American Environmentalism and the failure of Utopian Science: 1996 - Malaria in South Africa eradicated, then the ban on DDT. 2000, 60,000 cases of malaria recorded.

9 share

My tribute to the brutality of American Environmentalism and its radicalized science,  something I call "Utopian Science."    

1996 - Malaria in South Africa eradicated, then, the Americans ban DDT.  2000, 60,000 cases of malaria recorded.  The very next year,  that ban was lifted in South Africa,  and reported malaria cases fell to 800 from 60,000.   American Environmentalism is wholly responsible for the deaths of 20 million African children since its ban on DDT.  Today,  there are effective processes used to limit malaria,  but they have come onto the scene 12 years after the ban and before there was protection for the people of Africa.  Still,  chemicals such as Arftmisinin. 40% of the world's population is at risk for Malaria.  Even with the new, Utopian science of this day,  more than 300 million illnesses are due to Malaria,  compared to 40 million because of AIDs.  2000 new cases,  mostly involving children,  are reported each day,  in African countries.  

Thanks to Utopian Science for solving this problem.  Geeeeesh.  

____________________________

Related:  From the World Health Organization:  10 Facts of Malaria in Africa

MALARIA VICTIMS: HOW ENVIRONMENTALIST BAN ON DDT CAUSED 50 MILLION DEATHS

When politics kills:malaria and the DDT story - a PDF well worth the read.  

Environmentalism seeks to suspend the rule of "supply and demand." Why? Because it cares more for saving the planet than for the disaster this cause for the working poor.

Update (am 3/28):  Just an observation as editor of this blog - when I post a video of Obama talking,  the pageview count is very low.  When the articles of the day are receiving a nominal 200 count,  this video got an 8 count.  I suspect that two factors or in play, here:  one is found in the axium, "Familiarity breeds contempt;"  the other found in the fact that "too much of a good thing will make one sick."  I know,  kind of the same thing framed differently.  You can see it;  wonder why Obama does not.  

Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008).  

True? Yes,  

But why?  And,  the answer is amazingly straightforward:  Obama intends to make the transition from traditional and available fuels to alternatives,  while he seeks to suspend the economic principle of "supply and demand."  And who gets hurt the most,  when the reality of supply and demand is rejected?  The poor,  who do not have the incomes needed to absorb the untimely and transitional price increases.  

What Obama should have said is this:  "If I make the transition tomorrow, we will pay through the nose.  But,  if I take 40 years for the transition,  the working poor will be able to keep up  -  but I don't give a crap about the working poor while I am saving the World. I need this transition now  - for the sake of my legacy as president/reformer."  

Correct me,  if I am wrong.

Here is the stark reality: Progressive/World Without Borders/Environmentalist do not give a flip about the working poor. Here is proof.

Editor's note: What the population may not understand - because they are not being told -  has to do with our residential/commercial energy supply.  With all the talk of "wind, solar and bio-fuels,"  these three categories of supply give us no more than 8% of our fuel supply, on average.    As can be seen on the chart, below,  that fact has not trended "up," over the past 5 years.  To put it differently:  there is no hope of a short-term  "quick fix" to the energy concerns facing us in the next 50/100 years.   Importance?  If we are not going to overburden the working poor,  transitioning from one category of fuel supply to another needs to take into consideration a little thing called "availability."  Question: When environmentalism condemns coal,  natural gas and/or nuclear supply,  (as, perhaps, it should)  and moves to cut those supplies before quantitative sources are in place in ample supply,  who pays the price: the working poor forced to finance this untimely transition, or,  the industries that supply these transitional energy sources and the new "fat cats" of the world?  

Understand that when Obama promised that his energy policies would cause energy prices to "skyrocket,"  that is not because one source of energy is more costly,  than another  -  in and of itself.  Rather,  it is because he and his Harvard Nitwit activist,  do not understand the capitalist principle of "supply and demand."  These clowns want to suspend that principle,  and force the working poor in the Northeast,  for example,  to pay through the nose for energy supplies and procedures that are in short demand,  if available at all.  The world is not going to end tomorrow.  We have time to create a compassionate transition from fossil to alternative fuels.  But that will take decades, regardless of the phony demands placed on industry,  otherwise.     

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a report that in August 2012, coal produced 39% of U.S. electricity, up from a low of 32% in April 2012, when the natural gas share of generation equaled that of coal. Increased demand for electric power in the summer months—to run air conditioners—created more room in the market, and generation from both fuels increased between April and July. The August coal share of generation is still notably lower than the 50% annual average over the 1990-2010 period.

Every year during the height of summer, natural gas-fired generation from peaking generators (used to meet the highest levels of electricity demand, and typically burning natural gas) increases to meet the demand for electricity, largely regardless of fuel prices. As demand for electric power moderates in the autumn months and the need for peaking generation moderates, total natural gas-fired generation decreases. Through the fall, if natural gas prices remain higher than in the spring, coal’s share of generation may continue to increase. . . . .  Source for text below the chart:  http://www.lngworldnews.com/eia-electricity-generation-from-natural-gas-up-with-summer-heat/

Obama travels to Gulf but refuses to meet with big Oil -- Post 1 of 5 for the day.

First Family to Travel to Florida's Coast; Less than 27 hrs on ground...

Editor's notes: Once again, Obama attends the Gulf region in another display of his inconsequential governance methodoloy. Huh ?? In other words, this visit mean very little in view of the fact that there is no indication that he intends to meet with anyone from the oil industry while in the region. Understand that his policies exclusive of anything related to the oil spill, is/has costing the Gulf region well over 200,000 jobs [immediately] with the continued imposition of his [at least] 6 month moratorium on deep water drilling and exploration.

As it turns out, the Gulf oil spill has NOT been the environmental disaster all were predicting, including this publication. The oil has moved on or has been destroyed by natural forces. The only "disaster" of measurable proportions are the result of the Obama Adolescence Syndrome manifested in his unwillingness to get involved in the crisis and his decision to return to his anti-big oil strategies.

Point of post: the single biggest problem in the Gulf is being ignored by Obama as he refuses to meet with and include the benefit that regional big oil offers to the economic life of the Gulf.