Is this the stupidest statement ever?

[Iangould]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/danielson/2006/05/10/196667.html

"While an inordinate amount of attention is given to distant, theoretical threats of global warming, a tragically minimal amount of attention is given to the life and death problems of today, some of which directly result from policies enacted to stave off the “disastrous” conditions of global climate change.

A clear example of what can result from bad policies can be found in environmentalists blocking DDT use in African nations; DDT has reduced malaria-related deaths by 75% in countries who used DDT programs. An African dies from malaria every 40 seconds—the equivalent of one Boeing full of people hitting the ground with 100% fatalities every three hours. There is no scientific proof that DDT causes global warming, nor that banning it would avert such climate change, yet what could be an effective tool in saving lives is cast aside. Is this the price of protecting the world’s poor from unconfirmed catastrophic global temperature change?"

So DDT was "banned" (except it wasn't banned and is still in use) because of concerns over global warming?

A runner-up for dumbest statement ever, from the same article:

"Where is the outrage that over 4 million preventable deaths occur each year due to tuberculosis and other lung infections stemming from indoor pollution caused by using dung as fuel for fires?"

Funny I thought tuberculosis was casued by the tuberculosis bacterium. Still I'm sure it too can be cured by DDT.

[Slam_Bradley]

Funny I thought tuberculosis was casued by the tuberculosis bacterium. Still I'm sure it too can be cured by DDT.


There's your million dollar idea. DDT inhalers for all the lungers.

[Michael P]

Take enough DDT, and you can cure anything.

[Iangould]

And let's not forget:

"Third world countries are told that they cannot build crucial power plants (which would also result in jobs, aside from the obvious health and sanitation benefits) because the wealthy elites of the world give more attention to alarmist conjecture about global warming instead of the present plight of the world’s poor."

Yeah, because we all know there are no new coal-fueled power plants being built in China or India.

Funny, isn't one of the anti-environment right's compaints about Kyoto tha it unfairly exempts developing countries letting those filthy little brown people grow rich at the expense of decent hard-working white folk?

I generally avoid Townhall.com, is this typical of what passes for critical thinkign in what's supposedly one of the quality organs of the US right?

[BlairH]

Funny, isn't one of the anti-environment right's compaints about Kyoto tha it unfairly exempts developing countries letting those filthy little brown people grow rich at the expense of decent hard-working white folk?

I could see your argument right up to this part. Turned me right off.

[Dreadstar]

I always thought it was:

"Hold my beer and watch this!"

[BoosterBronze]

I'd vote for Neville Chamberlin's "Eh, Hitler aint so bad."

But on topic, really I'm curious, what are the cost/benefit analysis is between fighting malaria with DDT killing mosquitoes and whatnot, and all the problems DDT brings by itself.

[Iangould]

I could see your argument right up to this part. Turned me right off.

I'm sorry but that IS almost exactly the argument used to attack Kyoto.

[Grazzt]

I'd vote for Neville Chamberlin's "Eh, Hitler aint so bad."

But on topic, really I'm curious, what are the cost/benefit analysis is between fighting malaria with DDT killing mosquitoes and whatnot, and all the problems DDT brings by itself.

I think it was more along the lines of "If we give him strategically necessary for defense parts of a country, he won't invade it and we'll have prevented another big war!" *Czechoslovakia gets invaded, then Poland* "Whoopsie."

[west3man]

"Tuberculosis? Here, boy, just rub some dat Tussin in dere!"

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00178/Chris_Rock_178772m.jpg
http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00178/Chris_Rock_178772m.jpg

[Iangould]

I'd vote for Neville Chamberlin's "Eh, Hitler aint so bad."

But on topic, really I'm curious, what are the cost/benefit analysis is between fighting malaria with DDT killing mosquitoes and whatnot, and all the problems DDT brings by itself.

But we do use DDT to kil mosquitoes - it's used largely for in-house spraying and on bednets.

The "ban" claim is based on it being banned in agriculture and on it not being used for insect control in some countries because mosquitoes there have developed resistance.

[Wesley Dodds]

It's even stupider than that because it assumes that DDT is the only thing that can kill the bugs. As though there's nothing that can be done.

[Tages]

I'm sorry but that IS almost exactly the argument used to attack Kyoto.
I thought the argument was that the carbon emissions from American factories and vehicles was too much of a drop in the bucket percentage of total global carbon emissions to justify the roughly $3,000,000,000,000 price tag to the economy over the next ten years. But I haven't paid attention to Kyoto in a while.

[Tages]

It's even stupider than that because it assumes that DDT is the only thing that can kill the bugs. As though there's nothing that can be done.
No. But it's cheap and very cost-effective. Malaria and Yellow Fever are still huge problems in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, and the widespread application of pesticides combined with serious efforts at draining bodies of standing water where mosquitoes breed and the like have helped to control the problem somewhat.

[BlairH]

I'm sorry but that IS almost exactly the argument used to attack Kyoto.

Except race doesn't play into it in the slightest, but it always helps to tar an opponent with the racist brush anyway.

[Iangould]

No. But it's cheap and very cost-effective. Malaria and Yellow Fever are still huge problems in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, and the widespread application of pesticides combined with serious efforts at draining bodies of standing water where mosquitoes breed and the like have helped to control the problem somewhat.

Actually bednets are far more cost-effective than outdoor DDT spraying and the effectiveness of DDT has been seriously comprmised by the devlopment of resistance.

The differences in cost between DDT, pyrrethroids and carbamates are minimal.

[Iangould]

I thought the argument was that the carbon emissions from American factories and vehicles was too much of a drop in the bucket percentage of total global carbon emissions to justify the roughly $3,000,000,000,000 price tag to the economy over the next ten years. But I haven't paid attention to Kyoto in a while.

Offhand I believe that "drop in the bucket" is around 30 or 40%.

That figure you quote is exaggerated by roughly two orders of magnitude.

[Iangould]

Except race doesn't play into it in the slightest, but it always helps to tar an opponent with the racist brush anyway.

Sure it doesn't.

[Paul McEnery]

Except race doesn't play into it in the slightest, but it always helps to tar an opponent with the racist brush anyway.
Backing Ian on this. Surprise!

All the trade agreements we have with the "developing" world are about keeping them under. We want their cheap resources and labour, with no concern about environmental and social damage. And by "we", I mean the developed world in toto.

Kyoto is just a piece of the puzzle.

[BlairH]

Backing Ian on this. Surprise!

All the trade agreements we have with the "developing" world are about keeping them under. We want their cheap resources and labour, with no concern about environmental and social damage. And by "we", I mean the developed world in toto.

Kyoto is just a piece of the puzzle.
Still has nothing at all to do with race.

[Tages]

Offhand I believe that "drop in the bucket" is around 30 or 40%.
Add in animal respiration and geologic events such as volcanic activity.

That figure you quote is exaggerated by roughly two orders of magnitude.
So it's actually only three million instead of trillion? Huh?

[Iangould]

Add in animal respiration and geologic events such as volcanic activity.


So it's actually only three million instead of trillion? Huh?

An order of magintude is a factor of 10 not 1000.

[Tages]

An order of magintude is a factor of 10 not 1000.
$100,000,000,000 then?

[Paul McEnery]

Still has nothing at all to do with race.
Okay, I see your point, as far as it goes.

However, yeah, it does. Leaders of the developed world have used exactly the phrase "little brown people" to refer to peoples we were about to invade and exploit. The state of the developing world has a great deal to do with those carried over attitudes.

[Iangould]

$100,000,000,000 then?

The annual cost of Kyoto to the US economy is likely to be somewhere between zero or negative and a maximum of around 0.1% of GDP.

As for natural emissions of greenhouse gases: unless you can demonstrate that those emissions are rising consistently then the logical inference is that the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century is attributable to the one area of emissions which we know for a fact ARE rising - anthropogenic emissions.

[Iangould]

I notice a distinct lack of interest in defending Townhall's editorial standards.

[Iangould]

Can someone explain to me why a tax on oil of, say, $5 a barrel to fund stuff like wind farms and ethanol production will apparently cause an economic catastrophe - unlike the rise in the price of oil of over $50 a barrel in the past couple of years.

[Dreadstar]

The annual cost of Kyoto to the US economy is likely to be somewhere between zero or negative and a maximum of around 0.1% of GDP.

As for natural emissions of greenhouse gases: unless you can demonstrate that those emissions are rising consistently then the logical inference is that the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century is attributable to the one area of emissions which we know for a fact ARE rising - anthropogenic emissions.

The last tally I saw was that CO2 has increased by 25% over the past 300 years. Care to annotate?

[Michael P]

I notice a distinct lack of interest in defending Townhall's editorial standards.
It's impossible to defend what doesn't exist.

[Iangould]

The last tally I saw was that CO2 has increased by 25% over the past 300 years. Care to annotate?

We were both wrong.

From Wikipedia:

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation [4].

(Note that while methane (CH4) concentrations are much lower than CO2 emissions, methane is far more efficient at absorbing heat.)

[Iangould]

Current market prices for a credit for a one metric tonne reduction in CO2 emssions are around 20 Euroes/25 US dollars.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2017415,00.html

The US would need to reduce GHG emssions by around 500 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year to meet its Kyoto target.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/environ/kyoto.htm

On that basis, the US cost of complying with Kyoto would be around US$12.5 billion per year.

US entry would increase both the supply of and demand for reduction credits - for example, forestry plantations would attract credits. However the net demand would increase which would be likely to result in a rise of prices.

But they'd have to increase 24-fold to reach the annual figure of $300 billion Tages nominated.