Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26, is claiming that Congressman Schiff and Speier told him at the hearing that the DNC did, in fact, give over its server to the FBI. This contradicts James Comey’s testimony, when he stated that the DNC never handed over the server for investigation.
“The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC. When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’ Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”
The question is, did the DNC turn over its server during the summer recess?
On November 5, 2016 about a week after Bundy, et al were found not guilty in the Portland, Oregon trial, Lisa Bundy did an interview with Kate on the Kate Show concerning the ordeal that the Bundys have gone through before and during the trial. At one point in the interview, Lisa and Kate talked about Harry Reid and how nasty he’s been about the Bundys. Reid crossed the line when he called them “domestic terrorists”. “He must have interests in this land in Nevada” Kate said and Lisa echoed.
One of them also mentioned that there was a State Department official who commented on the not guilty verdict. I looked for it but couldn’t find it. I did however, find this page in an article.
Reasons for the highlights:
The highlight on the bull – and the statement above it about the cow (danger to vehicles) is because it is a similar story to what happened in Idaho to the Yantis family except that Jack Yantis was murdered. The insurgency in our country uses the same playbook so that everybody knows the script when it is media story time.
The Center for Biological Diversity was involved in “making the case” against the Bundys in Nevada and they were involved in Oregon. The involvement in both Nevada and Oregon using boilerplate objections (i.e. fill in the blank of the never before heard of critter that is endangered) areas on the same grounds is a pattern of racketeering when viewed within the larger context of grant money and an agenda that will be described below but for the moment, take a look at this – Patterns and Clues.
The reference to the golf course puts the Bundy Ranch and/or their grazing allotment within the zone to be designated an intermodal commerce zone.
The $400,000 grant by the Walton Family Foundation brings up the question – Is the EPA still using extortion of corporations to achieve their dubious “environmental goals” which in the case of the Bundy Ranch means stealing their property. Carol Browner was the EPA Administrator under the Clinton Administration. The extortion racket she set up in Florida is described in this video by a man who worked for her – who was introducing her. It’s noteworthy that Carol Browner was and is a member of the Socialist International.
Dirty Harry’s interests are found in the blurry boundaries between foreign and domestic law/policy and in particular, U.S. foreign policy that benefits corrupt politicians who enabled the slow and quiet occupation of our country. That policy is found in the New Transportation Policy announced in 1990 and authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This legislation began the planning for and construction of an international transportation system centered around transportation hubs, telecommunications and IT systems. For an international transportation system, those hubs become international ports. The easiest way to think about this is to picture a shipping lane and a chain of islands with ports.
Below is a graphic showing one of the routes for the Alaska Marine Ferry Highway System. The idea is just to show how voyages aka sailings are recorded. It’s port of origin to port of destination. The ports between are just stops on the route.
The convention of ports of origin to ports of destination doesn’t become an issue until you consider landlocked countries.
Afghanistan is a good example of a landlocked country.
There are a couple of principles of International / Admiralty Law that come in to play concerning the 1990 National Transportation System design:
The right of “innocent passage”. A flagged vessel engaged in international shipping may not be denied innocent passage through a state (nation – or in the case of the U.S., a state of the nation).
transhipment from one vessel to another is not excluded by the words “navigable to and from the sea”;
Waterways that are navigable to and from the sea are considered international waterways and are regulated under Maritime (Admiralty) Laws.
In the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Intermodal Commerce Zone as a defined location on the Interstate Highway system would be a transhipment zone under Admiralty Law. An intermodal commerce zone becomes an inland port jurisdiction in a landlocked state and the zone authority becomes a Port Authority – Harbor Master when a new jurisdiction is created under law. In Idaho, the Intermodal Commerce Zone law in Idaho created a new jurisdiction, a Port Authority within the state that is chartered, has its own seal and can create debt through bonds – similar to what a city can issue.
Since the Interstate Highway System goes from coast to coast and crosscuts the country North to South beginning at navigable waterways or ports on the seaboard, plus the design of it to cross international borders with Canada and Mexico, the Interstate Highway System becomes a network of international shipping lanes under Admiralty Law with Intermodal Zones actually being Port jurisdictions under international Admiralty Law.
The zones in the United States are part of a global transportation system design. The Ports – inland and seaports are part of the network that could be called Global Auschwitz – transportation hubs and “workforce development zones” in a global network of zones.
`The purpose of the National Highway System is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel’.
Recall that in the BLM notice of cattle trespass, they mentioned the Mesquite Golf Course – which means that the Bundy ranch and their allotment is in the location where an intermodal commerce zone aka – inland port would be located. The four images below show the location relative to the airport and golf course plus the location of the Interstate.
The planning for the New Transportation System announced in 1990 was already underway before it was even announced. The harassment of the Bundys and their neighboring ranchers began in about 1992 which is about the time they would have been identifying the locations that were to be designated as Ports and Inland Ports (i.e. transshipment zones) on the Interstate Highway System. There is no doubt in this writer’s mind that federal politicians – such as Harry Reid knew about the Transportation Plan and would have been ahead of the public in terms of land speculation. Racketeers like the Center for Biological Diversity are also useful in terms of bogus environmental claims when in reality, they are just vultures who covertly work in whatever way necessary to get control of property before the transportation plan is known to the owners.
In effect, we have two systems of law and jurisdiction in one country. We have the Maritime – Admiralty law in Port Jurisdictions and we have our Republican, representative government based on the U.S. Constitution. Here is the trick with Port Authorities… they can buy and sell property that automatically expands their jurisdiction. The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey was created by an act of Congress in 1921. Initially, it was just the harbor areas across the Hudson River but they’ve expanded to cover over a 1500 square mile area in New York and New Jersey.
The following is a map that was found on the Federal Maritime Commissions website showing the “Marine Highways”.
They don’t mention that what extends the “marine highway” is the creation of an inland port jurisdiction. As I said above, Idaho law provides for the creation of an inland port jurisdiction. Since the concept is so foreign to non-seaboard states, it had to be that the legislation was provided to them by either ALEC or the Uniform Law Commission in Chicago. On the MARAD website, there is a little video to watch. They don’t mention the international law aspects of what they are doing. MARAD Fact Sheet. What they did mention in the video is the technology.
Booz Allen Hamilton designed the technology systems for Ports and the corridors. This kind of ubiquitous technology is very expensive with no return on investment if paid for by the public so they are using Foreign Direct Investment which is where the Communist Chinese come into the picture. When George H.W. Bush issued Executive Order 12803, he was opening the door for the sell-out of the American people and our resources to foreign powers. The Communist Chinese company tried to establish a technology zone in Idaho that would have been within the jurisdiction of “The CORE” which would have been a Port jurisdiction.
A Chinese national company is interested in developing a 10,000- to 30,000-acre technology zone for industry, retail centers and homes south of the Boise Airport.
Officials of the China National Machinery Industry Corp. have broached the idea — based on a concept popular in China today — to city and state leaders.
They are also interested in helping build and finance a fertilizer plant near American Falls, an idea company officials returned to Idaho this month to pursue.
This ambitious, long-term proposal would start with a manufacturing and warehouse zone tied to the airport, and could signify a shift in the economic relationship between the two superpowers — a relationship once defined by U.S. companies like the J.R. Simplot Co., Hewlett-Packard and Morrison-Knudsen that would head to China to build and develop.
Because of Elaine Chao’s family history that includes her Father’s shipping company, Foremost Shipping plus her own history of working for the U.S. government that includes being the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, the Secretary of Labor and the Under Secretary of Transportation for Elizabeth Dole when she was Secretary of Transportation, there is absolutely no way that Elaine Chao would not of understood the implications of the design of the New Transportation Policy. Because of that, she should never again be involved in any government job let alone be the Transportation Secretary for the United States.
As it pertains to the Bundy’s and their ranch, all the information that I’ve brought forward here should be used by them in their defense. They were made targets by the federal government’s 1990 Transportation System that at it’s core was a treasonous plan to allow our country to be occupied by foreign nationals within Port jurisdictions. They have been the victims of eco-racketeers – pirates who fly the flag of environmentalism when their real objective is to facilitate the transfer of ownership of the target property. The idea of the “mitigation zone” is creative – but pure bovine excrement.
With Trump at the helm, sentiment gives way to practicality in the energy industry. For the vast untapped potential of the nuclear energy industry and the uranium that feeds it, this could contribute to a market-disrupting revival that no longer bows to fear and the politics of economy.
While there have been some oversupply issues keeping uranium prices down, the bigger problem has been negative sentiment rather than real fundamentals, but the Trump presidency will see through that.
Trump’s take on nuclear energy is quite simple. As he noted after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan: “If a plane goes down, people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash, people keep driving.”
Now more than ever, demand for uranium appears to be assured. But more than that, it’s about to truly explode as a number of situations combine to form the new era of nuclear power.
“If you are going to acquire uranium assets, now is the right time,” IsoEnergy Ltd. CEO and President Craig Parry told Oilprice.com. “If it’s not the bottom yet, you can certainly see it. And on that front we see the market at the early stage of what will become a roaring bull market.”
Parry might be onto something, and IsoEnergy is indeed in high acquisition mode, targeting the discovery and development of high-grade uranium deposits in and around the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan—home to some of the world’s biggest high-grade deposits.
Getting Ready for Uranium to Become an Irresistibly Hot Commodity
While Trump might inject a major boost of energy into the U.S. nuclear industry and the uranium market through deregulation, there are other factors coalescing around the world to make this a stellar new beginning for uranium and nuclear energy.
We’re already seeing the biggest uranium producers stocks reacting, including Cameco Corporation (NYSE:CCJ), AREVA (EPA:AREVA), BHP Billiton (NYSE:BHP), and Uranium One (TSE:UUU). Canadian Cameco’s stock was up 25 percent in November, and while the spot prices are low and set to rise, Parry points out that spot prices are all but irrelevant in this market, as almost all uranium is sold at long-term contract prices, which are presently coming in upwards of US$40 per pound, significantly higher than the current spot prices.
The outlook for uranium looks even more bullish when you consider that these contracts are now coming to a close, and uranium is poised to become a very hot commodity once again. Major American and European nuclear reactors are coming off supply in 2017 and 2018, and will be looking for long-term contracts once again.
The biggest uranium producer in the world, Canadian Cameco, said earlier this month that some 500 million pounds of uranium will be needed for nuclear reactors in the next ten years, and it hasn’t been contracted out yet. Buyers of this uranium will have to hit the market sooner rather than later.
Analysts at Cantor Fitzgerald recently predicted that there would be a “violent increase” in uranium prices at some point, theorizing that as much as 80 percent of the uranium market might be uncovered in terms of supply by 2025, and that demand would by then outstrip supply.
“The low-price environment has choked off exploration activity for uranium and we are at the point where there are not enough uranium projects in the pipeline that can adequately meet the coming demand,” the London Telegraph quoted Cantor as saying.
All of this coincides with a phenomenal number of new nuclear reactors being built, which will also enter the market at the same time.
(Click to enlarge)
The end result? We’re looking at the biggest deficit ever in the uranium market by 2018.
So we have over 20 Chinese nuclear reactors already under construction, plans from India to significantly increase its nuclear demand, and plans to restart over 20 Japanese reactors. These three things are major demand drivers that will wake the sleeping giant that is uranium.
And as demand soars, North America is sure to play a key role in the future of uranium supply.
In North America—and even from a global standpoint—there is no better place to explore for uranium than Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin, which is to uranium what Saudi Arabia is to oil.
(Click to enlarge)
Two of the largest producing uranium mines in the world—McArthur River and Cigar Lake–are in the Athabasca Basin. In and around this area, where Canada’s Cameco is the key player, junior IsoEnergy is focusing on new exploration and development at Thorburn Lake, Radio, North Thorburn and Madison.
Now that Trump is president-elect, the speculation is that Trump will make good on promises to reform the licensing and permitting processes for nuclear power plants. What this means is that we could be sitting right on the edge of a revolution in next generation nuclear technology.
This means a major push for next-generation nuclear projects such as PRISM, the brainchild of General Electric and Hitachi.
So not only does demand for uranium across the next two decades seem assured, it is poised to paint an attractively tight supply picture in the coming decades.
As the New Year is ushered in, falsely negative sentiment on uranium is likely to be ushered out the door and the real fundamentals will become more visible.
The bottom line is this: While uranium prices have been on a very long and gradual decline for some 13 years, analysts agree that they’ve reached their bottom and the climb back up is poised to be a lot faster than the decline.
Trump is all about harnessing untapped potential, and as atomic energy advocates are quick to point out: Nothing has more untapped potential on multiple fronts than nuclear energy, and right now is the time to buy into quality assets while uranium is at a multi-year low but at the early stage of a bull market.
Trump’s pick of Pruitt finally means that a Republican President is standing up the green establishment! Historically, EPA chiefs have been among the most pro regulatory members of past Republican presidents from Nixon through Ford, Reagan and both Bushes. Trump has broken the cycle!
No longer do we have to endure GOP presidents avoiding battle over the green agenda by picking EPA chiefs that were timid at best. We know how bad GOP EPA picks have been in the past because many former GOP EPA chiefs endorsed President Obama’s EPA climate regulations. See: EPA chiefs who served under Republicans press for climate action
If climate skeptics were worried about Trump’s meeting with Former VP Al Gore earlier this week, the pick of Pruitt is reassuring. Basically Trump listened to what Gore had to say at their New York City meeting and then he exercised his good judgement and did the exact opposite. Also see Climate Depot’s new 44 page consensus busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ \
Kudos to Trump for standing up the well funding climate establishment by picking Pruitt.
The UN Paris climate change agreement and the EPA climate regulations claim to be able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement or the EPA’s alleged climate regulations would not ‘save’ the planet.
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has noted, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm…
Western Lysenkoism? Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Roger Pielke Jr. describes why he left the field of climate science. It was not because he was not concerned with possible harmful impacts of global warming, now called climate change. He had expressed his concerns frequently. He left the field because of attacks for his challenge of one component of the claims of the extreme global warmers, that extreme weather events were increasing. Monetary losses from extreme weather events were not increasing. Pielke produced evidence that the claim was false. Such evidence is unacceptable to global warming extremists, the so-called Climate Establishment. Apparently, one must accept all components of the doctrine from the Climate Establishment, or suffer personal attacks.
Based on information released by WikiLeaks, major players in the Clinton Presidential Campaign wanted to drive Pielke out of the climate change discussions – and succeeded. Pielke writes:
“When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it.”
“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact, we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”
The effort to banish Pielke was long and involved. The journal_Foreign Policy_labeled Pielke a “climate change denier” in 2011. He even challenged a part of the 2007 report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was based on guesses rather than fact! A reporter for the_Los Angeles Times_wrote Pielke: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the_London Guardian, Mother Jones,and_Media Matters.” Politicians involved in the purge include President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, who was a leader of the Congressional Witch Hunt. Of course, lead climate reporter Justin Gillis of The New York Times failed to properly respond to correct criticisms of his reporting.
All this placed Pielke on the “do not call” lists of many reporters. Such actions reveal how certain news organizations censor the news.
In a separate article, Member of the European Parliament from the Midlands (UK) Roger Helmer compares the Climate Establishment (which he calls Warmism) with Lysenkoism. The narrow mindset of Lysenkoism (groupthink) was tremendously destructive to advances in biology in the Soviet Union. Helmer came across a definition in Wikipedia that struck him;
“The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”
Helmer draws parallels between Lysenkoism and “climate science” as it is treated in the West. For the West, Helmer thinks the main difference between Lysenkoism and Warmism, “is that the damage done by Warmism is on a far larger scale and will be far more difficult to reverse.”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation made an extensive summary of Pielke’ s essay. For links to the essay and Helmer’s essay see links under Censorship.
Or Puritans? Another parallel between the Climate Establishment and an extremist group can be drawn between the alarmists and Puritans. This 16th and 17th century religious movement originated in England and grew to dominate the Massachusetts Bay Colony to the point of hanging several Quakers. Narrow-minded, Puritans were intolerant of other religions and practiced shunning those who were unacceptable. In 1850, the historical novel by Nathaniel Hawthorn,The Scarlet Letter: A Romance,shocked many readers as to the intolerance depicted in the novel. The main character, Hester Prynne, was forced to wear a scarlet “A” for Adulteress. Perhaps those reporters who maintain “do not call” lists for global warming skeptics use the letter “D” for Denier.
Two Components to Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming: Since the October 22 issue, TWTW has discussed the 1979 National Academies of Sciences,Climate Research Board: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment Scientific Assessment,called the Charney Report. The report discussed two components to global warming from CO2: 1) the primary effect; and 2) the secondary effect of a strong positive feedback from increased water vapor. Both these effects take place in the troposphere (roughly the atmosphere below 50,000 feet (15,000 meters)). The report states:
“The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earth’s surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere.”
“A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation.”
“We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3ºC with a probable error of ±1.5ºC. Our estimate is based primarily on a review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation, which is summarized in Chapter 4.”
The first component, the science of warming from CO2 – alone, is established empirically by laboratory experiments. The experiments show the influence is logarithmic, initially significant but rapidly diminishing in net influence. Adding CO2 to the today’s atmosphere has little net warming effect, probably not measurable beyond natural variation.
The second component, increasing water vapor, the dominant effect, was speculated and has not been empirically demonstrated to be significant, after 35 years. Except for the predicted hot-spot, which no one can find, the IPCC, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and other entities have failed to identify any pronounced warming trend from increased water vapor.
A recent paper estimated global water vapor variability trends from 1979 to 2014. The trends are not significant, with the greatest one of 0.61% increase per decade (0.06% per year).
All too often, members of the Climate Establishment attack those who question the lack of warming as being “anti-science.” They frequently assert the first component of the hypothesized global warming, but ignore that the more important second component has not been empirically established. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy.
EPA Endangerment Finding? With the upcoming change in administration, it may be timely to request a re-evaluation of the 2009 EPA finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare. However, this needs to be approached carefully.
As discussed by Rivkin and Grossman, Nov 26 TWTW:
“When an agency changes course, it must provide a reasoned explanation to address factual findings supporting its prior policy. In certain instances that requirement may impose a real burden. For example, a rule rescinding the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” regarding the effects of greenhouse gases would have to address the evidence underlying it. A failure to provide a satisfactory explanation of a change in policy may render a rule ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and vulnerable to legal challenge.”
In short, to successful request a re-evaluation of the Endangerment Finding may require what is called “prima facie” evidence, that it is evident on its face and without contradictory evidence. A review of the EPA Technical Support Document, which is part of the finding, may be in order.
…“The first line of evidence arises from the basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of GHGs, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system. The second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual (Karl et al, 2009). The third line of evidence arises from the use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic). Confidence in these models comes from their foundation in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes (IPCC, 2007a).”p. 45.
As stated above, the evidence of the second component of global warming, stated by the modelers, of amplified warming from increased water vapor, has not been empirically established. Thus, the first line of evidence is flawed on its face. Further, as John Christy succinctly demonstrated in his February 2 testimony, the global climate models overestimate the atmospheric warming below 50,000 feet in the tropics by three times. Thus, the third line of evidence, confidence in the models, is refuted on its face. The upcoming year may prove very interesting. See Article # 1 in the November 26 TWTW and links Under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Defending the Orthodoxy.
Two Components to the Paris Agreement? In an editorial, Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg Businessweek etc., asserts that:“But I am confident that no matter what happens in Washington, no matter what regulations the next administration adopts or rescinds, no matter what laws the next Congress may pass, we will meet the pledges that the U.S. made in Paris.”Bloomberg states that progress in “fighting climate change” is driven by cities, businesses and citizens, with no letting up. China is committed and that cooperation between Washington and China made the Paris Agreement possible.
China’s commitment to the Paris Agreement includes no curtailment of CO2 emissions until 2030. Meanwhile, the US must curtail emissions and pay into the Green Climate Fund, both of which will be harmful to the US economy.
In March, without Congressional authorization, the Obama administration paid $500 million of a $3 billion, four-year pledge, to the UN Green Climate Fund, resulting in a 150% increase in staffing of the Fund. The World Bank is the interim trustee. The Paris Agreement has not been approved by the Senate as a treaty. With a change in administration, additional payments are in doubt.
China has pledged up to $5.1 Billion to the South-South Cooperation Fund on Climate Change which is significantly different from the UN controlled Green Climate Fund.“South-South cooperation on the other hand is based on solidarity and mutual benefit between developing countries as equals, and without obligations as there is no colonial history among them. This is the position of the developing countries and their umbrella grouping, the G77 [not G-7] and China.”
Bloomberg should know China is a major player in the G-77, which China helped form separate from the West, and that it is not only the amount of money that is important, but who controls it. See links under After Paris! and After The US Election – Opposed.
Cost of Climate Change: Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute analyzed the Obama Administration Plan for fighting climate change, assuming CO2 is a major cause.“The IPCC has estimated a temperature increase by 2100 in the A1B scenario of 3.3°C, while the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), developed through support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, puts warming in that scenario at 3.4°C.”Even using the IPCC’s and the USGCRP’s highly questionable estimates of global warming by the end of the century, Cass estimates the Administration’s plan is far more expensive than adjusting for it happening. See links under The Administration’s Plan – Push-Back
Dying Corals or Resilient Corals? It is almost predictable. During an El Niño, which is fading, the tropical Pacific warms, corals cast their symbiotic algae, and volumes are written about dying coral reefs. It is as if during the onset of winter in the temperate regions, volumes are written about dying vegetation. That does not mean the event is permanent. See links under Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science and Changing Seas. Also, see the link on daily natural fluctuations of pH under Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science.
OPEC Jitters: For years, industrialized countries such as the US worried about what OPEC will do to oil production and prices. Now OPEC worries what will US independent producers do to oil production and prices. The US independent oil companies are not controlled by governments and government budgets. Since the bipartisan 2005 Energy Act, Washington has not controlled oil and natural gas production on private and state-owned lands. Production has boomed, but curtailed with the lengthy drop in oil prices, which has benefited all but the producers. How low oil prices can go is now an issue of concern for OPEC.
Geoffrey Styles shares some of his views concerning the newly minted OPEC deal: OPEC had miscalculated in at least two ways.“First, as many experts have noted, it correctly identified US shale producers as the new marginal suppliers to the market but failed to anticipate how quickly these companies could respond to a dramatic price cut.” Second, it miscalculated “the capacity of the cartel’s members–even some of the strongest–to endure the austerity that protracted low prices would bring. Although many of these countries have among the world’s lowest-cost oil reserves to find and produce, it turned out that their effective cost structures, including transfers to their national budgets, were really no lower than those of the Western oil majors that have also struggled for the last two years.”
Donn Dears brings in a third issue – the DUCs – Drilled by Not Completed wells. He estimates the number of oil DUCs at 3,800 and natural gas DUCs at 900. How these issues will play out in firming up oil prices is yet to be seen. But, $100 per barrel oil is unlikely without major disruption such as a major war. Has anyone told the green energy advocates in the Pentagon? See links under Energy Issues – Non-US and Energy Issues – US.
Reversing Flow: The US now has become a net exporter of natural gas, with much of the exports going to Mexico via new pipelines. The Obama administration killed the Keystone pipeline to bring oil from Canada to refineries in Texas, but did not kill new natural gas pipelines to Mexico. Perhaps the outgoing Administration can explain to the US # 1 trading partner, Canada, that the border crossings into Mexico got under the radar of the greens.
As it is, now some major pipeline companies are reversing the traditional flow of natural gas from the South to the Northeast to make it flow from Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. to the South. See links under Energy Issues – Non-US, Energy Issues – US, and Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Number of the Week: 1,100 feet (335 meters). According to reports, on Dec. 1, construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline will be all but finished. The only thing left to build, says its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, will be about 1,100 feet of pipe to be laid beneath Lake Oahe, a sliver of water south of Bismarck, N.D., that is man-created by a dam on the Missouri River. The construction is being held up by native Indian tribes, claiming traditional burial grounds, not established, and greens, aided by the Administration. See links under Energy Issues — US
We ask you to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to SEPP, an IRS recognized 501(c)3 organization.
Please address your check to: (Please note the change in address)
Cody Schulz, chairman of the Morton County Commission in North Dakota, is keeping especially close track of a conflict over an oil pipeline that would run through his community.
By his count, Wednesday was the 113th day of protests over the Dakota Access pipeline, which has become a complex battle—sometimes involving violent clashes between police and demonstrators—over tribal rights, energy development, and the environment.
“The local residents of Morton County are fatigued and frustrated,” Schulz told The Daily Signal in an interview.
This week, state and local officials have applied pressure to end the standoff.
On Monday, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple, a Republican, ordered a mandatory evacuation of protesters seeking to block construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, a 1,170-mile transport vessel that would carry as much as 500,000 barrels of crude oil daily from the Bakken production region of North Dakota to an existing pipeline in Patoka, Illinois.
The local sheriff’s office, meanwhile, is warning that anyone delivering supplies to the protesters could be fined.
Morton County, just above the southern border of North Dakota, has a population slightly under 29,000, making it one of the state’s most populous counties. Thousands are protesting at camps located on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land, north of the Cannonball River in Cannon Ball, North Dakota.
Both the state of North Dakota and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers say they have no plans for “forcible removal” of the protesters, an eclectic mix that includes members of Native American tribes, liberal activists, and environmentalists.
Despite the warnings, both supporters and opponents of the oil pipeline have vowed to continue fighting through the harsh North Dakota winter.
As the controversy rages on, The Daily Signal examines key factors contributing to division over the pipeline, and how the various parties may move forward.
Issues at Stake
The Standing Rock Sioux, a tribe of about 10,000 leading the protests, fear the Dakota Access pipeline could pollute the Missouri River, the tribe’s main source of drinking water, and harm sacred cultural lands and tribal burial grounds.
Standing Rock is contesting a segment of the pipeline planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.
The tribe, working with the environmental group Earthjustice, filed suit July 27 against the Army Corps of Engineers, arguing the government did not properly consult them before approving the section of pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
This litigation is ongoing, although the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., refused to halt construction of the pipeline while the case winds through the legal system.
Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, says it has followed federal and state rules, and argues that the project is a safer and cleaner way to transport crude oil from fields to refineries.
It says it adequately met with Native American tribes, and proposed different variations of the pipeline’s route.
The company says its pipeline does not enter the Standing Rock reservation. In November, it filed a countersuit in the same federal court asking to proceed with the $3.7 billion project.
The pipeline is 92 percent complete, and just a small portion of it nearest to the Standing Rock reservation remains in limbo, as the Army Corps of Engineers decides whether to grant a final permit for Energy Transfer Partners to finish it.
On Nov. 2, President Barack Obama issued a statement saying the Army Corps “is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline.”
“We’re going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” Obama said.
But on Tuesday, the White House said it is not aware of “any impending presidential actions” in the foreseeable future.
Supporters of the pipeline expect President-elect Donald Trump to quickly allow its completion after he is sworn in Jan. 20.
Deeper Grievances, Alliances
Aseem Prakash, director of the Center for Environmental Politics at the University of Washington, contends that the Standing Rock tribe’s stake in the conflict reflects deeper-seated grievances of Native Americans.
“The American Indian community, at least some sections of it, is aggrieved over the years about injustices, essentially the notion being—right or wrong—that their preferences are not taken into account seriously,” Prakash told The Daily Signal in an interview. “The Dakota pipeline is epitomizing their perspective of injustice.”
Though the pipeline goes through private land and not Native American property, the tribe contends this land was acquired improperly and actually belongs to them by the terms of a 1851 treaty with the U.S. government.
North Dakota’s at-large member of the House of Representatives, Republican Kevin Cramer, acknowledges the tribe’s grievances and says they are exasperated by high rates of poverty in the Native American community.
But Cramer sees these “legitimate concerns” as being clouded by the tribe’s alliance with environmental groups that have broader concerns about pipelines in general:
The biggest losers in their issues being heard are the tribes. The concern of the environmentalists are not based on intellect or knowledge or reality, and I think all of that dilutes legitimate concerns of the tribes that call out for broader discussion.
Indeed, after successfully influencing the Obama administration to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline, environmental groups latched onto the North Dakota project as the next frontier as it aims to limit fossil fuel use and delivery.
“For environmentalists, this is an excellent alliance,” Prakash said, adding:
This is a very good opportunity for them because the best way to bankrupt fossil fuel companies is to target the supply chain—the modes of transportation. Some tribe members think their issues are being hijacked. For them, this is not a war on fossil fuel. It’s a specific argument about not honoring the historical practices of Native Americans and about rerouting this particular pipeline.
Media reports have documented violent clashes between police and protesters.
Authorities have used rubber bullets, pepper spray, and water cannons against demonstrators, according to the tribe, and hundreds have been injured.
“The state has overreacted,” Prakash said. “You don’t need a militarized response to a peaceful protest. You don’t need cops in Humvees. It looks like a military operation. In any democratic society, the right to protest is a fundamental right.”
Many public officials, including Cramer and Schulz, the Morton County Commission chairman, defend the force used by police, however.
They say that some out-of-state protesters have instigated the violence, and they view the protest as an illegal occupation of federal land.
“Our law enforcement has exercised incredible restraint,” Cramer said. “We are living in a time where officers are executed at point-blank range on a regular basis. One thing about North Dakotans is we don’t confuse enforcing the law with breaking the law.”
Whose Issue to Solve
All parties agree that the Obama administration is running out of time to see through the end of the conflict.
Yet local officials are waiting for help.
Schulz says he is frustrated with Washington because the federal government’s indecision has prolonged the demonstrations and drained local law enforcement money.
Requests for federal law enforcement assistance have been denied, he said, adding:
Absolutely this a federal issue. We are talking about a federal easement, this case has been heard in federal court, the protests are occurring on federal property, and the federal agencies are the ones that put the pipeline on hold. The federal government has failed miserably at addressing it.
Cramer and Schulz say they expect the Trump administration to act in their favor by backing the Dakota Access pipeline.
Cramer says he already has spoken with Trump’s nominee for attorney general, [mc_name name=”Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)” chamber=”senate” mcid=”S001141″ ]., about receiving federal funds to reimburse local and state emergency response and law enforcement costs.
“Trump’s pledge that he wants to see the rebuilding of infrastructure in this country lends itself beautifully to getting out of the way with this project,” Cramer said. “I expect that should happen very quickly.”
Even after the pipeline’s future is resolved, local officials say, they recognize the underlying feelings that drove the protests won’t be healed quickly.
“Healing begins with sitting down in the same room and talking,” Schulz said. “It will take some time. If you can get to mutual understanding, even if it’s not agreement, that’s a step forward. Morton County and Standing Rock have been friends and neighbors for generations, and that won’t change.”
Josh Siegel is the news editor for The Daily Signal
Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
“Not With a Bang But a Whimper”
The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 22), the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 12), and the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1) were held in Bab Ighli, Marrakech, Morocco from 7-18 November 2016. Reuters reported COP-22 began with bluster with the French President Francois Hollande claiming “inaction would be ‘disastrous for future generations and it would be dangerous for peace’”.
“Both he and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Trump, who has called man-made global warming a hoax, to drop a campaign pledge to cancel the global 2015 Paris Agreement that aims to shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energies.
”The United States, the largest economic power in the world, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, must respect the commitments it has undertaken,’ Hollande said to applause. The agreement was ‘irreversible’, he said.
“In such U.N. meetings, it is very rare for leaders to single out others for even veiled criticism. Both Hollande and Ban were among the architects of the Paris Agreement.
”What was once unthinkable has become unstoppable,’ Ban said at a news conference of the Paris deal, agreed by almost 200 governments last year after two decades of tortuous negotiations. The accord formally entered into force on Nov. 4 after a record swift ratification.”
But sunny Marrakech was apparently very chilly. As Geoff Hill reported in The Zimbabwean: “If an iceberg had fallen from the sky, it wouldn’t have chilled the climate-change conference in Marrakech like news of the US election.”
Bluster and threats may not work on President-elect Trump, especially if they come from international bureaucrats who benefit from false claims that their actions will save the world.
Both Ban and Hollande were major parties to the farce of Paris, when major revisions were made at the last minute at the insistence of the Obama administration. These revisions substantially changed the tone of the Paris Agreement from the appearance of a Treaty to the appearance of a loose agreement. However, is this agreement enforceable under international law?
How enforceable the Paris Agreement is in US law is highly questionable, particularly in that it has not been submitted to Congress for approval as an executive agreement? Further, it has not been submitted to the Senate for approval as treaty.
As Rupert Darwall reports, some in Marrakech realized that: “The Paris Agreement was structured to avoid the test of a two-thirds vote in the US Senate. The strategy depended on American voters supplying a climate-friendly successor to President Obama.” The strategy failed. Now the participants only have themselves to blame.
However, as with World War I generals explaining failed offensives, the international bureaucrats will blame someone else. The Battle of the Somme was fought between July 1 and November 18, 1916, one hundred years ago, without any meaningful success. After the opening day, when the British Army suffered almost sixty thousand causalities with almost one-third dead, General Haig blamed the failure of a major breakthrough on the lack of troops committed to the attack.
COP—22 ended on November 18 with no grand announcements or last minute agreements. The failure of COP-22 can be blamed on the lack of physical evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major cause of global warming/climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years, and will continue to do so no matter what the UN proclaims. Global climate models which have not undergone the rigorous testing for verification and validation are not the basis for sound policy. Their long-term forecasts may be more imaginary and physical, as were the “state-of-the-art” energy models used by the Club of Rome and the US government to forecast the world would run out of oil by the end of the 20th century. Of course, the participants in COP-22 will blame others. See links under After Paris – COP-22 and After US Election!
What Happens Now?
The election of Donald Trump took many political “experts” and pollsters by surprise. His party retained control of the Senate, the House, and took over many governor positions and control of state legislations. This was far beyond what was expected and can be seen as a rebellion against establishment Democrats. One third of the Democrats in the House of Representatives come from three states: Massachusetts, New York, and California.
This week Trump had a surprise for Republicans. He appointed Vice-President-elect Pence as head of his transition team, which sends staffers to agencies for planning the transfer of power from President Obama on January 20. Pence announced that registered lobbyists will not be participating in the transition leadership, unless they deregister under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This would preclude them from lobbying for clients. This action forced a well-known energy lobbyist, Michael McKenna, to resign from the transition team. The announcement is delaying the transition team, but may indicate that the incoming administration will be a rebellion against establishment Republicans as well. When campaigning, Trump did not receive hearty endorsements from many establishment Republicans.
There are many suggestions over what will happen now that COP-22 ended without a meaningful resolution, except a plea for money. Reiteration of dire consequences from carbon dioxide-caused global warming, now called climate change, seem to have lost their effect and certainly lack substantial physical evidence. Perhaps an indication of what may come is articulated by Kevin Cramer, who represents North Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives and has acted as an advisor on energy for President-elect Donald Trump.
“Arguments that a Trump administration must wait at least three years to withdraw from the Paris agreement – as well as provide a one year notice – are incorrect. For a country to be bound by the Paris agreement, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires a government to complete all national procedures for the agreement’s ratification.
“President Barack Obama’s signing of the agreement in September was not sufficient. Under the U.S. Constitution the authority to ratify treaties lies with the Senate. Until the Senate votes, the United States remains outside of the Paris agreement.
“The White House’s position that Paris is simply an executive agreement and not a treaty has been a matter of political convenience, especially given the level of Republican opposition in the Senate.
“Any reasonable person would find that the State Department’s guidance on determining if an agreement needs Senate approval strongly indicates that Paris is, by definition, a treaty. Both Hillary Clinton’s campaign and environmentalists have treated it as such.
“The other major economies of the world, including the European Union and Japan, have also viewed Paris as a “binding” treaty, one that requires the approval of their legislatures before it can take effect.”
Cramer further writes:
“As polls in the presidential race tightened, the international community worked feverishly with the White House to put in place the agreement as quickly as possible before the election – an attempt at “Trump proofing” it and locking in the United States for four years. Unquestionably, those foreign governments were accomplices in the Obama’s administration apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“An unintended but foreseeable consequence of this reckless behavior is the potential U.S. withdraw from the entire UNFCCC. President-elect Trump could decide to end America’s participation in the framework convention, fulfilling a campaign promise to “cancel” Paris and end funding for U.N. climate efforts altogether.
“Because the UNFCCC has been in force since 1994, U.S. withdrawal from the framework could take effect by January 20, 2018, assuming proper notification. A party is considered out of the Paris agreement automatically if it removes itself from the underlying UNFCCC. Unlike ratification, the White House can end America’s participation in a treaty unilaterally – as it did with the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002.”
Myron Ebell of CEI has been pilloried by the Climate Establishment, largely falsely, because he is heading the transition team for the EPA. Contrary to some claims, this is a temporary position, not a permanent one heading the EPA. Ebell suggested that the incoming administration can treat the agreement as a treaty and submit it to the Senate for approval of two-thirds of the Senators. If this is done with a time limit, say six months, then the farce started in Paris last year will end quickly. It would be interesting to see the international bureaucrats argue that Senators are bound to vote for the treaty restricting US CO2 emissions, even though the UN has shown no physical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is harmful. And the will the Senators agree the US must pay heavily into the Green Climate Fund the UN bureaucrats control, a fund Congress has not approved?
Prior reports by the US Climate Change Research Program stated the US is the major funder of these international exercises. Already COP-23 has been announced to be hosted by Fiji, but held in Bonn, Germany. If the new Congress and new administration pulls the funding, perhaps COP-23 could be called a Circus of Pretenders. See Article # 2 and links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, After Paris! After US Election! and EPA and other Regulators on the March.
Climate Models Are Not Appropriate for Policy:
Writing in Climate Etc., Judith Curry has an excellent overview of global climate models written in an understandable manner, or as she states, climate models for lawyers. The Executive summary is worthy of quotation: “There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of GCM climate models. This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, as scientists disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. Climate model outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers. Hence, GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding climate models to an educated but nontechnical audience.
“Key summary points: ▪ GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation procedure s that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science. ▪ There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system. ▪ There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit f or the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportional amount of natural versus human causes to the 20th century warming. ▪ There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.+ ▪ The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the IPCC do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.
“Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCM climate models are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.”_
As with the writings of the Apollo veterans on the Right Climate Stuff Research Team, it is refreshing to read a clearly written essay on the weaknesses of global climate models. They should not be relied upon for government policy. See links under Model Issues.
Evidence – Climate Models Are Not Appropriate for Policy:
The February 2 written testimony of John Christy to the US House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, page 13, clearly shows that the global climate models tested overestimate warming in the mid-troposphere in the tropics by a factor of three. This is where the hotspot discussed in last week’s TWTW should occur. The only model that comes near to matching the data is the one from the Russian Institute for Numerical Mathematics.
The only plausible explanation suggested to SEPP for this disparity between observations and models is that the modelers adjust to surface temperatures. If so, the models are completely inappropriate for establishing greenhouse gas and CO2 policy because the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere, not on the surface.
If the UNFCCC and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were financial institutions, the leaders would be held accountable for this gross disparity. Instead, the UNFCCC is demanding more money. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.
Number of the Week:
20 Billion Barrels of Oil plus 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In 2013, Pioneer Natural Resources estimated that the Spraberry/Wolfcamp formation in the Permian Basin in West Texas contained up to 50 billion barrels of recoverable oil and gas. Veterans of the oil patch realize that over optimism, or exaggeration, is common and were skeptical.
The USGS has announced that 20 Billion Barrels of Oil plus 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are technically recoverable – thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. This is the largest continuous assessment ever made by the USGS. Over 3,000 horizontal wells have been drilled and completed, some over 10,000 horizontal feet. The basin covered in the USGS report was narrowed and identified as “Midland Basin Wolfcamp A, B, C, and D of the Permian Basin Provence, Texas.
It is doubtful that the political “leave it in the ground” movement will have the same acceptance in West Texas as in New York State. See links under Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
The Washington Examiner reports the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) and a number groups are suing the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that its policies did not take into consideration the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Julie Axelrod, IRLI’s lead counsel on the case, said, “Our lawsuit will demonstrate that legal and illegal immigration have a very significant impact on the environment, which DHS has spent the last 46 years ignoring.”
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires “any agency considering an action that will affect the environment to analyze and publicize those effects.” The plaintiffs say DHS, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service before it, ignored NEPA’s requirement to conduct analysis on the environmental impacts of its policies between 1990 and 2010, a time when the US population grew by over over 61 million people. The U.S. total population will grow to almost 417 million by 2060 and immigration will account for about 80% of that growth.
The plaintiffs charge that the failure to abide by NEPA has “harmed and overwhelmed” communities with: “damage to air quality; increasing urban sprawl; increasing demand for water; increasing water pollution; exacerbated traffic congestion; school overcrowding; loss of green space, farmland, forests and wildlife; and other non-renewable resources.”
Moreover, they argue, massive illegal immigration has caused: “the destruction of native species and habitats by trampling over the native vegetation; garbage dumping on a massive scale; water pollution; fires for the purposes of heat, cooking, or to distract Border Patrol agents (many of which turn out of control and destroy vast swaths of naive land); not to mention the destruction of property, livestock, and the peaceful enjoyment of personal property.”
The plaintiffs include the Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District, Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, Californians for Population Stabilization, Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization, New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, and Floridians for Sustainable Population. Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm (D), also a plaintiff, called ignoring NEPA “environmental malpractice.”
The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
President Barack Obama, joined by actor Leonardo DiCaprio at the White House, warned Monday night that the world is running out of time to counter climate change and the U.S. government must make laggards “pay a penalty.”
“It takes time to ramp up these new energy sources, and we are in a battle against time,” Obama said. “The best way we can spur that kind of innovation is to either create regulation that says, ‘Figure it out and if you don’t figure it out then you’re going to pay a penalty,’ or to create something like a carbon tax which gives an economic incentive for businesses to do this.”
DiCaprio dismissed those who don’t “believe” in climate change as also nonbelievers “in facts or in science or in empirical truths” who “should not be allowed to hold public office.”
Obama said the climate issue should have crossover appeal to conservative Americans, including people of faith and gun owners.
“They are generally on the conservative side of the spectrum, but care deeply about this planet that God made,” Obama said.
It requires us to reach out to sportsmen and hunters and fishermen who may not agree at all on Second Amendment issues but they sure like and understand the notion that they’ve got a forest where they can go out—although they probably don’t want to be mauled by a grizzly bear.”
“If you do not believe in climate change, you … should not be allowed to hold public office,” @LeoDiCaprio says.
In DiCaprio’s Oscar-winning role in “The Revenant,” he is attacked by a bear.
DiCaprio was at the White House event, dubbed “South by South Lawn,” to premiere his climate change documentary film “Before the Flood.” Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, joined the president and the actor for a panel discussion.
“The scientific consensus is now in, and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio told the crowd. “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or in empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
The problem with such passion is that too few—including actors and politicians— consider the consequences of climate policies, said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“I like Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor. He seems like a great guy to have a beer with, but there is much he is not hearing from his conversations with Obama,” Lewis told The Daily Signal. “He thinks only climate change is a threat, but isn’t thinking about the threat of climate policy. To say we are going to bear any burden, pay any price, he doesn’t realize the cure can be worse than the disease.”
Lewis said poverty, not climate change, is the largest cause of preventable illnesses and premature death. And, he said, fossil fuels have provided more energy and more food by making agriculture more efficient.
About 1.3 billion people in the world have no electricity, Lewis said, so energy should be made more plentiful and available.
“Obama and Leo don’t realize the potential for a humanitarian disaster” under strict carbon restrictions, Lewis said.
The Obama administration’s entry into the Paris climate agreement clearly violated what the Constitution considers a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, he said:
The Obama administration has called this the most ambitious agreement in history and it is. Other countries are talking about ratification. Obama does not want to use the R-word, ratification, because it would mean it’s the T-word, treaty.
In April, the United States signed on to the Paris agreement, which requires the the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by 2025, which would be a reduction of 26 percent to 28 percent.
The same standards aren’t required of all 170 countries in the agreement. He also noted India’s recent action on the agreement.
“Now, not every country is doing the exact same thing because not every country produces the same amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases per capita. … The good news about the Paris agreement is that it committed everybody to do something,” Obama said during the panel discussion, adding:
I anticipate that this agreement will actually go into force in the next few weeks. India, just this past week, signed on and we are going to get a few more nations signing on. So, officially, this agreement will be in force much faster than I think many of us anticipated.
India will not be making the same sacrifices in limiting carbon dioxide emissions under the Paris agreement as the United States, said Nicolas Loris, a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation.
“India’s end of the commitment won’t force it to cut economic growth,” Loris told The Daily Signal. “They are cutting carbon intensity rather than CO2 emissions. It would be a ratio of carbon to the GDP [gross domestic product]. It will be business as usual without restrictions on coal-fired power plants in India.”
China likewise is not making the same sacrifices as the United States, he said.
“Obama will hail this agreement as a huge success,” Loris said. “I wouldn’t call it an economic or an environmental success. It will increase energy costs disproportionately on the poor.”
How much man’s activity contributes to global warming has been a contentious issue during Obama’s two term. While the administration and many scientists call for sweeping government action to limit what they view as catastrophic climate change, other scientists and business leaders contend that humans’ role and its results aren’t certain.
Anthony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” contends the Paris agreement could be used by other nations to gain a political and financial advantage over the United States.
“India and China would love to see the U.S. drawn up into climate policy because it would take their attention away from the imbalance in trade,” Sadar told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
“They like to hype this issue up with celebrities like DiCaprio, and what does he know?” Sadar said. “Science is a discipline. Politicians and actors are pushing a scientific issue, something they really don’t have knowledge of.”
So far this week, we have seen the most dangerous volcano in Mexico erupt, and three major volcanoes in Indonesia all erupted within the space of just 72 hours. Mexico and Indonesia are both considered to be part of “the Ring of Fire”, and all along the perimeter of the Pacific Ocean volcanoes are starting to go off like firecrackers right now.
According to Volcano Discovery, 25 volcanoes in areas that are considered to be within the Ring of Fire have erupted recently. Our planet appears to have entered a time of increased seismic activity, and those the follow my work regularly know that this is a theme that I revisit repeatedly. Sadly, most Americans are not paying too much attention to this increase in seismic activity, but the truth is that it has very serious implications for the west coast of the United States.
It didn’t make a big splash in the mainstream media in the United States, but this week Mt. Popocatepetl erupted and coated homes and vehicles in Mexico City with a thick layer of volcanic dust. And now some scientists are becoming concerned that this recent activity may be building up to “a major disastrous eruption”…
Residents of Mexico City woke this morning to find ash coating cars and buildings after the Popocatepetl volcano belched out another toxic cloud.
The volcano is considered one of the world’s most dangerous due to its proximity to the city with more than nine million inhabitants.
Around 25 million people live within 62 miles of the crater of the 5,426-metre magma mount, who could also be affected.
There are fears the peak is building towards a major disastrous eruption after activity increased over the past few years, although, it has been periodically erupting since 1994.
There is a very good reason why Mt. Popocatepetl is considered to be the most dangerous volcano in Mexico. If there ever is “a major disastrous eruption”, millions upon millions of people will be directly affected and it will bring Mexico’s economy to a screeching halt. The following comes from one of my previous articles…
Popocatepetl is an Aztec word that can be translated as “smoking mountain”, and more than 25 million people live within range of this extraordinarily dangerous mountain. Experts tell us that during the time of the Aztecs, entire cities were completely buried in super-heated mud from this volcano. In fact, the super-heated mud was so deep that it buried entire pyramids. In the event of a full-blown eruption, Mexico City’s 18 million residents probably wouldn’t be buried in super-heated mud, but it would still be absolutely devastating for Mexico’s largest city.
Giant clouds of ash engulfed the skies as Mount Sinabung became the third volcano to erupt in Indonesia, in the space of just three days.
Mount Rinjani on Lombok island near Bali erupted on Monday, with the Sinabung volcano on Sumatra island and Mount Gamalama in the Moluccas chain of islands following suit late yesterday.
There are approximately 130 active volcanoes in Indonesia, but this is still very unusual even for them.
But of even greater concern for Indonesia (and for the rest of the planet) is the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that shook Mount Tambora on July 31st. Back in 1815, an eruption at Mount Tambora was the largest that has ever been recorded, and there are concerns that this recent very large earthquake may be a sign that another mega-eruption is on the way.
If you are not familiar with the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, it was truly a historic event. More than 70,000 people died from the immediate blast, and the climate of the entire planet was cooled substantially for years afterwards. The following description of that eruption comes from Wikipedia…
The following year became known as “the year without a summer” because the global climate cooled down so dramatically. There were crop failures all across the northern hemisphere, and as a result the world experienced the worst famine of the 19th century.
Someday, there will be another eruption of that magnitude at Mount Tambora or elsewhere along the Ring of Fire, and the world will experience another horrifying famine.
It is just a matter of time.
And let us not forget that the entire west coast of the United States also sits along the Ring of Fire. In my novel and in my new book I warn about the coming eruption of Mt. Rainier. But that is certainly not the only volcano on the west coast that we need to be concerned about. In recent months there has also been increased seismic activity at Mt. Hood and at Mt. St. Helens.
We have been very fortunate not to have had any major volcanic eruptions in the continental United States since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980, but scientists assure us that we are well overdue for the next one.
In addition, the Yellowstone supervolcano may not be considered to be directly along the Ring of Fire, but it has also been exhibiting very strange behavior this year as well. When it finally erupts, all of our lives are going to change in a single moment.
So there are definitely some big reasons why we should be concerned about all of these volcanoes that are currently erupting around the world. It may not be tomorrow, but eventually Americans are going to see firsthand how a major volcanic eruption can permanently alter their lives.
There are some “major concerns” about what the scientists at CERN are doing these days. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, more commonly known by the acronym “CERN”, is purposely smashing particles into one another at astonishingly high speeds. Just last month, the researchers working at the facility began a new experiment called “Awake” that uses “plasma wakefields driven by a proton beam” to accelerate charged particles. On June 24th, pictures of some extremely bizarre “portal-shaped cloud formations” were taken in the area just above the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Could it be possible that there is some sort of a connection between this new “Awake” experiment” and these strange cloud formations? And precisely what do the researchers hope to “awaken” anyway?
Right at the start of this article, I want to make it clear that I am approaching the claims that CERN is making and the claims that their critics are making with skepticism. I was trained as a lawyer, and so I am not easily persuaded on a matter. I hope to raise some important questions in this article, but I don’t know that we can come to any solid conclusions on any of this just yet.
AWAKE (the Advanced Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment) will be the first accelerator of its kind in the world. It is currently under construction, but hopes to test the concept that plasma wakefields driven by a proton beam could accelerate charged particles.
A video claims two images showing cloud and light over the LHC at Geneva on the French/Swiss border were taken on June 24 – the same day CERN scientists began a new Awake experiment to change the way it smashes particles together.
The film, entitled What portal did CERN open now? Strange Clouds Hover Above the LHC, was made by Freedom Fighter Times, a religious conspiracy theory channel on YouTube, and raises “major concerns” about what the LCH is being used for.
You can view YouTube screenshots of the photos in question right here and right here. Do these photographs appear to be alarming to you?…
Some people just see normal thunderstorms when they look at these clouds, but others are convinced that they are looking at strange balls of energy and inter-dimensional portals…
According to conspiracy theorists, bizarre clouds that formed on Friday, June 24 (see YouTube below), over the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) facility prove that experiments being conducted by CERN scientists in Geneva are opening up mysterious inter-dimensional portals that disrupt the fabric of space and time and expose Earth to the risk of alien or demon invasion from a parallel universe.
You can see the YouTube video that the Inquisitr was referring to in the article quoted above right here…
Some people even claim that they can see faces in the images when they look closely enough.
Personally, I don’t know what to think about these photographs.
But what we do know is that there are scientists all over the planet that are concerned that the strange experiments being conducted at CERN could potentially open a black hole, destroy the entire world or open up a portal to another dimension.
And we do know that the director of research at CERN, physicist Sergio Bertolucci, has said that the Large Hadron Collider could open up a “door” to “an extra dimension”…
A top boffin at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) says that the titanic machine may possibly create or discover previously unimagined scientific phenomena, or “unknown unknowns” – for instance “an extra dimension“.
“Out of this door might come something, or we might send something through it,” said Sergio Bertolucci, who is Director for Research and Scientific Computing at CERN, briefing reporters including the Reg at CERN HQ earlier this week.
Stephen Hawking says the ‘God Particle’ that scientists believe created the world could actually end it, too.
The particle – know as Higgs boson – “has the worrisome feature” that it could become unstable at extremely high energies and create a “black hole” that would collapse the universe, the legendary British physicist has warned in a new book titled Starmus, according to the Daily Express.
“This could happen at any time and we wouldn’t see it coming,” Hawking claimed in the book.
In addition, there are those that have pointed out that “CERN” is the first four letters of the name of the horned pagan god named Cernunnos…
‘Is it just a coincidence that CERN is short for the horned God Cernunnos? Is it also a coincidence that CERN has to go deep underground to do their “god” harnessing experiments? Cernunnos was the god of the underworld.’
Now on top of all the speculation as to what CERN scientists are really attempting to do with their Large Hadron Collider, many observers could not help but notice that the town in France where CERN is partially situated is called “Saint-Genus-Poilly.” The name Pouilly comes from the Latin “Appolliacum” and it is believed that in Roman times a temple existed in honor of Apollo, and the people who lived there believed that it is a gateway to the underworld. It is interesting to note that CERN is built on the same spot.
Religious leaders – always suspicious of the aims of the scientific world – drew a connection to a verse straight out of Revelations (9:1-2, 11), which makes reference to the name ‘Apollyon.’ The verse states: “To him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit… And they had a kind over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.”
On top of everything else, the people running CERN decided to choose a logo that seems to contain “666”…
And they also decided to erect a statue of the Hindu god Shiva (“the destroyer”) right outside CERN headquarters…
What does all of this ultimately mean?
I don’t know, but I can certainly understand why so many people are raising questions.
So what do you think?
Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…
If you reside on the west coast, you are living on borrowed time. As you will see below, stress has been building up along the San Andreas fault for more than a century, and scientists tell us that southern California is way overdue for a major earthquake. When that stress is finally released, the U.S. Geological Survey says that we could be looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. If you follow my work regularly, then you already know that there has been unusual shaking all along the “Ring of Fire” so far in 2016. But thankfully the west coast of the United States has been spared from a major disaster up to this point. Unfortunately, scientists assure us that it is only a matter of time before one strikes, and that is why it is so alarming that the ground surrounding the San Andreas fault has been “rising and sinking”. The following comes from the Los Angeles Times…
For the first time, scientists have produced a computer image showing huge sections of California rising and sinking around the San Andreas fault.
The vertical movement is the result of seismic strain that will be ultimately released in a large earthquake.
The California coastline is where two enormous tectonic plates come together. The Pacific plate and the North American plate are slowly but surely moving against one another, and this creates a tremendous amount of geological stress. While areas on both sides of the San Andreas fault have been steadily rising and sinking as a result of this stress, there are sections of the fault itself that have remained “locked” for more than 100 years, and other sections that have remained locked for more than 300 years…
The region of the San Andreas fault between Monterey County and Imperial County hasn’t moved in a significant way in more than 150 years, and other parts of the fault have been accumulating stress for more than 300 years.
This build up of stress is extremely dangerous, because the more stress that builds up the worse the ultimate release of that stress could turn out to be.
If you look at this map from the U.S. Geological Survey, you can see all of the earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater that have hit California within the past seven days. As you can see, there has been a whole lot of shaking going on…
And let us not forget that earlier this month a magnitude 5.2 earthquake struck near San Diego, and it was followed by more than 800 aftershocks.
Unfortunately, none of these quakes has relieved the stress along the San Andreas fault. While the San Andreas fault may be the most famous of the faults in southern California, the truth is that there are many others. And just last year the U.S. Geological Survey admitted that the probability of a “megaquake” along the west coast involving multiple faults at once was significantly greater than they had previously been projecting…
A recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey shows the inevitability of just such a quake, which is predicted to hit within the next couple of decades.
“The new likelihoods are due to the inclusion of possible multi-fault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously,” lead author of the study and USGS scientist, Ned Field says. “This is a significant advancement in terms of representing a broader range of earthquakes throughout California’s complex fault system.”
But of course the San Andreas fault represents an absolutely massive threat to southern California all by itself.
Back in May, the Los Angeles Times quoted the director of the Southern California Earthquake Center as saying that the San Andreas fault is “locked, loaded and ready to roll”…
“The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight. And the southern San Andreas fault, in particular, looks like it’s locked, loaded and ready to go,” Jordan said in the opening keynote talk.
Other sections of the San Andreas fault also are far overdue for a big quake. Further southeast of the Cajon Pass, such as in San Bernardino County, the fault has not moved substantially since an earthquake in 1812, and further southeast toward the Salton Sea, it has been relatively quiet since about 1680 to 1690.
Here’s the problem: Scientists have observed that based on the movement of tectonic plates, with the Pacific plate moving northwest of the North American plate, earthquakes should be relieving about 16 feet of accumulated plate movement every 100 years. Yet the San Andreas has not relieved stress that has been building up for more than a century.
A number of years ago, a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey found that just a magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the southern San Andreas fault would cause more than 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries and 200 billion dollars in damage.
So what would a magnitude 8 or worse quake do?
And even though the U.S. Geological Survey does not believe that parts of California will eventually fall into the ocean, it is very open about the fact that Los Angeles and San Francisco will one day “be adjacent to one another” as the Pacific plate and the North American plate slowly slip past each other…
Will California eventually fall into the ocean?
No. The San Andreas Fault System, which crosses California from the Salton Sea in the south to Cape Mendocino in the north, is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. The Pacific Plate is moving northwest with respect to the North American Plate at approximately 46 millimeters per year (the rate your fingernails grow). The strike-slip earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are a result of this plate motion. The plates are moving horizontally past one another, so California is not going to fall into the ocean. However, Los Angeles and San Francisco will one day be adjacent to one another!
Meanwhile, while we are talking about southern California, I just had to mention the record-breaking heatwave and the horrific wildfires that are plaguing the region this week. In fact, two massive wildfires that have been raging out of control threaten to combine “into one super fire”…
Two new fires raging in California could soon merge, creating one ‘super fire’, as wild blazes continue to consume thousands of acres and have already force massive evacuations.
Throughout the United States, firefighters are battling blazes of varying degrees in nine states, including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, Montana, Washington, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.
The most serious of these fires have been week-old blazes in California, New Mexico and Arizona, where scorching triple-digit temperatures have stoked the flames.
Normally we don’t see wildfires of this size and intensity until the late summer or early fall.
As I constantly remind my readers, last year was the worst year for wildfires in all of U.S. history, and so far this year we are more than a million acres ahead of the pace that was set last year.
We live at a time when our planet is becoming increasingly unstable. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, historic droughts and unusual flooding events all seem to be on the rise globally.
So is there a reason why all of this is happening, or are we just going through a time when we are experiencing an astounding string of truly bizarre coincidences?
Please feel free to tell us what you think by posting a comment below…
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*
Over the past few days the mainstream media has been fixated on the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, but meanwhile there has been highly unusual seismic activity along major fault lines in California and near the Yellowstone supervolcano. Let’s talk about Yellowstone first. In recent months, the big geysers have been behaving very strangely and this is something that my wife and I covered on our television show. And now, just over the past week there have been three very significant earthquakes in the region. On June 9th, there was a magnitude 3.7 earthquake, on June 13th there was a magnitude 4.3 earthquake and earlier today there was a magnitude 4.0 earthquake. Yes, the area around Yellowstone is hit by earthquakes all the time, but most of them are extremely small. For earthquakes of this size to be striking right around Yellowstone is highly unusual and more than just a little bit alarming.
The map below comes directly from the USGS, and it shows all of the earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater that have hit the western portion of the United States over the last week. The three big earthquakes that struck southwestern Montana are visible on the map, although they are hard to see because the dots all overlap. But the main reason why I am showing you this map is because I want you to see all of the earthquakes that have been happening along the major fault lines in southern California in recent days…
The biggest was a magnitude 5.2 earthquake that hit an area northeast of San Diego on Friday. The following comes from NBC Los Angeles…
A magnitude-5.2 earthquake centered in the desert northeast of San Diego caused shaking early Friday morning across Southern California.
The earthquake occurred at about 1 a.m. northwest of Borrego Springs in San Diego County, according to the USGS. The earthquake was initially reported with a magnitude of 5.1 before it was revised to 5.2, according to the USGS.
But that earthquake was not the end of it by any means. It is being reported that this large quake was followed by at least 800 aftershocks.
Yes, we normally expect there to be aftershocks after a large quake, but to have that many is very, very unusual.
The quakes that have been striking farther north off the coast of northern California and Oregon are also of great concern as well. Just recently, I wrote about the fact that the federal government has been conducting drills that have attempted to simulate the response to a magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake. If such an earthquake were to strike at this moment, the damage caused would be incalculable.
Eurasia’s largest volcano Klyuchevskaya Sopka in Russia’s Far East erupted shooting hot ash miles into the air on Tuesday, the local geophysical service said.
“The eruption was detected [Tuesday] morning…the eruption column rose 6 kilometers [3.7 miles]. The steam-gas plume stretched for 47 kilometers to the west of the volcano,” a representative of the Russian agency told RIA Novosti.
Beneath Matata, a small coastal town 125 miles from Auckland, on New Zealand’s North Island, scientists recently discovered a massive magma build-up, possibly signaling the beginnings of a new volcano.
But oddly, this magma chamber is nowhere near an active volcano.
According to geophysicist Ian Hamling, since 1950 an incredible influx of magma – enough to fill 80,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools – has accumulated beneath the small New Zealand town, pushing up the surface of the ground by 40 cm (16 inches).
At some point there will be major volcanic eruptions along the west coast.
At some point there will be major earthquakes along the west coast.
Scientists tell us that it is just a matter of time before we see these things.
Unfortunately for all of us, these things may start happening with a frequency and an intensity that none of us are expecting.
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of End Of The American Dream. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*
This is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph occurred in the middle part of the 20th century, when the larger part of mankind finally succeeded in overcoming the ravages of malaria, the deadly infectious disease that had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time (and which, by one estimate, had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth). But within three decades, the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable.
Malaria is spread by protozoan parasites that are transmitted from person to person by female mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus. Symptoms of the disease include high fever, shaking chills, joint pain, headaches, muscle aches, fatigue, vomiting, anemia, hemoglobinuria, retinal damage, and convulsions. Malaria also has been found to cause cognitive impairments and neurologic damage, especially in children. And in 1 to 2 million cases each year, it results in the death of the victim.
But these casualty figures were dwarfed by those of other countries. In India during the 1930s, for example, approximately 100 million people contracted malaria each year, and at least a million of them died as a result. In Africa, hundreds of millions of people per year became infected, and several million of them lost their lives as well.
By the time World War II began, people worldwide were essentially powerless in the face of this dread disease, just as they had been throughout most of human history. Then in 1939, everything changed. The Swiss scientist Paul Müller developed the synthetic pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), which proved to be a remarkably effective means of killing the mosquitoes responsible for malaria’s transmission (and killing also pests like flies, aphids, and potato beetles that carry such infectious diseases as bubonic plague, typhus, yellow fever, and encephalitis).
The Müller and the Geigy Corporation subsequently patented DDT in Switzerland (1940), England (1942), and the United States (1943). In 1943 Merck & Company produced and delivered 500 gallons of DDT to Italy in an effort to put down a raging epidemic of louse-borne typhus. Later that year, the U.S. Army supplied its troops with rations of 10-percent DDT dust to kill lice. Throughout the course of the Second World War, DDT protected millions of Allied troops from contracting malaria and other infectious diseases like typhus and the plague. Moreover, the pesticide saved the lives of recently liberated concentration-camp survivors by killing off typhus-carrying lice.
Wherever DDT was used in significant quantities, the incidence of malaria declined precipitously. In South America, for example, malaria cases fell by 33 percent between 1942 and 1946. In 1948, there was not a single malaria-related death in all of Italy. After DDT was sprayed widely in India’s Kanara district (where some 50,000 people had typically contracted malaria in any given year during the pre-DDT era), the number of newly diagnosed malaria cases dwindled to about 1,500 per year by the late 1940s—a 97 percent decrease. Throughout the entire Indian nation, the number of malaria cases fell from about 75 million in 1951 to 50,000 in 1961. In Sri Lanka, DDT spraying was initiated in 1946, at which time approximately 3 million new cases of malaria were being diagnosed each year. By 1956, that figure had fallen to 7,300; eight years after that, in 1964, a mere 29 Sri Lankans contracted malaria.
Encouraged by DDT’s unmatched success in killing the carriers of infectious disease, in May 1955 the World Health Organization, at its Eighth World Health Assembly, initiated a Global Malaria Eradication Campaign (GMEC). Funded mostly by the U.S. government, the GMEC focused heavily on the use of DDT as a means of combating malaria in North America, southern Europe, the Caribbean, and much of eastern and southern Asia. By 1961, malaria had been nearly eliminated from each of those regions. In South Africa, malaria rates plummeted by 80 percent in just 18 months as a result of spraying small amounts of DDT on the walls and eaves of traditional mud and thatch huts twice a year. Similarly, the incidence of malaria declined by 60 percent in Ecuador and by 90 percent in Madagascar.
“To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It is estimated that, in little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.”
Unfortunately, tropical Africa was, for the most part, unable to share in the great benefits of DDT because: (a) with only a few exceptions, the nations of that region did not possess infrastructures capable of disseminating the pesticide in an effective and comprehensive manner; and (b) Africa’s Anopheles mosquitoes and malaria parasites differed slightly from their counterparts on other continents and thus were more resistant to eradication campaigns. But the scientific community was working—and with promising signs of progress—to overcome those obstacles. For example, in a 1959-1960 pilot project in the Kigezi district of Uganda, DDT was sprayed twice per year and it virtually eliminated malaria from the region. Indeed, there was good reason to be confident that before long, DDT would successfully drive malaria from every part of the globe, including Africa.
Tragically, however, this confidence would be derailed by a series of events that were triggered initially by the September 1962 publication of biologist/zoologist Rachel Carson’s bestselling book, Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers that DDT allegedly posed to all manner of plant, animal, and human life. These threats were so great, said Carson, that on balance they more than negated whatever benefits were to be gained from using the pesticide to prevent malaria.
Receiving immense media coverage, Carson’s book enjoyed immediate critical acclaim and spent 30 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. It was the subject not only of congressional discussion and debate, but also of consideration by the presidential Science Advisory Committee. The book’s popularity was boosted to some extent by the wave of fear that had recently swept through the American public with regard to concerns over: (a) the physical effects of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing, and (b) birth defects resulting from the pregnancy drug thalidomide.
In Silent Spring, Carson stated that the overall rise in U.S. cancer rates between 1940 (the dawn of the DDT era) and 1960 proved that DDT was a carcinogen. She predicted that DDT and other pesticides would spark a cancer epidemic that would wipe out “practically 100 percent” of the human population within a single generation. As Carson saw it, a race of super-insects, immune to the effects of pesticides, would infest the crops grown on American farms. Desperate farmers, she said, would respond to these infestations by using much greater quantities of DDT. In this way, Carson explained, the pesticide would eventually poison the entire food chain, killing off, in sequence, bugs, worms, birds, fish, and finally mankind.
Carson also claimed that the atmospheric presence of DDT and its metabolites, DDE (Dichloro-Diphenyldichloro-Ethylene) and DDD (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane), caused the shells of bird eggs to become thinner, thereby leading to an increased incidence of egg breakage and/or embryo death. This, Carson postulated, would severely interfere with bird reproduction and ultimately would lead to a “silent spring” bereft of the familiar sounds of birdsongs. Citing a 1956 study that Dr. James DeWitt published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Carson reported:
“Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.”
Activist organizations like the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund quickly jumped aboard Carson’s bandwagon of doom; within a few years, they would be joined by other, likeminded groups such as Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund (the latter of which asserted that “[c]hronic low dose DDT exposure is associated with premature birth and low birth-weight in babies who were exposed before birth, and with decreased duration of milk supply in nursing mothers”). Some of these groups initiated lawsuits seeking to ban the use of DDT and pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hold hearings on the subject.
“The Department of Health, Education and Welfare announced studies which showed unequivocally that increasing death rates from hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, and a series of other diseases has resulted from the chlorinated hydrocarbon load. They estimated that Americans born since 1946 [when DDT usage was becoming widespread] now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued, this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.”
Notwithstanding the warnings of people like Ehrlich, Carson, and spokesmen for the aforementioned environmentalist organizations, DDT continued to be used widely to combat malaria throughout the 1960s. By 1967 the disease was eradicated from all developed countries where it previously had been endemic—most notably large regions of Latin America and tropical Asia. Typical was the case of Taiwan, where the incidence of malaria plummeted from more than a million cases in 1945, to a mere 9 cases in 1969.
Despite spectacular success stories such as these, Carson and her fellow environmental activists continued to warn of DDT’s dangers and to make a case for a worldwide ban on the pesticide’s use. Their persistence eventually paid some dividends when DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. That ban was due, in large measure, to the influence of then-EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, an attorney with close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund.
It is noteworthy that two years before he outlawed the pesticide, Ruckelshaus (in an August 31, 1970 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing) had stated unequivocally that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.”
“As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions … because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.”
After the Environmental Defense Fund and the Audubon Society jointly filed a lawsuit demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA place a ban on DDT, Ruckelshaus ordered a hearing to consider precisely that course of action.
After seven months of hearings in 1971, which produced 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, EPA Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that according to the evidence:
“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man … is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man … [and the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
But Ruckelshaus, who had never attended even a day of the EPA hearings and had never (by his own admission) read any of the transcripts of those hearings, overruled Sweeney and formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972. His decision was chiefly a consequence of his close ties to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others in the green movement.
The DDT ban was subsequently appealed, but to no avail, as Ruckelshaus had appointed himself as the appeal judge. After the appeal had been squelched, Ruckelshaus’ obvious partisanship was on display for all to see. He began soliciting, on his personal stationery, donations on behalf of EDF: “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard,” he gloated, “and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”
In an April 26, 1979 letter to American Farm Bureau Federation President Allan Grant, Ruckelshaus acknowledged that his decision to ban DDT had been rooted in concerns that were more political than environmental:
“The ultimate judgment [on DDT] remains political. Decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political with a small ‘p.’ In the case of pesticides in our country, the power to make this judgment has been delegated to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
The American environmental movement’s campaign against DDT paved the way for other, similar efforts all over the world. In 1975, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) jointly called for a greater emphasis on alternatives to the use of DDT and other insecticides for the control of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
Four years later the WHO announced a global strategy de-emphasizing vector-control measures for combating malaria, and focusing instead on improvements in case-detection and treatment. That is, efforts to kill the mosquitoes that transmitted malaria would be scaled back; the new approach would allow people to become infected in whatever numbers nature might dictate, and would focus chiefly on the development of more effective treatments for the disease.
In 1980 the WHO and UNEP helped create the Panel of Experts for Environmental Management for vector-borne disease control. Shortly thereafter, the WHO’s vector biology and control program (whose centerpiece had been the use of DDT and other insecticides) was eliminated entirely—for reasons of so-called “environmental” import.
During Silent Spring’s heyday in American bookshops, few readers were aware that the book was replete with errors and misrepresentations and was based, in large measure, on shoddy science. Ruckelshaus, by contrast, knew this quite well—a fact which makes his decision to ban DDT particularly worthy of condemnation.
Among the inaccuracies in Carson’s book was the author’s contention (mentioned above) that DDT had contributed significantly to the overall rise in U.S. cancer rates between 1940 and 1960. Yet Carson’s claim is definitively refuted by Centers for Disease Control data showing that cancer rates had already been rising long before the introduction of DDT in the early 1940s. Indeed, between 1900 and 1960 Americans’ cancer rates spiked mostly as a result of an increase in the use of tobacco.
Carson also contended (again, as noted above) that according to Dr. James DeWitt, the atmospheric presence of DDT and its metabolites was having a destructive effect on bird eggs and the embryos contained therein. But this was a gross misrepresentation of DeWitt’s actual findings, which were that: (a) among quail which had been fed 200 parts per million of DDT, 80 percent of their eggs hatched, compared with a nearly identical 83.9 percent of the eggs of the “control” quail that had received no exposure to DDT; and even more significantly, (b) among pheasants that had been fed high levels of DDT, more than 80 percent of their eggs hatched, as compared to a mere 57 percent among the “control” pheasants. Because these facts offered no support whatsoever for Carson’s thesis about DDT’s allegedly harmful effects on bird reproduction, she omitted them from her book.
Over the course of time, an increasing number of Americans—including many former believers—came to realize that Silent Spring contained at least as much fiction as fact. San Jose State University entomologist Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, for one, at first supported Carson but later changed his mind after discovering that she had relied heavily upon “very unscientific sources.” Edwards (who once wrote a book published by the Sierra Club) also found that even in those places where Carson had cited research of genuine scientific merit (as in the case of Dr. DeWitt’s work), she had commonly misrepresented the findings with what Edwards characterized as a “false” narrative. Said Edwards:
“They [Carson’s conclusions] did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. She was really playing loose with the facts, deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them, carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad. It slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans.”
Carson’s duplicity was manifested further in her assertion that the Audubon Society’s annual bird census from 1940-1961 showed that bird populations had declined widely and precipitously. Reasoning that because these declines supposedly had begun at roughly the time when DDT spraying became widespread, she concluded that DDT itself was the cause. But as the aforementioned Dr. Edwards points out, Audubon census figures from 1940-1961 actually show the reverse of what Carson claimed; i.e., at least 26 kinds of birds became more numerous during that period. In May 1967, the Virginia Department of Agriculture Bulletinexplained why:
“The phenomena of increasing bird populations during the DDT years may be due, in part, to (1) fewer blood-sucking insects and reduced spread of avian diseases (avian malaria, rickettsial-pox, avian bronchitis, Newcastle disease, encephalitis, etc); (2) more seed and fruits available for birds to eat after plant-eating insects were decimated [by DDT]; and (3) Ingestion of DDT triggers hepatic enzymes that detoxify carcinogens such as aflatoxin.”
In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund (and someone whose sympathies, therefore, were clearly with the anti-DDT coalition), likewise noted the general abundance of birds during the DDT years—referring specifically to “increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species.” Similarly, the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association of Pennsylvania noted dramatic increases in most kinds of hawks; national forest studies from Wisconsin and Michigan reported a nearly sevenfold increase in nesting osprey productivity from 1965 to 1970; and the herring gull population reportedly grew from 2,000 pairs in 1941 to 35,000 pairs in 1971. Some birds, such as blackbirds and redwings, multiplied so rapidly that they became “pests.”
Experiments on caged birds repeatedly found that exposure to DDT—at levels that were hundreds of times greater than those which birds in the wild might encounter—did not lead to significant thinning of their egg shells. A slight degree of eggshell thinning was observed among some birds that had been exposed to mega-doses of DDT, but that thinning was much less pronounced than what had been found in many natural habitats around the world where DDT had not been used. Nor was there any solid evidence that the eggshell thinning among the DDT control group was in fact due to the pesticide. Eggshell thinning can result from such variables as high levels of oil, lead, or mercury in a bird’s environment; or from phosphorus deficiency, calcium deficiency, dehydration, temperature extremes, decreased light, and stress.
Other studies have shown no correlation whatsoever between DDT exposure and eggshell thickness in pelican populations. Moreover, it was found that red-tailed hawks and golden eagles during the DDT era produced eggs whose shells were thicker than those of the eggs that these bird species had produced before the creation and use of DDT.
Just as empirical evidence discredits the notion that DDT led to a decline in bird populations, so do the facts contradict claims that the pesticide is harmful to humans and other animals. Said the director of the World Health Organization in 1969 (three years prior to the EPA’s 1972 ban on DDT):
“DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the past 29 years of its existence]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign. Therefore WHO has no grounds to abandon this chemical which has saved millions of lives, the discontinuation of which would result in thousands of human deaths and millions of illnesses. It has served at least 2 billion people in the world without costing a single human life by poisoning from DDT. The discontinuation of the use of DDT would be a disaster to world health.”
According to Dr. Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sabine Island Research Laboratory, “92 percent of DDT and its metabolites disappear” from the environment within 38 days after they have been sprayed.
In 1985 the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that “DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data.”
In August 1998, the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine reported: “Data from three studies in four Midwestern states [Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas] showed no strong consistent evidence for an association between exposure to DDT and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”
In June 1999, the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention stated, “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.”
One long-term study examined 35 workers who, for periods ranging from 9 to 19 years, were exposed to DDT levels that were 600 times greater than those to which average Americans were exposed; no ill effects were observed.
In another study of male subjects who voluntarily ingested 35 milligrams of DDT daily for nearly two years, the subjects “developed no adverse effects.”
According to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, when primates were exposed to quantities of DDT that were more than 33,000 times greater than the average daily human exposure to the pesticide (as estimated in 1969 and 1972), the results were “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.” Another study found that exposure to DDT reduced the size of tumors in animals.
“The scientific literature does not contain even one peer-reviewed, independently replicated study linking DDT exposures to any adverse health outcome [in humans],” said Dr. Amir Attaran, a malaria expert formerly employed by the World Health Organization and currently affiliated with Harvard University’s Center for International Development.
Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Harold M. Koenig said, “As far as I know, there is no known association between DDT or any other insecticide and cancer. To categorize [Rachel] Carson’s work as research is a big stretch. It was really just hysterical speculation.”
“DDT is the best insecticide we have today for controlling malaria,” said malaria expert Dr. Donald Roberts of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. “DDT is long-acting, the alternatives are not. DDT is cheap, the alternatives are not. End of story.”
The World Wildlife Fund, for instance, identified DDT as part of a “cocktail of highly toxic chemicals” by which animals and people could become “contaminated.” Greenpeace warned that “measurable quantities” of DDT and its metabolite DDE “are present” in human fatty tissue, blood and breast milk, and that “[r]esearchers think DDE could be inhibiting lactation because of its estrogen-like effects and may therefore be contributing to lactation failure throughout the world” [emphasis added]. Physicians for Social Responsibility, urging “holistic” alternatives to DDT, announced that studies “suggest that DDE and possibly other organochlorines can weaken the immune systems of children, increasing their risk of developing asthma and certain infections [emphasis added].
Insisting that DDT could be replaced by alternative pesticides and by procedures such as “integrated vector management” (treating, with “environmentally sensitive” pesticides, the water sources where mosquitoes breed), environmentalists pressured countries around the globe to discontinue their use of DDT and to cut off government funding for DDT projects.
The environmentalists were joined in this effort by such entities as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the European Union, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, and UNICEF. These aid bureaucrats warned impoverished countries whose populations were at high risk of contracting malaria, that if they continued to use DDT as the lynchpin of their anti-malaria programs, grants to their governments would be withheld.
Additional support for the environmentalist crusade against DDT came from a coterie of powerful and immensely wealthy leftist foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, and the Heinz family philanthropies. Like the aid bureaucrats listed in the preceding paragraph, these foundations threatened to withdraw their grants to impoverished nations if their governments were unwilling to forego the use of DDT.
Only a few nations—among them Ecuador, Mexico, and South Africa—possessed the financial resources necessary to fund their own DDT programs without the help of the aforementioned foundations and organizations. And for as long as they continued to use DDT, they remained malaria-free.
Eventually, however, a number of these nations bowed to pressures from the environmental lobby. In the 1990s, for instance, the Clinton Administration stipulated that the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement would be contingent upon Mexico’s willingness to stop its production of DDT. When Mexico ultimately agreed to abandon its DDT programs, its malaria rates increased exponentially.
South Africa, like Mexico, was able to resist the mounting pressures of the environmental lobby until 1996, at which time its Department of Health (DOH) finally relented; this DOH decision to comply with environmentalist demands was greatly influenced by the United Nations, which was threatening to cut off funding for the country’s public-health programs.
Shortly after South Africa had discontinued its use of DDT and replaced it with synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, a highly efficient malaria vector, Anopheles funestus (which had been completely eradicated from the country in the 1970s), reappeared. Within just a few years, the incidence of malaria nationwide increased more than tenfold (from 6,000 cases in 1995, to 62,000 cases in 2000). Desperate to scale back this re-emerging crisis, the South African government resumed its use of DDT in 2001 (disregarding UN warnings against such a course of action), and within months the malaria rate dropped by four-fifths.
In other nations, too, mosquitoes that previously had been vanquished by DDT quickly developed resistance to alternative pesticides; vector-management efforts failed dismally wherever they were tried. When Bolivia, for instance, yielded to international pressure and banned the use of DDT in favor of bed nets and other measures, its infection rate soared by 80 percent between 1993 and 2005. Zanzibar, Sri Lanka and other countries had similar experiences.
Notwithstanding the mountains of evidence demonstrating that there were no effective alternatives to DDT for controlling the spread of malaria, the environmental lobby continued to call for the pesticide to be outlawed everywhere in the world. UNICEF and USAID, for instance, made their loans to Eritrea—where malaria was responsible for 50 percent of all deaths—contingent upon that nation’s pledge to use the money not for DDT projects but rather for insecticide-treated bed nets, “environmental assessments,” and other “effective alternative[s]” to DDT that “could be used safely” under strict World Health Organization protocols.
Supporting this approach, the World Bank likewise demanded that Eritrea discontinue its use of DDT entirely, in favor of “chemicals or techniques that are safer for the environment and human health.” As a result of these restrictions, malaria retained its status as Eritrea’s leading cause of death.
Similarly, the Canadian government gave Ethiopia (where nearly 150,000 people were dying of malaria each year) $1.5 million to fund a “national implementation plan” compliant with the International Stockholm Convention resolution to eliminate “persistent organic pollutants” such as DDT. But this plan proved to be entirely ineffective, and Ethiopians continued to die of malaria in enormous numbers. As journalist Paul Driessen aptly put it: “In effect, then, this effort to eliminate DDT pays Ethiopia about $10 for each dead Ethiopian.”
In February 2005 the European Union (EU) warned Uganda (where up to 100,000 people were dying of malaria each year) that EU member nations would stop importing Ugandan fish, flowers and cereals if that African country were to implement a DDT program to combat the disease.
Citing environmental concerns, USAID announced that it would only promote DDT as a “measure of last resort”—a position that, according to Roger Bate (co-founder of Africa Fighting Malaria), gave the agency “carte blanche never to support” the pesticide, since it could “always claim that other methods of malaria control [had] not yet been tried.” Bate elaborated:
“While some misplaced concern for the environment and human health may be part of USAID’s reasons for refusal to fund IRS, the more significant reason is likely to be the vested interests that influence its spending plans. In 2004, USAID’s budget for malaria control stood at around … $80 million. However, the agency provides no documentation that it spends a single cent buying either insecticides or effective artemsinin drugs for malaria control. The vast majority of the agency’s budget is directed towards US-based consultants who ‘advise’ malaria control programs and conduct nebulous projects that have no clear deliverables. USAID, like most other donor agencies, is far more comfortable directing its funding to its own consultants, rather than the departments of health in the countries they are supposed to be assisting.”
A similar tendency surely guided the policy decisions of other donor agencies as well.
In 1998 the World Health Organization launched a “Roll Back Malaria” (RBM) campaign, where a consortium of aid agencies, international institutions, and environmentalist groups collaborated in an effort to reduce or eliminate the use of DDT around the world—in favor of pesticides and drugs that were known to be far less effective than DDT in terms of preventing malaria, but were reputed to be more “environmentally friendly.” Predictably, RBM was a colossal failure; the incidence of malaria infections and deaths worldwide increased by nearly 10 percent over the next seven years.
One conclusion is inescapable: the environmental movement’s insistence on banning DDT from every part of the world in the latter decades of the 20th century led to a dramatic resurgence of malaria in many places where it previously had been eradicated. Moreover, the anti-DDT campaign prevented most of Africa, where the pesticide had never before been deployed on a scale grand enough to make a difference, from taking the measures necessary to save the multitudes of people who ultimately would die of malaria on that continent year after year.
As recently as 2005, 500 million people around the world (approximately one-twelfth of the earth’s population) were contracting malaria on an annual basis; and each year, 2 to 3 million of them died as a result. Since the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT, more than 50 million people—about 90 percent of whom resided in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of whom were children younger than five—have died of malaria.
Said the World Health Organization, “more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history,” with “up to half a billion cases [being reported] every year.” Anywhere from 1 to 2 million of those people die from the disease. Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, chairman of Malaria Foundation International, placed this figure into perspective: “This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro.”
“The resurgence of a disease that was almost eradicated [many] years ago is a case study in the danger of putting concern for nature above concern for people,” said Nizam Ahmad, a Bangladeshi analyst who focuses on the problems that affect developing countries.
“It’s worse than it was 50 years ago,” lamented University of North Carolina malaria expert Dr. Robert Desowitz.
In the words of former Surgeon General Harold M. Koenig, “[Rachel] Carson and those who joined her in the crusade against DDT have contributed to millions of preventable deaths. Used responsibly, DDT can be quite safe for man and the environment.”
On the subject of the longstanding U.S. ban on DDT, Koenig added:
“[M]ost politicians today are more concerned about getting re-elected rather than doing what is right. [M]any of them have very poor scientific backgrounds and do not understand the impact of the policy decisions they are making [and] are not able to teach their constituents that there will be severe consequences to their decisions…. These poor public policies [i.e. prohibiting use of DDT] are being implemented because it is easier for politicians to go along with the noise coming from the hysterics rather than to learn the whole story and educate the general electorate that there are ways agents like DDT can be used safely…. [B]anning DDT worldwide is beyond ignorance, it is just plain stupid.”
The ban on DDT had enormous implications not only in terms of lives lost (and all the human misery that attended those deaths), but also in terms of the economic viability of the populations affected by the disease. Prior to the ban, DDT, by causing infectious-disease rates to decline so dramatically, had enabled developing countries to make economic strides that would not have been possible if malaria had continued to decimate their populations. As the U.S. Centers for Disease Control once put it: “The unparalleled benefits stemming from [public health] programs [in developing countries] are due almost entirely to the use of DDT. DDT provides the only safe, economically feasible eradication measure available today [that helps to promote economic development].”
“Malaria perpetuates poverty by debilitating people. Unable to work, its victims cannot afford to feed themselves or their children. Sick and malnourished, they are prone to a vicious cycle of future infection and debilitation…. To break the cycle, to save lives, it is imperative that we have all the tools, including DDT, that work to help control malaria, protect health and ensure development….
“Malaria kills a few million every year,” added Bate. “Each life lost is a potential Mandela, Shakespeare, or Edison, and nothing is less reversible than death, nor more tragic than the death of a child. Hundreds of millions suffer chronic illness, which creates a painful economic burden and perpetuates poverty. This may not be the intention of those who are debating a DDT ban, but it surely will be the outcome.”
Environmental leftists traditionally have viewed the people killed by malaria as unfortunate, collateral victims of mankind’s highly necessary efforts to protect the natural environment from the alleged ravages of DDT. Some environmentalists, however, take their rationalizations in favor of the DDT ban much farther: That is, they view malaria as nature’s way of imposing a necessary check on the potential problems associated with overpopulation, and therefore as something that is not wholly undesirable.
For example, former (1969-1985) Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey said (in 1971) that his organization “wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control … [because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”
Because international aid agencies, environmentalist groups, and charitable foundations were unyielding in their refusal to advocate the use of DDT, around the turn of the 21st century several African nations that were being ravaged by malaria finally began to launch their own private efforts to combat the disease. In 2000, for instance, a privately funded Indoor Residual Spraying program in the Zambian Copperbelt Province began using DDT to combat malaria. After just one spraying season, the incidence of malaria in the region had declined by half.
The success of the Zambian program influenced national malaria-control policies elsewhere in Zambia, as well as in nations like Swaziland, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Madagascar. In addition, it helped persuade South Africa to reinstitute its own (aforementioned) DDT program (in 2001).
Subsequently, these and other African nations beseeched the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) to help finance similar programs on their behalf. Reluctantly the UN, which had been pushing for a worldwide ban on DDT, agreed to permit DDT spraying for health purposes; the UN also encouraged aid organizations to loosen their restrictions against the financing of such DDT programs. Even so, it would take another five years (and millions of deaths) before bureaucratic obstacles could be hurdled and DDT programs were effectively instituted. in 2000, meanwhile, the WHO approved DDT as one of 12 insecticides safe for use in indoor residual spraying.
In September 2006 the WHO announced that it would thenceforth actively support indoor spraying of the chemical “not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.” “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. “DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Elaborating on this theme, the WHO issued a statement asserting that DDT “provides the most effective, cheapest, and safest means of abating and eradicating” infectious diseases like malaria and typhus, which “may have killed half of all the people that ever lived.”
In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
This change of heart was too little, too late. The longstanding, uncompromising, inflexible dogmas of Mr. Hind’s organization and others on the environmental Left had already condemned at least 50 million innocent people to death in three-and-a-half decades.
Have you noticed that our planet has begun to shake, rattle and roll? Over the past few days we have seen major volcanic eruptions in Costa Rica and Indonesia, and according to Volcano Discovery 40 volcanoes around the planet are erupting right now as you read this article.
Meanwhile, earthquakes continue to shake the globe with alarming regularity. Just last week, Ecuador was hit by a magnitude 6.7 earthquake and a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in rapid succession. Overall, there have been more than 3,000 earthquakes of magnitude 1.5 or greater within the past month globally. So yes, I write constantly about the rapidly accelerating deterioration of our financial system, but the coming “collapse” is not just about money. I am convinced that we are entering a “perfect storm” in which a confluence of factors will absolutely cripple society and bring about changes that most of us would not even dare to imagine right now.
Let’s talk about the volcanic eruptions that we have seen in recent days. The eruption down in Costa Rica took authorities completely by surprise, and a thick layer of dust and ash is coating vehicles and buildings 30 miles away in the capital city of San Jose…
A volcano has erupted in central Costa Rica, belching smoke and ash up to 3,000m (9,840ft) into the air.
Hundreds of people have gone to hospital, complaining of breathing difficulties and skin problems.
Some schools were shut and some flights into the country cancelled or diverted.
People in the capital San Jose, about 45km (30 miles) west of the Turrialba volcano, said layers of ash had coated buildings and cars and there was a fierce smell of sulphur.
Leading up to this eruption, there were “swarms of small earthquakes” in the vicinity of the volcano, but scientists assured the public that these earthquake swarms were “not signs of an imminent eruption.”
Keep that in mind, because later in the article I am going to show you something.
But first let us talk about the other major eruption that is happening right now. Down in Indonesia, Mount Sinabung has violently erupted, and this is causing all sorts of chaos…
The death toll from a volcanic eruption in western Indonesia has climbed to six, an official said Sunday, with fears more could have been trapped by the hot ash.
Three people also remain in a critical condition after Mount Sinabung, a highly-active volcano on Sumatra island, unleashed a series of fresh eruptions on Saturday afternoon, disaster agency spokesman Sutopo Purwo Nugroho said.
“Nine people were struck by the hot clouds. Six died, and three others remain critical with burns,” he said, adding the injured had been taken to hospital.
According to one report, “torrents of lava” are pouring out of the volcano, and this is just one example of how volcanoes that were once considered to be “inactive” are coming to life all over the world. In fact, prior to 2010 Mount Sinabung had been dormant for about 400 years.
Meanwhile, there is “unprecedented” activity at Iceland’s very dangerous Baroabunga volcano. This one is not erupting quite yet, but we definitely want to keep an eye on it, because a major eruption there would have serious implications for Europe.
To finish this article, I would like to provide an update to a piece that I posted last week on End of the American Dream. Just prior to the eruption of the Turrialba volcano in Costa Rica, there were significant earthquake swarms in the vicinity of the volcano. Well, the exact same thing is happening at three major volcanoes in the United States right now.
I would like to share three images with you that come from Google Earth via the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. This first image shows the earthquake activity that has taken place in the area around Mt. St. Helens in recent days. Over the past month there have been 95 earthquakes in the region, and most of them have been centered right along the core of the volcano…
This next image shows what has been happening at Mt. Rainier. Those that follow my work closely already know that I consider it to be the most dangerous mountain in America and that I believe that a major eruption of the volcano is coming in the not too distant future. There have been 36 earthquakes at Mt. Rainier over the past month, and once again most of them have occurred right along the core of the volcano…
Mt. Hood is also a very dangerous volcano. There have been 126 earthquakes in the vicinity of Mt. Hood in recent days, and in this image you can see that the earthquakes have been centered very tightly on a spot on the south face of the mountain. This is alarming because it was also the south side of Mt. St. Helens that violently erupted back in 1980…
When there are major volcanic eruptions or major earthquakes in other parts of the globe, many Americans don’t seem to care too much because they don’t think that this rise in global seismic activity is any sort of a threat to them personally.
But the truth is that the entire west coast of the United States lies along the Ring of Fire, and virtually every other section of the Ring of Fire is roaring to life these days.
At some point, there will be historic earthquakes on the west coast.
At some point, there will be historic volcanic eruptions on the west coast.
Scientists assure us that these things are inevitable.
So let us certainly hope for the best, but putting our heads in the sand and pretending that these dangers do not exist is not going to help matters one bit.
Get prepared while you still can, because at some point time will run out.
*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog. Michael’s controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.*