Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism's Dark Side

Reader Comments
Back to article

Google "Dunning-Kruger effect"

Russ of WA 12:29AM April 22, 2010

are that you are slam-dunk guaranteed to pay to much to low-taxed middlemen for the "trade" part, AND that those middlemen (think Goldman Sachs), who are licking their chops at the prospect of getting a fabulously lucrative new feeding trough, will probably lobby the "cap" part down to where it is meaningless to boot.
When you get "traders" masquerading as environmental do-gooders, look out. Your lunch is about to be eaten.

Muser of NM 5:17PM April 21, 2010

The author is using strawman tactics to misrepresent environmentalism.
The issue of DDT was not primarily an environmental issue, but one of public health. Similarly, the issue of ethanol as a replacement fuel does not primarily involve environmental benefits, but geopolitical and economic ones, particularly the support of powerful agricultural interests in the USA.
Thus, the basic premise of the author's arguments are fundamentally flawed. In fact, where enviromentally friendly policies are put into place to create regenerative systems, such as with recycling and organic farming, very substantial economic benefits have resulted.
Similarly, by reducing dependency on fossil fuels, we stand to gain a great deal. But this requires a certain amount of planning to make the transition, which market mechanisms are unsuited.

AgentG of HI 11:01AM April 21, 2010

For those who stated that for the last 2 years the global temps dropped- you may want to do a little more research- per NASA 2009 was tied for the warmest year in modern record. 2008 was the coolest year of the decade due to the cooling of the Pacific Ocean- however 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record. You need to look at the temperatures not only for the whole year but also globally before making statements that the Earth is cooling off. Just because North America had a few snow storms during a FEW months does not mean that global warming is not a fact.

Dakota of NJ 10:55AM April 21, 2010

What utter nonsense-have you not heard of 'climbategate'? The fact of the matter is that global weather is changing but we have no real answers as to why because the scientist have been biased (allowing that bias to corrupt their data or erase it entirely) for the better part of twenty years. Your continued denial that there are legitimate questions challenging the theory of AGW is just as silly as any denial that the global weather is changing. Stop defending a broken dream and start asking questions!
Back to the Future-ethanol is a huge failure, you should know this, you live in the mid-west. Just like wind power generation ethanol is not sustainable without government subsidies, guess how many government subsidies there will be in five years (maybe less)? If something can't sustain itself it's not a real answer, every great invention, every lasting innovation has risen and endured on its own merit because people are willing to invest in it. Do some research on hydrogen, I think you'll find that is where the future will take us.
Carrie-thank you for asking questions! Do some research on the DDT information that 'fact check please' shared and write a follow up.

Mark Galbraith of MO 10:02AM April 21, 2010

When one reads such gibberish on a supposedly respectable news site, one can't help but to understand why political discourse is in such poor shape. This piece is ideological pablum without any grounding in reality.
DDT is a persistent chemical doing great harm to the environment and almost wiped out the Bald Eagle as well as other raptors. If this writer and the interests she represents actually had any true concern for the plight of Africans, I can tell her, malaria is not their biggest. AIDS, famine, drought, and war are their biggest concerns. The world has the capacity to eliminate hunger, prevent AIDS, and improve agricultural conditions. Today and everyday almost 1 million people world wide will die from treatable, often water borne disease. If the dollars invested in treating baldness were invested in curing malaria, the disease would be a thing of the past.
Environmentalists have not been the champions of bio-fuels including ethanol. That is the role played by the corn and other bib-ag industries owned by the same shareholders and interests as the author represents with her intellectual pap.
This article, embracing false dichotomies while perpetuating the lies of the climate denialists. Using the same logic and infantile approach to complex issues, we can conclude it is capitalism that kills those million people every day by denying food and clean water to those who can't afford it.
I imagine such a claim would lead to yowls of protest from the author and her corporate sponsors, but the conclusion is as valid if not more so than the nonsense she was likely paid to distill.

Sean Hurley 8:52AM April 21, 2010

Doesn't U.S. News and World Report fact check anymore? I realize this is an opinion piece, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to get the facts right. DDT was never ever banned "worldwide" as the article says. And the 2006 press release cited in the article merely describes a change in spraying policy: instead only recommending IRS in areas of sporadic transmission, the WHO was now also recommending it for areas with year-round transmission. And the policy applied to IRS with all chemicals, not just DDT. It's hardly the policy sea-change implied by the author. The charge the some number of millions of Africans have needlessly died of malaria do to a non-existent ban on DDT has been debunked some many times its disgraceful that USN&WP would even consider repeating it. The rest of the article isn't much better. Good grief.

andrewew of CA 12:43AM April 21, 2010

Carrie: I loved your article, but did you fall into the same trap as the exo-zealots who supplied disinformation to Time and Science? Forty years later we now have perspective on DDT. Forty years from now we will be taking the trains, bicycles, electric mini-cars and occasionally making long trips in our ethanol fueled cars. Our large trucks will use specifically designed more efficient ethanol engines. More productive corn acres, other feed stocks even more efficient than corn and perhaps a little cellulosic ethanol will not use up our food. If we have higher grain prices, there will be a stronger incentive for poor farmers in underdeveloped lands to grow more using modern methods. America can not feed the world and the world doesn't want us to. The third world has made progress and will make much more progress feeding themselves. Making absurd projection upon outlandish supposition may seem "chick" right now, but history will prove that ethanol is not such a bad thing. This year is going to be a cool year due to the Iceland volcanic eruption. Hopefully, it will be somewhat offset by short term global warming.

Pyotr Petrovich of IA 10:14PM April 20, 2010

Name one ecosystem not in serious decline:
There are about four or five times as many polar bears now as there were fifty years ago.
Like most of the rest of your fear mongering, CO2 isn't evil. More CO2 makes trees and food crops and plankton ( food for fish in the ocean ) grow better.
Warmer temperatures leads to more rain in most places.
There are more forests now in the US than 150 years ago.
Even if all the polar ice melted as predicted by the true believers, it wouldn't matter much. In fact, the south pole sea ice has been increasing for decades and the north pole sea ice is back to nearly the average of the last thirty years.
How refreshing to see an article about the environment that wasn't written by a disciple in Al Gore's church of global warming.

AGW Skeptic99 of VA 8:58PM April 20, 2010

I am interested in understanding your arguement, but it is so painful to ready this.
You're facts are sparse and do nothing but barely scratch the surface of the real arguments within these specific cases.
If this were a high school paper I'd give it a C for effort.
I'd be interested to know Miss Lukas's field of expertise because it clearly is not environmental science.

Brian of WA 7:20PM April 20, 2010