx To Loot Oil Producers.

Et citat fra ovenstående:

The pesticide DDT has saved an estimated half billion according to the National Academy of Sciences by destroying malaria carrying mosquitoes. This rivals the number of lives saved by the drug penicillin. Nevertheless, Environmentalists successfully lobbied for its world-wide ban, claiming that it is a carcinogen in humans. This is in spite of the fact that tests in animals and humans, show that it safe even at thousands of times the concentration of normal exposure.

When a reporter asked Dr. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, why the attack on this beneficent chemical, he responded that there were too many people and ``this was as good a way to get rid of them as any.”

Er wurster nu en undtagelse? - Så prøv at finde miljøaktivister, der er positivt indstillede overfor introduktion af nye produkter samt tiltag, der forbedrer menneskers vilkår i forhold til udgangspunktet; - eksempelvis aktivister, der ville foretrække olieboringer i Alaska frem for Mellemøsten; - eller aktivister som har anstændighed nok til at anerkende olieindustriens kollosale gavnlighed for menneskers velstand, - selvsagt også når det gælder om at forbedre vores omgivelser.

Mere kritik hos Punditokraterne.

Besøg også www.coin.dk/kyoto.

Den moderne miljøbevægelse blev født i USA i 1962 med bogen "Det tavse forår", hvori biologen Rachel Carson hævdede, at Jorden gik et tavst forår uden fugle i møde, fordi menneskeskabt forurening truede fuglebestandene. Det var ikke mindst rester af pesticider såsom det effektive malariabekæmpelsesmiddel DDT, der var farlige. Med Carsons overdrevne påstande som argument forbød talrige lande DDT med det forudsigelige resultat, at malaria vendte tilbage. Millioner af liv er i miljøets navn blevet ødelagt af en sygdom, der let kunne undgås.

- Det skriver David Gress i dagens kommentar, der tidligere er bragt som kronik i Jyllands-Posten.

Man kan læse mere om Carson i, Ph.D. i fysik, Keith Lockitchs artikel Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT, der afsluttes således:

In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a "necessary" component of a "vibrant biosphere" and seeking a "reasonable accommodation" with them.

The WHO's support for DDT use is an encouraging step toward stopping this global health catastrophe. But even more important is to reject the environmental ideology on which opposition to DDT is based.

Mere om Afrika og miljøbevægelsen her.

Verdenssundhedsorganisationen har nu besluttet at støtte brugen af DDT:

The World Health Organization, conceding that alternative methods to fight malaria have failed, will start encouraging the use of DDT around the world.

"For anyone who cares about human life, this is excellent news," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The widespread use of DDT against malaria-carrying mosquitoes can prevent the infection of hundreds of millions of people every year and save millions of lives." - Fundet på the Objective Standard.

I et interview med George Reisman (mp3) kan man i øvrigt få en god forklaring på, hvorfor mange af miljøbevægelsens anbefalinger har negative konsekvenser for mennesker, og hvorfor mange medlemmer af miljøbevægelsen samtidig ikke lægger skjul på dette; men for en række personers vedkommende rent faktisk byder de harmfulde konsekvenser for mennesker af deres politik velkommen (eksempler findes i artikelanbefalingen nederst): - Dette handler om synet på den eksisterende naturtilstand, som havende en værdi-i-sig-selv. Konsekvensen af dette syn medfører således at flere mennesker og øget civilisation opfattes negativt i denne sammenhæng, for de af miljøfolkene påstulerede iboende værdier i dyr og planter.

I går på forsiden af Berlingske kunne man således se en masse fabrikker, der udledte en masse røg. Mange miljøfolk ser således dette billede som noget negativt.

For undertegnede står billedet imidlertid for følgende: - At maskiner nu har erstattet hårdt og nedslidende arbejde; at ressourcer er frigjort så eksempelvis kinesere nu kan beskæftige sig med andet, end blot at slide 40-50 timer om ugen for kun at opnå helt bassale fornødenheder; og at den kinesiske befolkning, dermed langt om længe er ved at fjerne sig fra den tilstand forbundet med afsavn, der har kendetegnet størstedelen af menneskets historie. (Og at takket være markedsøkonomien - og hverken Connie Hedegaard, Svend Auken, Mao eller Per Stig Møller - vil de ineffektive fabrikker nu i hastigere tempo blive udskiftet med mere effektive).

- Men sådan er vi så forskellige. Andre fortolker således røgudledende fabrikker og vareproducerende fabrikker som skade på naturen, og tager således i stedet stilling til fordel for søpølser, koralrev, egetræer, pandabjørne eller moskitoers ynglepladser; eftersom de på denne måde ser dyr og planter, som havende en værdi-sig-selv (eng. intrinsic value).

I den forbindelse skal også anbefales George ReismansThe Toxicity of Environmentalism :

The doctrine of intrinsic value is itself only a rationalization for a preexisting hatred of man. It is invoked not because one attaches any actual value to what is alleged to have intrinsic value, but simply to serve as a pretext for denying values to man. For example, caribou feed upon vegetation, wolves eat caribou, and microbes attack wolves. Each of these, the vegetation, the caribou, the wolves, and the microbes, is alleged by the environmentalists to possess intrinsic value. Yet absolutely no course of action is indicated for man.

For example, the intrinsic value of the vegetation et al. is invoked as a guide to man's action only when there is something man wants, such as oil, and then, as in the case of Northern Alaska, its invocation serves to stop him from having it. In other words, the doctrine of intrinsic value is nothing but a doctrine of the negation of human values. It is pure nihilism.