If malaria spreads, the people who got DDT banned will blame AGW - - does their cynicism know no bounds?

Question

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming = manmade global warming.

Not to be confused with manbearpig global warming.

Answer 1

Malaria is spread through mosquitoes.

Ok--Not everyone watches South Park, I think the show is revolting.  That said.  Global warming may indeed cause more outbreaks of malaria IF the temperatures get really extreme.  Only time will tell.  Other disease would spread as well.

Edit:  You are right, I agree, there is no evidence that man caused global warming.  It could just be mother nature.  And really, I think the temps would have to go up a whole lot to affect more disease outbreaks.  I just think it is possible in theory.

I live in FL--I sure wish they would kill the mosquitos here.. :)

Answer 2

I don't think modeling endemics or pandemics has been proved.Least not with any degree of accuracy,it's something the IPCC only can speculate on. For now everything is based on hindsight and most causes are related to the lack of intervention and/or prevention.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_preve...

Answer 3

Obviously, they care more about birds than people. The banning of DDT caused the death of many people - mostly children in third-world countries.

If or when malaria spreads and the blame AGW... maybe they just don't want to be wrong. Or they're just stupid.

*Down with Big Brother*

Answer 4

It does not really matter but all those who actively promote AGW also promoted the outright worldwide ban on DDT. I can understand their concern about bird populations and things of that sort, but in areas where mosquito’s bearing malaria are prevalent there should have been measures taken to enable its use during the worst of mosquito season. Malaria was almost eradicated before the ban and it now is as bad or even worse than it was 80 years ago before DDT.

It is the same as with HIV/aids, it has been turned into a political or discrimination issue instead of the medical issue it really is. Let us treat any and all medical issues as what they are medical issues instead of letting lawyers and politicians make the matter worse than it needs to be. Cuba for one treated HIV/Aids as a medical issue and today the Island has no problems with this disease. But just wait until they open the gates to touristas, are they going to demand an HIV test to get a visa to take a vacation there?

Answer 5

One point here before getting to your question, that being your description of the folks you're talking about as cynical;  cynicism is defined as denying the sincerity of other people or the value of life.  You may have chosen the term 'cynicism' based on the argument that environmentalists are cynical by hinging your point on the 'value of life' but it would be very difficult to make that case without defining 'life' as strictly human life.  Most people concerned about the environment are interested in protecting ALL life.  Granted there are a few nutcases out there who think that human life should be sacrificed to the environment, but generally speaking, environmentalists sincerely see their activism as protection of all species of life on earth.  While the outcome of GW/AGW is uncertain, it would certainly be a stretch to describe mainstream environmental activists as cynical-there aren't a lot of people who are more sincere in their beliefs when it comes to the value of life.

As to your question, it poses an interesting dilemma about unintended consequences; on the one hand, banning DDT was a "good idea" as far as the environment went and the resurgence of many species of wildlife-and health issues related to human life-is evidence of that.  On the other hand, the complete ban on DDT without an effective enough way of controlling malaria was the unintended consequence.

I would propose that most reasonable people-AGW believers and skeptics alike-would be able to come to terms by looking at the risks and benefits of more aggressive means of controlling the spread of malaria, perhaps by implementing the application of DDT again.  I don't know what the consequences would be or if there are other methods that would be more environmentally friendly and effective, that I would leave up to people more knowledgable than myself on the matter.

But I think it is much like the discussion about the use of nuclear power-when we were less aware of the issues surrounding our use of fossil fuel, nuclear power caused greater concern and now we are looking at it again along with other sources of alternative energy, e.g. the lesser of two (or more) evils.  If someone believes that GW/AGW is at least partly responsible for the resurging spread of malaria, I would ask them what their proposal is to rein it in and if that proposal includes the use of DDT.  If they don't have an answer to that question that will address the problem adequately, then they have an issue similar to the nuclear power issue that many of the nuke opponents have had to rethink.

I suppose you could take the people who were responsible for the ban on DDT or the restrictions on nuclear power to task because of where we are right now with both issues, but there were and remain multiple considerations at the time those decisions were made, and times have changed.

Answer 6

DDT was one of the poisons that bioaccumulate. In birds, that caused thinning of eggshells. Banning DDT did more to save the bald eagle (and other birds of prey) than any other factor. It may have also helped to reduce breakage of the eggs you eat for breakfast. In humans, it bioaccumulated to the point at which human breast milk was too high in DDT to be considered potable, at least by U.S. standards. Are you old enough to have drunk any of that tainted milk?