Beyond the Cusp

July 5, 2017

The Unintentional Racism of the Eco Movement


We hear all about how the Eco Movement is a holy and wonderful group of people who are simply so superior to the rest of us. Their concern is that the Earth might be becoming ill and, as Albert Gore has loved saying, the Earth has a fever! They demand that bio-fuels, wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power and any other kind of power which does not depend on carbon be used exclusively despite any and all consequences. They ignore much and this was first demonstrated in great detail starting with the 1962 publication of Silent Spring which gave a near hysterical depiction of the world and the wide over-dependence on pesticides. This book began the investigation into the use of DDT and the claim that its use, not its over-use, just its use leading to thinner shells on the eggs of birds leading to eventual inability of birds to reproduce successfully. We will grant that there was an effect on insect eating birds’ eggshells. That is obvious as the way it was utilized all but expunged the entire areas of their insect populations. The rarifying of food sources for these birds is what led to their thinned eggshells. Had DDT been used more precisely, sparingly and moderately rather than spraying DDT indiscriminately over wide-expanses with frequent refreshing whenever a single mosquito was detected by one of the more influential community members, the problems such spraying caused would have been mitigated. In other words, instead of such broad and inundating usages ,DDT had been limited to delicate use where mosquitoes breed such as where there was still water and actual mosquitoes present, then the whole species of insects would not have been so drastically affected. This would have caused less of a deleterious effect on the birds and their eggshells. By 2001, the anti-DDT crusaders reached their pinnacle of success, a world-wide ban on the use of DDT. There were side effects which everybody simply brushed aside but there was a reason the pesticide chemical manufacturers backed, through third party donations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the ban on DDT which we will cover shortly.


The ban on DDT was extended to cover the entire globe after malaria had been almost completely eradicated from the developed world but was still a major problem in the developing world, especially in tropical environments where mosquitos were a present and serious problem. The problem can be put into perspective by simply considering the toll caused by malaria in the developing world. In 2012, malaria caused an estimated two-hundred-seven-million clinical episodes, and six-hundred-seven-thousand deaths. An estimated 91% of deaths in 2010 were in the African Region. The saddest statistic is that aside from tourist cases, the most vulnerable amongst us are the young children, who have not yet developed partial immunity to malaria, and pregnant women, whose immunity is decreased by pregnancy, especially during their first and second pregnancies. The elderly also are more susceptible. The immediate response when people wish to show concern is, are there not other pesticides which can be utilized to reduce mosquito populations? The answer is yes and then people brush off their hands and simply advise that these nations simply use the modern, more specific and targeted pesticides which are more ecologically friendly. Seldom is the next logical question asked, what about affordability? Well, that is the elephant in the room. These new and fancy chemical pesticides which are so completely wonderful and Earth-friendly are more costly and the Eco Movement will contend that the Earth is worth the price. That is true except when the government cannot afford the fancy new pesticides. There was a reason the chemical industry was so keen on seeing DDT banned, it was very inexpensive, extremely effective and was not raking in the money and they were not being able to sell their fancy new pesticides throughout the world as long as DDT was available, thus it had to be banned. Still people are falling to malaria and the poorer nations cannot afford the expensive new and less effective pesticides which, unremarkably enough, also require far more frequent applications making their expense grow even higher. The developing nations then claim to care, especially when fundraising, but they kept pushing until finally in 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants the United Nations banned DDT universally. Now to produce and use DDT makes a nation an international pariah and punishable by the World Court. So, tell me who really cares about third world populations, those who claim to be loving but deny them the use of an affordable pesticide like DDT because, hopefully unknown to them, the corporations desired larger profits from more expensive exotic designer pesticides or the people who want these nations to use DDT more sparingly and dedicated to areas of habitation minimizing its harmful effects.


Malaria Transmission Rates

Malaria Transmission Rates


Energy is exactly the same as pesticides, simply a little more complicated. The Eco Movement would have one believe that with technology and new storage abilities that solar, wind and other ecologically friendly sources of power that we can reduce the carbon footprint of nations around the world. What they do not bother to tell the world is that these new technologies and the ecologically friendly means of producing electric power are extremely costly initially and produce far less power per dollar than coal, oil and natural gas. This puts us right back in the same discussion as the pesticide predicament. The developing world requires inexpensive power, more simply put, cheap power in order to begin to develop industries and everything which goes with a more productive economy. The best example is China which has been building coal and oil power plants about as rapidly as humanly possible in order to build their economy which is heavily dependent upon industrial production. Their consideration for ecological impact of their electrical production must be serious as they have been evident at every conference. They have also managed to have assured themselves to be excluded from the requirements list along with India and Brazil as well as numerous other developing nations, the one small allowance which is commendable. Granted, at some point these developing nations will need to start to address the pollution problems which are now becoming very evident even to them. What need be noticed is that when nations reach a certain level of development and sophistication they also begin to notice the need to be responsible keepers of their own natural resources for their people and their health as well as for the future. The United States has taken on cleaning its air, water and other treasures of nature by turning to the more ecologically friendly sources of power. The rivers and air around the cities has been measurably cleaned since the peak pollution of the 1960’s and 1970’s when the Cuyahoga River burned and Denver would have a brown haze over her for days on end and at one point people in Los Angeles would be healthier breathing their air through an unlit cigarette than breathing the air directly. The European nations also have made strides in reducing pollution just as have the United States. Perhaps it is because these nations have reached the point where they can afford to reduce their pollutants that they are leading the demands for everyone else to do likewise. Perhaps they desire these demands through blindness or maybe in order to keep their comfortable place as economic leaders.


By restricting the means for energy production, the third world is the area most harmed as it also decreases the number of manufacturers of the coal, oil and natural gas plants. That will eventually be the methods by which such means of producing energy will become history, not because there will be little need but because those who most easily can construct such facilities will no longer require them and thus will cease to be major producers of such plants. As the production of such electrical plants dwindles, the developing world will need to build such plants themselves which will mean that these plants will have less of the advanced technologies such as scrubbers and other advances which make the coal and other plants cleaner for nature and ecological concerns. Would it not serve the purpose of the Eco Movement more to make these technologies available to the developing world even if it takes away profits in the near term for the companies currently building these plants in the third world? We know that such would be to the advantage of the planet as would requiring that all these new plants be built with such devices already installed. If the Eco Movement were serious and not just be used to make more money for the industrialists, then they would be raising funds to make sure that every coal plant installed anywhere in the world had the latest carbon reduction technologies included in its installation with the funds available to these developing nations who need such power to have a modern economic manufacturing base. Instead of lecturing the developing nations about the evils of CO2, the nations of the world could be assisting them in building the cleanest power plants even if they are to be coal fired. Would that not be the most productive use of their energies? They would rather take private jets and fly individually to some place like Paris, Tahiti, Hawaii, Tokyo, Rome, Rio or some other relatively exotic location for a conference where they make high-sounding proclamations about CO2 and how it is going to destroy the world. Currently it constitutes about 0.041% which is equal to 410 parts per million (ppm) by volume of the atmosphere. Human’s contribution is somewhere around 1% of that quantity. That means that human production amounts to 0.0041% of the atmosphere. That is the little secret; CO2 is not the main contributor to the global temperature. You desire beating greenhouse gasses; the largest greenhouse gas is dihydrogen-oxide. Di-hydrogen-oxide is better known as water vapor, plain old water vapor, though it has a relieving factor, it also forms cirrus clouds which reflect sunlight which lowers the temperature of the Earth. Water vapor has its harms, its cirrus clouds to mitigate the harms and between the two forms of water vapor mitigates itself and with any fortune, it balances itself out. And if water vapor does not balance out, well, we cannot live without water thus we are going to need to learn to live with water vapor.


Beyond the Cusp



Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at