Radical Environmentalism’s Death Campaigns

youtube

The terms ‘racism’, ‘white supremacy’, and ‘crimes against humanity’ are bandied about so often that they have become almost meaningless. But they are absolutely appropriate in an arena where they are too rarely applied: radical environmentalism’s campaigns that perpetuate poverty, disease, and death, by denying Earth’s most impoverished and powerless people access to modern life-saving technologies.

Imagine activist groups preventing you from having your child vaccinated against polio or hepatitis, or from starting her on chemotherapy for leukemia – because they are “concerned” about “possible side-effects” and the “ethics” of permitting such “risky” procedures. “Absurd!” you say. Outrageous!

Of course it is. But that is what radical environmentalists are doing to Third World countries. By denying people access to abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, modern fertilizers and biotech seeds, and especially DDT to prevent malaria and other insect-borne diseases, they are killing millions every year.

Many of my articles have documented this. Now, a new film written, self-financed, and produced by Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor, MD, graphically presents powerful new evidence of how the Audubon Society, Sierra Club, other predominantly white environmentalist pressure groups, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conspired to hide and discredit scientific evidence, and wage a campaign of disinformation and outright lies, to ban the most effective weapon yet devised to prevent malaria and other vicious diseases.

3 Billion and Counting: The death toll is mounting shows how DDT was invented on the eve of World War II and became a secret weapon that kept Allied soldiers on the battlefield, instead of in hospitals or graves. After the war, it was sprayed on millions of Europeans to prevent typhus. It then eradicated malaria in Europe, the United States, and other developed nations. No one ever got sick from DDT.

Available on demand and through Amazon.com, You Tube, Google Play, iTunes, and elsewhere, the film chronicles how Rachel Carson’s wildly inaccurate book Silent Spring helped persuade the Audubon Society to launch the Environmental Defense Fund for the sole purpose of demanding a DDT ban.

Why would Audubon do such a thing? Its own research and Department of the Interior studies showed that bird and animal populations were exploding during the two decades when DDT was used most widely. Countless other studies documented that the life-saving chemical was safe for humans and most wildlife, including bald eagles. People actually tried to kill themselves with DDT – and repeatedly failed.

An EPA scientific panel conducted six months of hearings, compiled 9,312 pages of studies and testimony, and concluded that DDT was safe and effective, was not carcinogenic, and should not be banned. Nevertheless, without attending a single hour of hearings or reading a single page of the panel’s report, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned U.S. production and use of DDT in 1972 – at a time when over 80% of the chemical was being exported for disease control.

Then why the attacks? As EDF scientist Charles Wurster said 1969, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.” When asked later how he justified human deaths from pesticides that replaced DDT, versus the “mere loss of some birds,” he said “organophosphates act locally and only kill farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.”

Ruckelshaus said he had a political problem, and fixed it. He never considered the plight of malaria victims, and anti-DDT activists still ignore their agony and deaths. Audubon, EDF, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Pesticide Action Network, Natural Resource Defense Council, and other radical groups that oppose DDT just don’t give a damn – even as they have become filthy, callously rich by opposing the life-saving chemical and other technologies.

Sierra Club executive director David Brower, Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich, and other arch-environmentalists believed the biggest problem facing Planet Earth was “uncontrolled growth” in human populations. Ehrlich argued that the “instant death control” provided by DDT exports was “responsible for the drastic lowering of death rates” in underdeveloped countries. Those countries were not practicing a “birth rate solution” – and thus needed to have “death rate solutions” imposed on them, via campaigns against energy, Golden Rice and other biotech crops, and especially DDT.

Almost 3.5 billion people worldwide are at risk of getting this horrific disease, 207 million are actually infected every year, and over 800,000 die year after year from malaria. The vast majority are children and pregnant women, and some 90% of them are in Sub-Saharan Africa. In that region, a child still dies every minute from malaria; and most African children have been brain-damaged to some degree by malaria. Worldwide, nearly 80% of all infectious diseases are spread by insects.

Malaria is certainly a disease of poverty. But poverty is a disease of malaria. It leaves victims too sick to work or care for their families, for weeks on end. Medicines and hospital stays drain families’ meager savings. The disease costs tens of millions of lost work hours, billions in lost wages, and tens of billions for medicines and care in antiquated hospitals. It leaves entire nations impoverished.

However, spraying small amounts of DDT on the walls and eaves of cinderblock and mud-and-thatch homes, once or twice a year puts a long-lasting mosquito net over entire households. It keeps 80-90% of mosquitoes from even entering the homes; irritates any that do enter, so they leave without biting; and kills any that land. No other chemical, at any price, can do all this.

In response to these facts, anti-DDT pressure groups rail about risks that are trivial, illusory, or fabricated. DDT is associated with low birth-weights, slow reflexes, and weakened immune systems in babies, and could cause premature birth and lactation failure in nursing mothers, they claim.

Not one peer-reviewed scientific study supports any of this fear-mongering. Every one of these alleged problems is definitely associated with malaria and other endemic Third World diseases. And compared to the death and devastation that DDT could prevent, the alleged DDT risks are irrelevant.

However, constant deception and harassment by these groups have caused many health agencies and aid organizations to not use or fund DDT, and often other pesticides. Instead, they focus on bed nets, education, “capacity building,” and treatment with drugs that are too often unavailable, counterfeit, or ineffective because the malaria parasites have become resistant to them.

Still, the efforts have been somewhat successful. Millions of women and young children now sleep under insecticide-treated nets. Millions now get diagnosed more quickly and receive better care and medicines, often at clinics where two doctors examine up to 400 patients a day. In 2010, the World Health Organization and Roll Back Malaria boasted of an 18% reduction in child mortality, compared with 2000.

But that is not nearly good enough. We would never tolerate 18% as “good enough,” if American or European children’s lives (or Greenpeace and EDF kids’ lives) were at stake and a 90% reduction were possible – as it would be, if health workers were also eradicating mosquitoes and spraying DDT.

Instead, they protect Africans and Asians from minimal or illusory risks, by condemning them to agonizing deaths from readily preventable diseases. “They are using us in anti-DDT experiments,” says Ugandan human rights activist Fiona Kobusingye. “They are playing with our lives.”

They are also playing with American lives. Spraying clothes with DDT once a year would keep infected ticks away and prevent Lyme disease that leaves tens of thousands battling chronic, debilitating pain and illness for years, Dr. Taylor explains. But the same anti-pesticide radicals are dead-set against that.

Dr. Taylor ends his film by drinking 3 grams of DDT … in 2008 – with no ill effects, then or today.

Watch 3 Billion and Counting. Then contact these Big Green pressure groups and their staffs and board members, and the foundations, politicians, and bureaucrats who support them. Tell them it’s time to end their eco-manslaughter.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Missouri Republican State Senator Starts Online Campaign Against EPA Study To Curb Backyard Grills

shutterstock.com

A Republican from the Show Me State is leading the charge to show up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An online campaign has been initiated by a Missouri Republican state senator to combat a federal government study taking aim at regulating backyard barbecues.

03192015_Fox News BBQ Tweet_Twitter

Last summer, the EPA commissioned the University of California-Riverside “to develop preventative technology that will reduce fine particulate emissions (PM2.5) from residential barbecues. This technology is intended to reduce air pollution as well as health hazards in Southern California, with potential for global application.”

This is what the study hopes to achieve: “We expect to limit the overall air pollution PM emissions from barbecuing and to alleviate some of the acute health hazards that a barbecue pit master can experience from inhalation,” continuing:

“The particulate matter present during cooking with and without the grease diverter and PM2.5 filters will be tested and compared to that of current data using a conventional propane barbecue using a fumehood chamber with detectors at CE-CERT.”

State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) decried this effort and launched and #porksteakrebellion on Twitter last weekend:


03182015_Schmitt BBQ Tweet_Twitter

It has generated some positive feedback…

03192015_Dead Fingers Tweet_Twitter

03192015_Dont Mess Tweet_Twitter

03192015_Proud BBQ Tweet_Twitter
…including some from Australia:

03192015_Sydney BBQ Tweet_Twitter

“The idea that the EPA wants to find their way into our back yards, where we’re congregating with our neighbors, having a good time, on the 4th of July, barbecuing pork steak or hamburgers, is ridiculous and it’s emblematic of agency that’s sort of out of control,” Schmitt told KTVI Monday.

KTVI also spoke with Joe LeGrand, owner of LeGrand’s Market & Catering in South St. Louis, who had high praise for Schmitt’s online battle against the EPA. “I’m ready to be the president of it,” LeGrand proclaimed.

h/t: Three Percenter Nation

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

New EPA Proposal Would Spy On Hotel Guests In The Shower

Josh Janssen (Flickr)

Claims of bureaucratic overreach within the Environmental Protection Agency are nothing new; however, its latest initiative is ruffling a few more feathers than usual. With funding from a grant made to the University of Tulsa, the EPA hopes to develop a prototype for a device that would monitor and report the water use of hotel guests across America.

“Most hotels do not monitor individual guest water usage,” the grant states, “and as a result, millions of gallons of potable water are wasted every year by hotel guests.”

As per usual, the federal government asserted its position as the arbiter of personal behavior by explaining how individuals will now be shamed into using less water.

The device being developed through the grant, the EPA confirmed, “will be designed to fit most new and existing hotel shower fixtures and will wirelessly transmit hotel guest water usage data to a central hotel accounting system.”

According to the grant, its goal will be to “assist hotel guests in modifying their behavior to help conserve water.”

One of the researchers working on the project explained his objective will be to “get hotel guests to reduce their water use by 10 percent or to reduce their showers by about one minute,” noting that the average hotel shower currently lasts about eight minutes.

Beyond water waste in the shower, the project will also include pleas to reuse towels and other linens while staying in a hotel room instead of requesting they be laundered.

Rush Limbaugh noted on his syndicated radio show Tuesday that he believes it will be just a matter of time until the EPA attempts to force citizens to install such software in their own homes.

Limbaugh was hardly the only person outraged by the news. Twitter comments in response to a Fox News link included overwhelmingly negative reactions.

One user explained that a hotel is “the only place I enjoy a long hot shower especially since I’m paying enough for the room.”

Others cited this program as further evidence that the federal government needs to be pruned significantly.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Mitch McConnell Wages War Against The EPA

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

In January, Democratic Senator Harry Reid will retire from being the Majority Leader – with Republican Mitch McConnell as his replacement.

McConnell is a consummate Washington insider. After graduating from the University of Louisville in 1964, he traveled to Washington, D.C. to become an intern for Senator John Sherman Cooper. Later, he worked for both the U.S. Senate as a staff member and was also a member of the Gerald Ford administration.

He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, and has served in the Senate for over 30 years.

The longevity of his career makes him an expert on how the U.S. Senate works… And according to him, his first duty of business is to restore Kentucky coal to the top of America’s energy mountain.

But will he win the fight, and how else will he use his newfound power?

Righting the EPA’s Defunct Policy

Since taking office, Barack Obama has waged an unceasing war on coal. His U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has been attempting to use the regulatory power it has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.

But to achieve these goals, they’re forcing the closure of coal power plants nationwide.

McConnell calls this policy “a true outrage.”

But he didn’t stop there. He told The Courier-Journal, “So [Obama] has a war on coal – and, honestly, I’m going to go to war with him over coal.” He concluded his interview by saying that the U.S. Senate under his leadership would attempt to stop the administration “in any way that we can.”

The Obama administration hasn’t taken the threat lightly. Head of the EPA Gina McCarthy has been fighting back. She recently defended herself and her agency, saying, “I feel very confident that the American people understand the value of the EPA.”

Meanwhile, McConnell hasn’t hesitated to shoot back. He recently told The Associated Press, “Look, my first obligation is to protect my people, who are hurting as the result of what this administration is doing.”

Tossing more fuel on the fire… he called the Obama administration’s global warming deal with China a “phony deal,” adding that “coal is booming elsewhere. Our country, going down this path all by ourselves, is going to have about as much impact as dropping a pebble in the ocean.”

From a Clear Coal Fight to a Murky Future

It’s clear McConnell will fight for coal. McConnell concluded a recent interview by giving confirmation: “So for the president to pursue his crusade at the expense of the people of my state is completely unacceptable, and I’m going to do any and everything I can to stop it.”

But aside from his clear stance on coal and a few other things – like the Keystone XL pipeline (for which he’s pledged to pass legislation) – he’s mum about his agenda beyond that…

Will he fight the Obama amnesty for illegal immigrants? (McConnell is non-committal.)

Will he fight Obama’s foreign policy adventures in Syria? (It looks unlikely.)

Whether McConnell will go down in history as a great Majority Leader will depend on how well he navigates the difficult relations with our recalcitrant president. Especially since Obama has declared his intention to ignore both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House… and pursue his own agenda via executive action.

It’s a hard call at the moment, but January will be here soon enough.

 

This commentary originally appeared at WallStreetDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Appeals Court Sides With Gun Rights Activists In Bullet Battle

Photo Credit: Niels Noordhoek (Creative Commons)

In an ostensible effort to mitigate any potential health risks associated with exposure to lead, a number of environmental groups and activists have been pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency to impose regulations on spent ammunition rounds made from the metal. The EPA, however, contends that doing so would necessitate the regulation of cartridges and shells – products exempted under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Naturally, many gun rights groups have supported the EPA’s position as the more than 100 environmentalist groups behind the push have not provided a method for regulating rounds only after they are fired. The issue most recently made its way to the Washington D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals, which also sided with the EPA.

Appeals Judge David Tatel stated in the court’s decision that since “bullets and shot can become spent only if they are first contained in a cartridge or shell and then fired from a weapon,” there is no method on the table by which the EPA “could regulate spent bullets and shot without also regulating cartridges and shells” – a violation of the aforementioned law.

Tatel went on to write, on behalf of the three-judge panel, that the EPA is correct in maintaining that it “lacks statutory authority to regulate the type of spent bullets and shot identified in the environmental groups’ petition.”

In making their case, attorneys representing the environmentalist groups argued that rounds could simply be produced with another metal, specifically copper. Pro-gun advocates, however, note that lead is a far more cost-efficient metal than any proposed replacement.

 

Photo Credit: Niels Noordhoek (Creative Commons)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom