Green: The New Color of Catastrophe
Malaria deaths in Africa, wildfires in the West, and now food riots in Haiti all demonstrate that "going green" can have some very serious downsides.
Is there an advert on TV that doesn’t claim the product or company involved is “doing its best for the planet” or something like that? I feel like I’m drowning in a sea of green every time a program goes to a commercial break. Yet the recent stories of food riots all over the world and wildfires in California should remind us that there’s a downside to environmentalism — a pretty big downside. It’s a downside I explore in my new book, The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About — Because They Helped Cause Them.
The problem is the way liberal environmentalists work to achieve their policy aims. It’s based on a model that goes back to 1962, when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. What she did was take a genuine environmental concern — the thinning of the eggs of large predatory birds caused by inappropriate use of the chemical DDT — and turn it into a moral fervor. Environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund were founded to press for laws banning even appropriate uses of the substance. By exaggerating the effects of DDT, in particular by alleging a non-existent cancer risk from mere contact with it, she fomented a zealotry that cast any who opposed such measures as uniquely evil.
That fervor is self-perpetuating. That is why DDT use is still for all intents and purposes banned despite its withdrawal causing devastation among the population of American elms, and the far more tragic result of stripping African nations of the most effective weapon they had against malaria. The real silent spring is heard every year in playgrounds across countries like Uganda, where children fall victim to the disease in heart-rending numbers. That’s the human price of the moral fervor over DDT.
The wildfires we see in the West are another example of the downside. Environmentalists exploit people’s concern at the idea that people cut down national forests for profit, and have used the Endangered Species Act and other legislative vehicles to reduce commercial logging by 80 percent in national forests over the past decade. Yet the reason why wildfires spread so fast is that we have allowed massive amounts of brush and undergrowth to grow up in our forests and parks. In particular, small trees cause devastation because large trees have thick enough bark to brush off fires; small trees act as a ladder, lifting the fire up to the crown of mature trees, where it can take hold. An average stand of ponderosa pines now holds 10 to 15 times as many trees per acre as it did a century ago.
Logging helped clear that growth, but that process has now been abandoned in favor of the suicidal and risky process of “managed fires.” As the loggers paid the Forest Service for the privilege, the service’s budget has also been squeezed, while it needs more and more money to fight fires. In 1991, 13 percent of the service’s budget went to fighting fires. By 2006, that had ballooned up to 45 percent, so the loss of logging is doubly disastrous for the Forest Service. The moral fervor that says that logging is wrong sets the West on fire every year.
And then there’s ethanol. The poor of the world spend most of their money on two things: energy and food. Energy prices are going up all over the world, as Americans well know. Now, we’re seeing a massive rise in the price of food. Energy prices obviously factor into that, as do other things like developing world countries getting richer and their people eating more. Yet even as these things were happening, our Congress decided to restrict the corn supply by requiring that massive amounts of corn be converted to fuel in the form of ethanol. In this they were spurred on, of course, by big agribusiness, but also by liberal environmentalists like the Natural Resources Defense Council (which as recently as 2005 was aggressively pushing corn ethanol because “existing biofuels technologies save oil, reduce greenhouse gases, build infrastructure, and develop markets.”)
The effect has again been a humanitarian disaster. We’re seeing food riots all over the world and massive increases in hunger. Haitians have been reduced to eating dirt. The World Bank and the United Nations both pin much of the blame for this on biofuel mandates. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has even gone so far as to call them a “crime against humanity.” Once again, the moral fervor whipped up by environmentalists that oil is bad and ethanol good has resulted in increased human suffering.
Yet somehow, green is still good. There is a zeitgeist about green environmentalism that has gripped us like some form of mass hysteria so that we cannot see the very real harm it is causing. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that firms were ceasing to see any benefit from their green advertising and were now counting it as a cost of doing business. The green emperor not only has no clothes, he is oppressing the poor and burning the forests. It’s time for an anti-green revolution.
Iain Murray is a Senior Fellow at CEI and author of The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About — Because They Helped Cause Them, published by Regnery. You can get a free chapter via reallyinconvenienttruths.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. Al Fin:The problem with blaming biofuels for world hunger is that it is wrong. There are four major causes of high food prices:
1. High energy and fertilizer costs
2. Skyrocketing demand by China on worldmarkets
3. Speculators fleeing dollars for commodities
4. Cold weather hurting crops, shortening growing seasons.
The problem is expressed in a backwards fashion. Corn is becoming too expensive for ethanol makers. But livestock growers in China like the price of corn just fine. China will buy all the corn America can grow–to feed livestock for meat.
Brazilian cane alcohol is quite economical, and if the US government would only drop the tariffs against it, cane alcohol and other rational biofuels would help lower the cost of gasoline and other fuels.
Such mis-attribution of causes as displayed here betrays an underlying approach to issues that reflects badly on other analyses.
May 9, 2008 - 4:50 am 2. Zoe Smith:You forgot another “environmental” disaster, MTBE. The California Legislature forced oil companies to put this additive into gasoline. In a few short years it invaded ground water supplies, especially in the Lake Tahoe area. Now that it has been hastily pulled from use there is a huge coverup over the magnitude of the problem and the possibility that it has caused cancers in many people. They still don’t know what to do with it. The spotted owl started the forest fight, now they will try using the polar bear and that will finally shut us down as a country if they do.
May 9, 2008 - 7:48 am 3. Jay:Big Al, Nealy one million Chinese are peasants living in villages with an annual income of between $300-$500 per year. Most villages are cut off from main roads and rail arteries. Corn is not a staple as it is in Mexico. It is so convenient for the biz press to explain away the speculation in commodities due to the Fed’s monetary “policy” by writing about how China is becoming a world player. Take a trip to the Chinese countryside to see for yourself instead of buying the bull in the NYT and WSJ.
May 9, 2008 - 8:25 am 4. Iain Murray:By the way China has experimented with their own type of biofuels with large governmental subsidies and the experiment is a failure.
I can’t let Mr Fin’s comments go. Biofuels are an important part of the energy price issue, affecting the energy-food dynamic. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (see here), the causes of higher food prices in order of severity are:
1. Income growth and demand
2. Biofuels (Energy prices in output decisions)
3. Underinvestment in technology
4. Trade policy & low stocks
5. Production shocks (like cold weather)
6. High input & transportation costs (energy price in input decisions)
7. Population growth
There are other studies that suggest biofuels are responsible for up to a third of the recent price rise in food.
I agree completely about Brazilian ethanol, although it comes, thanks to a ripple effect, with environmental consequences of its own.
May 9, 2008 - 10:55 am 5. Answers & Questions Again | The Anchoress:[...] or catastrophic floods before manbearpig made its appearance. Going green may kill people but it sure is profitable, so it is credible, right? [...]
May 9, 2008 - 11:10 am 6. john:Another part of the problem is the world community’s rejection of generically altered produce. It’s hardier in the hot and dry climates and you get more per square foot of land. As soon as we tried to work with African countries in it’s use the UN labeled it “Frankenfruit” or other catchy names and pounced on us for even trying. At the same time they pushed ethanol to become a household name and of course the environmentalists made sure only despots and mullahs have control over the oil fields. Now here we are. Capitalism does work (thou it’s not perfect) and that’s how to deal with these problems, not with over regulation in the name of combating “Global Warming” or trashing new technologies that could make a real dent in world hunger. Throwing money down the drain never works and that needs to be stopped.
May 9, 2008 - 12:31 pm 7. Van Norris:I am surprised that the above list does not mention the easy monetary policies of the Fed, that has substantially contributed to, and accelerated the devaluation of the dollar, thereby encouraging commodities speculation, foreign export, and particularly higher oil prices. Many countries peg to or off of the dollar, and our economic decisions of “more of the same” to alleviate the substandard mortgage crisis has thereby contributed to global inflation.
May 9, 2008 - 12:59 pm 8. Concerned Citizen:The problem comes down to politicians and well meaning but foolish ecologists focusing on ideology and ignoring the unintended consequences of their actions.
Ethanol for fuel is a dud, the energy return on investment is too low to make it viable and it tied the price of food to oil. Oil exploration virtually stopped in the U.S. twenty years ago. Poor countries like China and India have become wealthier and can afford to have some of what we have.
If you want the price of oil to go down, make more and/or consume less. Go drill offshore and in ANWR and fire up oil shale. Conservation via energy saving devices and more efficient cars will have a significant impact at $125 per barrel. It takes a few years at this price and higher to kick in the production, this is a capital intensive business that requires time to develop.
Watch the invisible hand at work, except when the politicians meddle. By the time the politicians get around to doing something, it’s almost always too late and the wrong thing to do.
May 9, 2008 - 3:16 pm 9. RickD:According to the wikipedia article on DDT “Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed … mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT. IOW, DDT wasn’t working any more. DDT is not a magic bullet that will simply make malaria extinct. Need I mention that malaria was endemic to the US and was eliminated without DDT?
Wildfires are not caused by not logging. Wildfires are caused by a long standing policy of fire suppression, which has caused the buildup of brush that you mention. Cutting down all the trees would reduce the number of wildfires. It would also reduce the number of trees. Funny how that works.
In Mexico just south of California they let the fires burn, rather than put them all out as we have done in the US. The fires in Mexico are smaller and burn themselves out quicker because they happen more often and there is less fuel. What has been changing is the fire suppression policy.
I understand that some people would rather cut down all the trees than let them burn as part of natural or prescribed fires but saying that logging is the answer to forest fires and that anti-logging is the cause of fires is ridiculous.
May 9, 2008 - 3:16 pm 10. Ombibulous:RickD,
While you ably note that in fact insects were developing tolerance to DDT you fail to mention the high success rates that were seen when using DDT initially and that those countries with developed health care systems were able to maintain a successful eradication. You also fail to mention that in the few countries and localities that still use DDT it remains an effective preventative measure for Malaria. Of course it’s not the only answer and of course overuse of the chemical as was seen in the 1950’s and 60’s will lead to a stronger more resistant strain of mosquito’s; but controlled and limited applications of the chemical have proven for to be incredibly effective and consistent. You also fail to mention the proportional relationship between countries that abandoned ongoing DDT use and the subsequent rise in Malaria cases.
As for your theory that fire suppression is causing wild fires is both inaccurate and disturbing. While a fire suppression policy can intensify fires when they do finally occur, the idea that what we need to prevent fires is more fires is nonsensical. It’s particularly bizarre when we are talking about a process of allowing loggers to benefit from cleaning up the undergrowth that you advocate burning instead.
Also the fact that you use Mexican forests as your shining example of proper forest management is interesting since Mexico has very limited fire resources as well as a terrible record for wholesale deforestation, which would more than significantly make up for what you seem is a policy of non-suppression.
May 9, 2008 - 4:21 pm 11. freetoken:Concerned Citizen says:
“Oil exploration virtually stopped in the U.S. twenty years ago.”
Oh? Ever hear about the Gulf of Mexico? There has been plenty of oil exploration in the US, and especially in the US section of the GoM.
However, what you may not know or perhaps don’t want to know is that oil fields deplete, thus one has to keep looking for new oil.
Concerned Citizen also says:
May 9, 2008 - 4:23 pm 12. Boris:“…fire up oil shale”
Well, if by “fire” you mean burn it in a furnace then yes, that is pretty much all it is good for (e.g., kerogen shale is burned in some European countries as a replacement for coal.) For decades people have looked at the kerogen shales to try and figure out how to produce a liquid (which is what we want for transportation) from the shale, but so far all have failed. If anybody actually does accomplish it be assured that it would only be possible for that company *because* oil is so pricey and they will be able to charge much money for their product.
“…and the far more tragic result of stripping African nations of the most effective weapon they had against malaria. The real silent spring is heard every year in playgrounds across countries like Uganda, where children fall victim to the disease in heart-rending numbers. That’s the human price of the moral fervor over DDT.”
DDT was not withdrawn from use in Africa, but the agricultural use was discouraged because of ecological concerns AND, perhaps more importantly, because resistance had developed in mosquitoes. Agricultural use of DDT is devastating to DDT’s effectiveness as a vector control because mosquitoes come into contact with more diffuse amounts of DDT and resistance is gained more easily and rapidly.
DDT was never banned for insect vector control, though it was highly restricted because of its abuse in agriculture.
To blame the deaths of African children on environmentalism is a typical smear tactic not borne out by the facts. DDT should be used in appropriate ways, but there are many other pesticides that can be used at about the same cost. Many environmental groups support the phase out of DDT, but not if it is needed for disease control.
I encourage those who still believe environmentalists are evil to put their money where their distrust is and donate some money to purchase bed nets for malaria control. One good place is:
https://give.malarianomore.org/NETCOMMUNITY/SSLPage.aspx?pid=184&srcid=184
Malaria No More is a venture that was organized at the 2006 White House summit on Malaria.
Let’s stop the myths about environmentalists and Rachel Carson and let’s start actually helping. If you sincerely believe the environmentalists won’t do it, then I guess it’s up to you.
May 9, 2008 - 4:33 pm 13. Valerie:Bed nets. Yeah, that will work. If you go to bed before twilight, when the mosquitos come out.
May 10, 2008 - 6:45 am 14. Boris:Valerie,
No one is saying that bed nets are the only solution, but they are effective:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12749479
“Randomized controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that permethrin-treated bed nets and curtains reduce all-cause child mortality by 15-33% in areas with low or high but seasonal malaria transmission.”
Instead of making snide comments based on little more than a guess, why not consult the scientific literature and pony up a donation?
May 10, 2008 - 10:05 am 15. Larry Rasczak:Getting back to Ethanol, there have been plenty of people pointing out burning food is a bad idea for several years. Look at the posts over at Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor for an example. The facts were there in plain sight for anyone who cared to examine them. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
It is just that two years ago the chattering class was stuck in the middle of the Iowa Caucuses…(shouldn’t that be Iowa Caucui?), so all logic, reason, economic knowledge and forethought was tossed to the winds in a mad quest to create policies that the chatterers (sp?) thought would cater to the wishes of the Iowa caucus-goers. The twenty-something political wonks were all advocating mandates that would increase the demand for (and cost of) corn, as way of buying Iowa votes. Ethanol was perfect way to do this; it was “green”, it made the farmers (and ADM) happy, it helped replace the formerly mandated MTBE (see above), and it played into pipe dreams of “energy independence”. Of course if you actually examined the economics behind these proposals, and did some math, it all fell apart.
That however didn’t matter to the political wonks. Their “singular focus” (aka “tunnel vision”) was on getting their employer elected, the idea of their actions or policies having real world consequences does not appear to have been examined. The idea that the press might actually do their job and examine these proposals, (instead of simply doing a “cut and paste” from press kits put together by the above mentioned wonks)… well that would have required a level of understanding and effort that is apparently beyond the average reporter.
I remember going to a conference in September of last year where a Bio-diesel producer was whining that 80 bio-diesel plants had shut down in the US so far that year, and that his bio-diesel plant was no longer profitable after the price for soybean oil went from 24 cents to 40 cents on increased demand, (and the State stopped subsidizing him). Apparently ideas like using the futures market to hedge against a sudden increase in your feedstocks, making a product that could compete on an even playing field, (by his own admission his bio-diesel cost between 11 and 22 cents more a gallon to produce than real diesel), or simply not investing in a very risky business with thin margins were beyond him.
Biofules have always been a bad idea, and this was obviouis to anyone who did a serious investigation of the subject. The reason that this bad idea got so much attention and investment was that people decided to forgo serious research and make political and investment decisions based upon a “conventional wisdom”, rather than due diligence; even though the “conventional wisdom” was driven by obviously bad political policies, which were in in turn being driven by blatant political pandering. It’s Francisco d’Anconia’s San Sebastian Mines, all over again.
May 10, 2008 - 11:55 am 16. Eric:I love that everyone is arguing “facts” vs “facts” vs emotion vs yada, yada, yada.
Just goes to show that well meaning individual people just don’t know and only agree on compromises that have unintended consequences.
The free market solves all of this. People vote with their feet and the dollars go to the best ideas. Bad ideas fail. Ineffecient companies fail. Good ideas and companies succeed. Everyone is better off.
When harm is done in the free market, public opinion, then the courts, then legislatures will step in to first stop it and then dole out justice. Those risks will keep the free markets behavior in check in almost all cases. (yes I know, Enron, housing mess, overpaid CEOs etc are all good counter arguements but those do get fixed in the majority of cases)
As seen here, when government fails there never seems to be a fix.
May 11, 2008 - 7:44 am 17. Cindy Sue Causey:Al said:
“The problem with blaming biofuels for world hunger is that it is wrong. There are four major causes of high food prices:
1. High energy and fertilizer costs
2. Skyrocketing demand by China on worldmarkets
3. Speculators fleeing dollars for commodities
4. Cold weather hurting crops, shortening growing seasons.”
+ + + + + + +
Cold weather..? Shorter growing seasons..?
Where does…………
Global warming fit into that [equation]..?
Goodness gracious, but you all now have me totally tonfused..
)
May 12, 2008 - 4:26 pm 18. Javelin:Biofuels make sense only if the alternative means letting it go to waste or storing it. Remember that in the old days, midwest farmers made whiskey out of their excess corn cause it was cheaper to ship than ears of corn. Most greenies acknowledged years ago that corn to ethanol was not a good solution due to the simple equation that the energy needed to grow and produced almost cancelled out the energy extracted. As far as environmental catastrophes goes, let’s not forget that war is pretty bad for the environment too.
May 13, 2008 - 3:51 pm 19. PeeveCharlie:A tipping point, a sea change, has been reached with regard to Nuclear Power. Now Nuclear Power is politically and economically viable. All that is required is for this or the future President to follow through, providing some legal protection, and some land grants to quadruple or more our Nuclear Power capacity. I think doubling the number of nuclear plants/piles at existing nuclear sites is a start. Next we could populate many vacated military bases with Nuclear Power sites. Now is the time to replace all our coal, oil, natural gas electric generation. Now is the time to begin converting all our transportation to electric and removing gasoline engines from the road. A poetic and just end to a 40 year long tragedy, but it will end with sweet success for America and our citizens. Scientist, engineers, lawyers, politicians, and environmentalists will all agree this is the best path from this tipping point forward.
May 13, 2008 - 11:32 pm