Climate change in Africa? Fight against malaria instead
Environmentalists current obsession with the hypothetical problems relating to climate change, threatens to marginalize and overlook more pressing problems for humanity in the here and now – like, for example, the fight against malaria in Africa, and other Third World countries.Environmentalists constantly bang on and on about forcing the most powerful leaders of the Western world to do this, that or the other, in order to ‘save us all from global warming’, but meanwhile in the real world, the body count for malaria in Africa alone is a million per year, and rising. What makes me really angry is that these deaths need not have occurred. In fact, all those death lead right back to earlier environmentalists political obsessions – the banning of pesticides.
Malaria, extinct in the Western world, is still killing Africans by the millions. But in the West, we’ve had the pleasure of using the miraculous life-saving pesticide known as DDT, which has all but eradicated malaria from the advanced world. Then came the World Wildlife Fund and the rest of the Green Gang calling for a worldwide ban on the use of DDT. They got their ban, now surprise, surprise, malaria; a once nearly defeated disease is killing more people globally than ever before. But who would have ever related environmentalist anti-DDT policy with millions of malaria related deaths and illnesses?
For all their talk about the dire urgency of spending billions, upon billions of dollars reducing carbon emissions in order to ‘stabilise the climate’ by one or two measly degrees, it seems that the life of human beings is in fact far, far less important than advancing the politics of their latest green obsession – climate change, like nothing else really matters.
Picture: Unicef file photo
Labels: Environmental determinism
posted by Courtney Hamilton @ 2:44 PM
7 Comments:
Quite right - the environmental lobby is getting out of hand. They like to speak about the deaths that might arise from, say, sea levels rising but conveniently forget about the deaths that are bound to arise if the world's economy grinds to a halt.
It's curious that mankind seems to need some kind of bogeyman to assuage its guilt for enjoying life. "There are bad times just around the corner" seems to bring some kind of perverse satisfaction. For the same reason some people like to rubbish Gordon Brown's economic stewardship "Ay it'll all go wrong next year" they say - but they've been saying it for nine years now just as the environmentalists have been saying for at least forty years that we've only got ten years left....
Hello again Courtney,
I completely share your sentiments on this one.
What I find frustrating with these envior"mental"ists is that on the one hand they claim the earth has been in excistence for millions of years (maybe, maybe not) yet their science is based on less then 200 years of weather patterns.
How does one calculate global warming against such astronomical odds?
You also have other areas of science refuting their arguments, such as the ozone is constantly replenishing itself, although they feel global warming (if indeed it is actually occuring) is caused by solar flares off the sun.
Science refuting science refuting the enviormentalist and yet no one addressing that which is easily dealt with regarding malaria.
That is a shame.
Hello there TIO & Hughes,
Thanks for the comments - Hughes, when you say the 'environmental lobby is getting out of hand', I say, 'your not far wrong there'. I think it's only a matter of time before we see campaigns to register the sun with the UN, under its nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Can you not see that the sun is in violation of internation law?
Still... we would have to reassure ourselves that contrary to popular belief, the sun is really only using gigantic amounts of nuclear power strictly for peaceful purposes, isn't it?
TIO, the science into understanding the affects of the sun on the earth's climate are conspicuous by there absense. One unexpectedly violent solar flare from the sun, 50 years from now, could totally reverse the Kyoto Protocol's 100 year project of planetary 'decabonisation', in a bat of a eye lid - and, all that money it will cost, for what exactly? We should at the very least be using that money to deal with some of the life and death issues we see around us today - especially if their solvable problems like malaria.
All the best.
Courtney
"One unexpectedly violent solar flare from the sun, 50 years from now, could totally reverse the Kyoto Protocol's 100 year project of planetary 'decabonisation', in a bat of a eye lid - and, all that money it will cost, for what exactly?"
Agreed. The dumbest thing Canada's previous Liberal government did was sign that stupid accord.
Our then opposition party (now the new conservative government)challenged them to provide the "irrefutable science" behind the whole debacle.
Of course they could not and then they went ahead and signed it anyway.
Today Canada has become the worst offender of the multiple countries who signed this accord.
The US, who stayed away from it, has a far better record then we do when it came to pollution control.
The whole thing is rather embrassing and as you say, the money spent could have actally been put to some good use for the betterment of mankind.
Putting aside the Environmental and Scientific evidence for and against Global warming, what makes me angry is the pharmaceutical companies that refuse to lower the price of the treatment for diseases such as malaria to some of the poorest nations on the planet. They then refuse to allow other companies to make cheaper versions of the treatment.
If you have the treatment then making a profit from it should not be the issue and saving lives should.
The worst is when groups don't want food going in to areas with high starvation because of GMO's. Ugh. I'd love to put them there and take away food that they could use to feed their starving children.
A lot of good points in this thread. Rather than getting into the science behind global warming, I do agree that fixing very real problems like malaria should trump any theory one may have concerning fossil fuel emissions and their effect on the weather.
Post a Comment
<< Home