NP Rank:
Are Extremist Environmentalists Mass Murderers?
An open-minded review of what extreme environmentalists have wrought on the USA and on the world inescapably leads to the conclusion that they have caused millions of deaths and trillions of dollars in damages and losses. If you think this is incorrect or an exaggeration, let us consider the record with respect to just three issues: the snail darter, nuclear power and DDT.
The Snail Darter
In 1976, with the Tellico Dam on the Tennessee River 99% complete, its construction was stopped and its destruction was ordered after a tiny fish called the snail darter was discovered in that river. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court which decided that the Endangered Species Act did cover this fish, and the dam had to go. Fortunately cooler heads eventually prevailed, the dam was completed, and the hydro-power came on stream. Subsequently the snail darter was found in other habitants and also was successfully relocated as well, and it came off the endangered list in 1984. In order to stop this insanity, the US Senate had to pass a special bill exempting the Tellico Dam from the act. In pushing for the passage of the exemption, Senator Baker of Tennessee had this to say on the Senate floor:
“Mr. President, the awful beast is back. The Tennessee snail darter, the bane of my existence, the nemesis of my golden years, the bold perverter of the Endangered Species Act is back.
He is still insisting that the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River—a dam that is now 99% complete—be destroyed.
In the midst of a national energy crisis, the snail darter demands that we scuttle a project that would produce 200 million kilowatt hours of hydroelectric power and save an estimated 15 million gallons of oil.
Although other residences have been found in which he can thrive serenely, the snail darter stubbornly insists on keeping this particular stretch of the Little Tennessee River as his principal domicile. . . .
Let me stress again, Mr. President, that this is fine with me. I have nothing personal against the snail darter. He seems to be quite a nice little fish, as fish go.
Now seriously Mr. President, the snail darter has become an unfortunate example of environmental extremism, and this kind of extremism, if rewarded and allowed to persist, will spell the doom to the environmental protection movement in this country more surely and more quickly than anything else. . . .
We who voted for the Endangered Species Act with the honest intentions of protecting such glories of nature as the wolf, the eagle, and other treasures have found that extremists with wholly different motives are using this noble act for meanly obstructive ends. . . .” Senator Howard Baker
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power generates about 20% of the electricity used in the United States today. In this we are far behind the rest of the world where nuclear power has been used extensively to reduce the need for middle east oil and reduce deaths from coal mining and coal-burning particulates. For example, France generates over 75% of its power from nuclear.
Nuclear power is clean, safe, cheap power. It is the lowest cost method available, and it generates power without putting particulates or greenhouse gases into the environment.
However, in 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a shudder of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.
This combination of a nuclear accident and the sensational movie was pounced on by environmentalists to mount a campaign that overcame all reason and ended any efforts to develop nuclear power in this country.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
In combination with their success in stopping domestic oil drilling and exploration, the environmentalists have therefore also been instrumental in tying our country to the oil-rich middle east. You might even say that the unintended consequences of environmentalists are one of the prime causes of the Islamic terrorism that has killed many thousands of innocents as well as the huge number of people who have succumbed to the health hazards of breathing the products of oil and coal burning.
DDT
Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide
By Lisa Makson
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 31, 2003
A pandemic is slaughtering millions, mostly children and pregnant women -- one child every 15 seconds; 3 million people annually; and over 100 million people since 1972 --but there are no protestors clogging the streets or media stories about this tragedy. These deaths can be laid at the doorstep of author Rachel's Carson. Her 1962 best-selling book Silent Spring detailed the alleged "dangers" of the pesticide DDT, which had practically eliminated malaria. Within ten years, the environmentalist movement had convinced the powers that be to outlaw DDT. Denied the use of this cheap, safe and effective pesticide, millions of people -- mostly poor Africans -- have died due to the environmentalist dogma propounded by Carson's book. Her coterie of admirers at the U.N. and environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund have managed to bring malaria and typhus back to sub-Saharan Africa with a vengeance.
"This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro," said Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, Malaria Foundation International Chairman.
*************************
DDT makes a comeback to combat Malaria
Science/Health
New York, Sept 16 (IndianMuslims.info) Nearly 30 years after safety concerns led to the phasing out of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the United Nations health agency said today it will start promoting this method again to fight the global scourge that kills more than one million people every year, including around 3,000 children everyday.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, World Health Organization (WHO) Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.
“Indoor residual spraying has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
I do not say this of all liberals, but I would presume that since mankind began to form social groups, those who could apply reason and who knew some history have had to contend with ignorant multitudes who are basically emotion-driven. Emotion-driven extreme environmentalists have caused havoc in our society. These are the same kind of people who are prone to buy into conspiracy theories, and operate purely on an existential level. Those of us who can think have to fight against these people constantly; they obviously cause more harm than just forcing us to use water-saving toilets you have to flush three times. If we don't stop them on global warming, they will scuttle our economy and destroy our way of life.




Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 17:06 on February 5th, 2007
This is nothing but idiocy. Do you work for the WhiteHouse? Come clean. Are you seriously claiming that the spread of Malaria is to be blamed on environmentalists? Are you so scared to take a look at the habits of man, and the endless environmental destruction that you are now just spewing lies all over yourself? Deal with the fact the entire world is telling you to change your ways, and yes it will change the economy, and your way of life. Deal with it and stop being so selfish.
How is this even an argument? Yeah, the big bad environmentalists stopped the healthy and nourishing DDT supply from reaching the poor of the world.
What extremist environmentalists do you speak of exactly? Do you mean the people of the earth who are tired of watching their rivers damned, having to clean up disaster after disaster. The people you spread lies about are the same people actively working to make the world a better place. What do you do exactly?
at 18:49 on February 5th, 2007
I doubt if I could have orchestrated a better example of the kind of thinking I was describing in my article than that presented in the above comment.
at 19:10 on February 5th, 2007
our economy is in the toilet, and theres absolutely nothing the repugs
have on the liberal now.
This war has cost 1/2 million innocent Iraqi lives
and our economy, for 10 generations to come.
This is a very lame attempt to strike back at liberals.
ya know, the ones that are now saying "i told ya so".
those liberals have probably saved you ass on making cars safer,
and keeping chemicals out of our air and water.
what an idiot
Brad
911review.org
at 19:32 on February 5th, 2007
Yup, and there's another one. "Our economy is in the toilet" is just another of their endless litany of gloom and doom when in fact the economy has never been in better shape. Changing the subject is another of their cheap tricks.
Thanks, joellerose for your at rare breath of truth on the topic of so-called "environmentalism." The latest hyteria along these lines is, of course, the great charade of "global warming." I'm not sure what causes so many people to take up these bogus causes and insist that trillions be spent to "fix" them. I suppose it's a combination of powerlessness, bad logic, and the infantile anti-capitalism taught them by their Marxist professors. It's a murderous brew.
Keep telling it like it is. Romat
at 12:00 on February 6th, 2007
The reason my comment was so sharp was because you are just plain distorting the truth. You lumped three complicated issues into one distorted story.
As per the other comment- Environmentalists are Marxists? Wow, your insight is outstanding, way to reach really far down into your head for that one. (romat) Next time post a few stories before rushing in to save your drowning conservative friends. This is a simple argument. Humans need the natural world in-order to survive. Humans are destroying the eco-system, an undisputable fact. It does not matter if you claim to be liberal, conservative or who knows neither. If we do not make drastic changes to our personal habits, economy, and industry, then there will be nothing to argue about. The only reason you go around bashing people working to make the world a more livable place is because it has been hammered into your head that the environment is a liberal value, which is crap. It is a human value, such as the right to water, air, and food. But I suppose none of those impact your day to day...
at 12:14 on February 6th, 2007
Extremists are dangerous people whether they are environmentalists, Islamists or fundamentalist Christians. I live in Florida and, as a sailor, I love and protect the environment. My argument is with people who ignore facts, like the manmade global warming crowd, and who sign on to something only because it feels good and/or is politically correct. Sometimes protecting the environment clashes directly with jobs and progress. People also need work. When that happens reasonable people need to make compromises.
at 12:53 on February 6th, 2007
Agreed, however, compromises are never made, because money trumps environment every time, and as someone from Florida I would think this is nothing new to you.
I lived in Florida, and there are few places within the US, that compromise less when it comes to the environment. The problem I see is that, like romat has so brilliantly shown, people who care about what is happening with regard to the eco-system are labeled extremists, no matter what is said or what the facts are. It is the new way to debate, simply label people extremists if what they are saying impacts your way of life, even if your way of life is having grave consequences on the earth or your neighbors. It is a dangerous way to dialogue, and never fosters realistic debate. Any company or government organization that feels threatened because they are being held accountable for their actions against the earth can utilize this weapon, "Oh it's those extremists again. Trying to tell us that people need clean water or that we cannot spray crops with lethal insecticide." As per your example, DDT was a cheap, short-term solution, which ended up poisoning water supplies, and people. Why not vent your frustration at the companies and government organizations that could actually eradicate malaria if they invested the resources and money.
As well the issue with your comment is that it makes the issue of manmade global climate change seem like it is some passing fad, those of us studying and researching environmental issues have known the danger of human actions for a long time, as well as how critical it is to make changes now. If this picks up popularity then so be it, but the fact is we have to change. You are right in pointing out the importance of being informed. I would never advocate running blindly into an issue simply because it is popular, no matter what the issue...