Global warming or DDT?

A piece in PJ critiques:

what Canada and Australia are paying to fulfill their entirely voluntary Copenhagen Accord climate change commitments. Australia committed $599 million and Canada $1.2 billion between 2010 and 2012. Both nations have already donated the first third of this commitment, an amount that is almost exactly the current shortfall in the international Horn of Africa Drought fund, a deficit that may lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if it is not rectified.

The Copenhagen Accord specified that contributions should be split 50-50 between helping people adapt to climate change and stopping (or “mitigating”) climate change. Australia is generally following this formula, but 90% of Canada’s first $400 million donation is dedicated entirely to mitigation.

This undue focus on mitigation of a hypothetical human-caused dangerous warming that has yet even to be measured comes at the expense of the urgent needs of the world’s most vulnerable peoples. For example, ClimateWorks Foundation — an American climate activist group that has donated millions to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection — received over $500 million from charitable foundations when they launched in 2008. This was twice as much as foundations contributed to the World Health Organization, and over seven times as much as they donated to UNICEF in that year.

Over the last two decades ending in 2009, the U.S. government spent a total of $68 billion for climate science research and climate-related technology development. Worldwide, it is estimated that Western countries alone are pouring at least $10 billion annually (2009) into global warming related research and policy formulation.

A million people die of malaria every year. It is easily and cheaply prevented by using DDT, for a fraction of the dollars spent on the fantasy of global warming. But DDT has been banned in many countries, and no doubt many of the same scientists who prattle on about the menace of global warming decades from now endorse the ban of a substance that can save human lives today. Al Gore has saved exactly zero human lives by scaremongering about the UFO that is global warming — in the years since he won the Nobel Prize he could have contributed to saving 4-5 million humans, mostly kids. Bad science, bad economics, opportunity to make a real contribution lost.

2 Responses to “Global warming or DDT?”

  1. Maggie's Farm Says:

    Monday morning links…

    10 Unbelievable Things the Chinese Believe What is quirky about the United States? BestGear’s women’s wellies The lost Leonardo – London’s National Gallery will exhibit ‘Salvator Mundi’ in a show of Leonardo da Vinci. The painting has attributes s…

  2. Zachriel Says:

    Global warming or DDT?

    Turns out most countries can walk and chew bubble gum—at the same time!
    http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/06465.html

    (Unrestricted use of DDT would not be effective as mosquitoes quickly develop resistance. This is due to widespread historical use of DDT for agricultural purposes. WHO has approved DDT for indoor residual spraying, where it can be effective. Malathion is generally more effective for general vector control, but DDT can also be used if it is carefully control to prevent the evolution of resistant populations of insects.)

Leave a Reply