Environmentalism can cost lives


What happens when the science isn't as important as the politics?
John Stossel points out other costs of a green agenda. And yes, he is pretty biased about it.

On the surface, these are two different environmental stories: one about chemicals that supposedly might raise temperatures, and one about a chemical that can damage eggshells. But the underlying issue is the same: Should the law promote human life, or should it sacrifice human beings and their quality of life on the altar of Gaia?

Two to three million people die of malaria every year, Uganda's health minister has said, because the U.S. government is afraid of a chemical called DDT. The United States does spend your tax dollars trying to fight malaria in Africa, but it won't fund DDT. The money goes for things like mosquito netting over beds (even though not everyone in Africa even has a bed). The office that dispenses those funds, the Agency for International Development, acknowledges DDT is safe, but it will not spend a penny on it.

The use of DDT is another issue that the environmental movement doesn't want debated. Yes, there are issues that should be discussed, but a ban prevents that.

I suspect that the DDT issue is the model for all activist environmentalism.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - December 14, 2005 at 05:39 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved