Global warming measures and malaria

We've killed a lot of Africans and Asians with our messing around with malaria and other mosquito borne diseases--more than all the wars of the 20th century; more than all the lives lost in the transatlantic slave trade. But we could possibly do something with the money we're planning to throw at an unsuccessful warming trick. Like try to undo the damage.

"Take malaria. Most estimates suggest that if nothing is done, 3% more of the Earth's population will be at risk of infection by 2100. The most efficient global carbon cuts designed to keep average global temperatures from rising any higher than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (a plan proposed by the industrialized G-8 nations) would cost the world $40 trillion a year in lost economic growth by 2100—and have only a marginal impact on reducing the at-risk malaria population. By contrast, we could spend $3 billion a year on mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays, and subsidies for new therapies—and within 10 years cut the number of malaria infections by half. In other words, for the money it would take to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives." BJORN LOMBORG

Unfortunately, to environmentalists a perceived non-threat to polar bears is a bigger deal than a real threat to an African child.

More Al Gore misinformation: Several weeks ago, Mr. Gore claimed on a TV talk show that the earth's core was millions of degrees hot, and at the Copenhagen climate change summit, he claimed new computer modelling suggesting a 75% chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014. However, Dr. Wieslav Maslowski, the climatologist whose work the prediction was based on, refuted his claims. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” said Maslowski. Go home, Al. Buy a smaller home. Make a smaller footprint. You are an embarrassment.