Birds or people?

First of all, DDT is still used in many tropical countries. Second, one of the reasons it went out of use so quickly was not only protest by your so-called whacko environmentalists, but the fact that many insects were becoming resistant to it because of such heavy use and companies wanted to develop new pesticides that would be more effective and, of course, make them more money. Third, DDT is very much more toxic than you are leading us to believe; here are some facts from the Extoxnet website (check the source; it is put together by land grant universities, not the traditional home to liberal environmentalists looking to kill people in the tropics: http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ddt.htm)

1) DDT has caused chronic effects on the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and immune systems in experimental animals

2) DDT is very highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species

and from another website (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2003/ddt-dde.htm) on the effects on humans:

3) In mammals, DDT is of relatively low toxicity, but it does have troubling effects. DDT and its major metabolite, known as DDE, are persistent and are stored in fat tissue. DDT is know to have weak estrogenic activity and DDE has considerable anti-androgenic activity. They cross the placenta potentially interfering with fetal development.

and one more commenting on Persistent Organic Pollutants, of which DDT is one:

4) The greatest part of human exposure to the 12 POPs is attributed to the ingestion of food. Contamination of food may occur through environmental pollution in the air, water and soil, or through the previous use or unauthorised use of organochlorine pesticides on food crops. Food rich in animal fat, such as meats, fish, and dairy products are the most important means of exposure often due to bioaccumulation through the food chain.

For some POPs, occupational and accidental high-level exposure, through inhalation and dermal contact, is of concern for both acute and chronic worker exposure. In addition to other exposure routes, worker exposure to POPs during waste management is a significant source of occupational risk in many countries. Short-term exposure to high concentrations of certain POPs has been shown to result in illness and death.

The health effects of POPs are generally subtle and can be triggered at extraordinary low concentrations. The latency period for POPs may be very long. Not only can there be many years between exposure and outcome in the exposed individual, but in some cases effects occur in future generations. (WFPHA, World Federation of Public Health Associations, 2000).

Exposure to POPs can be associated with the following health effects in humans:

Immune system biochemical alterations;

Reproductive deficits;

A shortened period of lactation in nursing mothers;

Neurobehavioral impairment including learning disorders, reduced performance on standard tests, and attention deficits;

Diabetes;

Cancer.

So for my money, you might want to revise some of your more outrageous statements about environmentalists wanting to 'save birds over killing people' and check your sources a bit more to see if in fact they are talking about DDT more generally rather than citing some questionable studies and/or only tell us half the picture about DDT and its effects on environments and people.

Oh yes, you might want to also Google the term 'bio-accumulate' and see what you get.

As a side note, if freedom works so well, then why isn't my body (and yours for that matter as well as most arctic sea animals) 'free' of DDT as I want it to be (it is basically located in everyone's body fat along with a whole other cocktail of industrial chemicals)? I really didn't have the 'freedom' to choose that I didn't want DDT in my body in the first place, did I?

Besides, diatribes against enviro whackos are getting a bit old and thin these days, but then again, for anyone that thinks Lomborg is a bit disingenuous in his statistical methods and/or in his intent I guess the moniker of irrational does fit quite nicely.

Boy, you like putting words in my mouth.

First, for the record, I never wrote the phrase "whacko environmentalists"--that's your word, not mine.

Second, you said "DDT is very much more toxic than you are leading us to believe." Did I write anything in the short post above, or did the source I quote say anything, downplayng the toxicity of DDT? In fact, the source article discusses a link between DDT and the death of raptors.

Even if all of what you say is true, do you deny that banning DDT resulted in the death of millions and do you think that the perils of DDT, even as you state them above, outweighed the benefits? I started my post not by denying the adverse effects of DDT, but by discussing the reality, which many (though not all) environmentalists have not grasped which is that we have to make tough trade-offs.

Your comment on "freedom" doesn't make sense to me. How would the fact that we have chemicals in our body have any bearing on the the wisdom of individual liberty and its utility in achieving human progess? It's a different meaning of the word "freedom" but even so, if we are in fact not "free" because we have DDT in our fat--and if this concerns you--then you should be a staunch supporter of freedom, as I am, and of the motto of this blog, "freedom works," which is meant to advocate freedom on the grounds that it works to improve the human condition, rather than to state that we are in fact completely free.

Sorry, Im not putting words in your mouth about whackos, but the implication in surely there that only 'irrational' environmentalists would attempt to ban a clearly toxic and bioaccumulating pesticide (that was losing its economic viability no less); thus my use of the term 'whacko'.

Furthermore, your point about banning DDT and killing millions is a moot point: it is still used in much of the tropics, and has only been banned outright in much of the industrialized world, so, in a sense your arguement falls rather quickly on its face about banning DDT and saving birds in the face of dying tropical inhabitants.

Finally, apparently you are not considering that the long term perils of DDT (species extinction and environmental havoc, widespread human health problems and risks) outweigh those of the short term benefits of reduction in Malaria (btw, what ever happened to quanine in this discussion or biocontrol of the disease vector or genetic engineering or environmental responses (i.e. getting rid of standing water), all of which can contribute to the reduction in the disease (check out http://www.malaria.org/ for some more info on it)

how about this counter arguement: there are alternatives to DDT, but they are too expensive for many countries: instead of environmentalists, really its poverty that is killing millions

Well I'll agree that poverty kills. This is why my first priority for nearly all of my policy advocacy is that we should put prosperity first. And this is precisely why "freedom works," because it fosters prosperity.

Am I sensing defeat or just resignation on the DDT angle? Anyway, thinking on this a bit more, why the contining essntialization of environmentalists a la the Rush Limbaugh treatment of environmentalists? I would expect more from someone so obviously engaged as yourself. Or is the continuing essentialization and polarization of debate about modern America so entrenched in the conservative ethos that there is no room for thinking through these things in a more nuanced manner?

I, for one, reject the easy binary opposition of "birds or people:" in truth, there are (as Mike describes quite ably) the damage might be "birds and people."

Reject away, but denying that trade-offs must be made is much worse than making the trade-offs themselves. I too wish reality weren't what it is sometimes, but wishing it away hasn't worked that well. I am certain there will come a time in which we have a solution, not a trade off, for this problem. But until that time we won't get anywhere avoiding problems because tough decisions have consequences.

To Mike's comment above, "defeat"s not in my vocabulary ;) I think there is plenty of nuanced discourse on this blog, but certainly there are generalizations. I view myself as an environmentalist, eith a small "e" if you will. And certainly there are many active environmentalists with a sense of nuance of the complex issues we face. However, the Rush's on the right have their counterpart in the environmental left who are more interested in polemic than thought. I can respect the E.O. Wilson's of the world who acknowledge the need to asset the costs and benefits--though I may not always agree with how they calculate the costs and benefits. But there are circles for whom it is not about rationally saving the environment but control: controlling human behavior that they find repugnant (such as consumerism), controlling property because they don't believe in private ownership or capitalism, and more and more controlling thought and discourse. To them it's not about weighing costs and benefits but rather using the banner of environmentalism to impose a worldview. I regret if when I rant against environmentalists I cast too wide of a net, but I'll leave the nuance to the readers to sort through that.

You yourself admit: you create an ideological straw man in your left-wing environmentalists. They do not represent the majority of those concerned about the environment.

I accept trade-offs, and decisions about costs and benefits. But it is quite possible to decide after, assessing the costs of 4 - 8 percent economic growth, that the benefits accruing to rampant consumerism are not worth the certain costs of the current despoilation of the American continent; and certainly not worth the possible costs--a ruinously overheated planet.

I am not sure I have come to this decision myself. But I think E.O. Wilson has, and it is a view that a man or woman of good conscience subscribe to.

ok. . .we are getting somewhere more interesting. I could argue that bringing every person, thing, and creature under the aspices of a market is about control. Just look at the World Bank, IMF, and or WTO (and who funds these international institutions essentially controlling them since the 50's) and the effects of 'austerity' programs in the Third World: it is about control of what to produce, how to structure it and how to run government programs (or get rid of them). So it is not just environmentalists that promote control (and there are many out there that are all about market-based pollution controls which you might think as less 'controlling') but those that wish to impose one (albeit successful) vision of market-based societies (which has in some cases not been so successful in ameliorating environmental problems and very much more implicated in exacerbating reductions in environmental quality and human health; examples are legion).

Rationalism (a completely loaded and political term) could be defined as 'saving the environment' at all costs since that is where all production and value creation begins (although this seems less and less in our service-based economy of the States). It sure is the case in places where people live off the forest, for example.

also, might we not suggest that the reason there is no substitute for DDT in terms of cheaper solutions is because there is very little market for something like this (although this is changing with outbreaks of malaria) thus reducing the benefits to a company to invest in R and D or a new cheaper product? The 'costs' of environmental pollution for DDT are pushed off onto wider society, while the short-term gain accrues to less sick (and living people). In a way, so-called free markets have failed much of the poor malaria stricken South because clearly there is a need for something different than DDT and it either isnt there or they cant afford it. Their market signals to develop these things have either fallen on deaf ears or are so small no one is able and/or willing to listen.

As for polemics on the left. . .often it is to counter those of the right (like Lomborg); unfortunately, a middle ground in this ever polarizing space of political debate in the US is conspicuously and shamfully absent. Same with nuance and discussions of complexity; it's often either markets or you are labelled a radical environmentalist or even a Communist fighting against freedom (which of course is quite silly and unhelpful in working through contemporary environmental issues).

But, Chris, Didn't 90% of every animal to ever live on the planet go extinct in the last 100 years? Please don't leave Schueller and me at McDonalds again...

Bob, my friend, good to hear from you. I think that number is just flat wrong--and it is certainly controversial at best. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4239924,00.html

Happy birthday Schueller.