Ten ways Biden is creating inflation at the pump and endangering us all

 https://youtu.be/DmyNtzOJLPU  May 2022

1. Cancelled Keystone

2. Halted new old and gas leases

3. Killed off shore leasing programs

4. Nominated hostile, far-left activists

5. Invalidated Gulf shore lease 257

6. Pressured financial markets to abandon fossil fuel projects

7. Cut onshore permitting

8. Burdensome rules for greenhouse gas reporting

9. ESG for retirement savings investments

10. Begging Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia to produce more oil

And others:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/15/fuel-inflation-oil-gas-energy-transition-climate-change-biden/  November 2021

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/biden-energy-policies-inflation-oil-gas  February 2022

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/01/stop-letting-environmental-groups-funded-by-russia-dictate-americas-energy-policy/  March 2022

https://townhall.com/columnists/olivernorthanddavidgoetsch/2022/04/12/bidens-deadly-energy-policy-n2605764  April 2022

And while Biden and MSM blame GOP or Tucker Carlson, for coddling Russia, it is in fact Russia who is funding the anti-fossil fuel cabal.  For decades.   "In 2017, congressional investigators found that a money trail linked Russia to millions of dollars funding U.S. nonprofits to work against U.S. shale gas in order to influence the U.S. energy market. Specifically, investigators found that NRDC, Sierra Club, and Climate Action Network were all found to have received millions of dollars of funding in grants from a shady San Francisco-based company called “Sea Change” that a money trail linked back to the Russians. Indeed, it is an open secret that Russians have funded anti-fracking and anti-natural gas propaganda in America for decades, as environmental groups funded the campaigns of Democrats and pressured them to ban fossil fuels." https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/01/stop-letting-environmental-groups-funded-by-russia-dictate-americas-energy-policy/

Climate Deniers websites

I'll be adding to this list as I come across them.  It's just so wasteful to sort through book marks and Google.

Carbon Sense Coalition

Climate Audit

Climate Depot

Climate of Sophistry

CO2 Science

Friends of Science

http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html

JoNova Science

Junk Science

No Frakking Consensus

Watt's Up With That

Weather Action

Showing my shocked face

 "Environmental activists and state government officials, declining to comply with subpoenas by House Republicans probing their "coordinated efforts" to punish climate change skeptics, face additional scrutiny as part of the congressional investigation."

 The Senate’s most liberal Democrats are demanding that 22 national and state-based think tanks disclose their donors. Destroying the first amendment word by word.

 http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/02/democrat-ags-green-groups-defy-subpoena-on-coordinated-climate-efforts/

Single use vs. multiple use plastic bags—Austin, TX

“Two years after the bag ban was implemented, the city asked the Austin Resource Recovery group to investigate its effectiveness. Their June 10 report, written by Aaron Waters, states that while the ban was successful in lowering the amount of single-use plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene in city landfills, it was actually worse for the environment overall.

“The amount of single use plastic bags has been reduced, both in count and by weight,” Waters states. “However, in their place, the larger 4 mil [4/1,000ths of an inch] bags have replaced them as the go to standard when the reusable bag is left at home. This reusable plastic bag, along with the paper bag, has a very high carbon footprint compared to the single use bag.”

The 4 mil reusable bags are often made from non-recycled low-density polyethylene and require more resources to manufacture than the single-use bags, Waters explained. Many of the heavier gauge 4 mil bags are also shipped from overseas, which increases their carbon footprint compared to the single-use bags.”

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/environmentalists-solution-makes-trash-problem-worse

When rivers catch on fire

On Wednesday at Lakeside, John Hartig told us about rivers that catch on fire--the Cuyahoga, Buffalo, Rouge and Chicago. The Chicago River caught on fire so often it was a tourist attraction in the 19th century. The only one I'd heard about was the Cuyahoga since it happened in 1969. But what surprised me was he said there were no photos of this fire--it was not considered unusual at the time, and the photos usually shown to illustrate it are from a fire in the 1950s. Can you imagine that happening today--there'd be so many phone photos and videos of it there would be no problem documenting it. http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/priorities/article.php?x=264

It is wonderful to see the recovery of these 4 rivers, and learn about the people, sometimes just one, who stepped up to save them. However, as lovely as the wetlands, parks, birds and fishing areas are that have replaced the factories, they will never create the jobs and middle class wealth that the much maligned industrial era did.

We can’t blame Obama for this one

“Beginning January 1, 2014, the federal government will ban the use of 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs. The light bulb has become a symbol in the fight for consumer freedom and against unnecessary governmental interference into the lives of the American people.”

Although we know from other power grabs and 20+ changes he’s personally made in the PPACA law, he could have stopped this.  The “energy efficient” bulbs are made in China in coal fired factories, belching black smoke.

"A subsidised and enforced worldwide replacement of unprofitable patent-expired simple, cheap, well known, safe, and easily locally made bright broad spectrum light bulbs in an odd coalition between global capitalist manufacturing executives, left-leaning governments, and environmental organizations." http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/deception-behind-ban.html

Why has Los Angeles lost its mojo?

We've seen the Democrat political machine kill or disable many of American's most vibrant cities. And now its Los Angeles's turn, although it took longer because of its dispersed center.

"A big reason is a decline in the power and mettle of the city's once-vibrant business community. Between the late 1980s and the end of the millennium, many of L.A.'s largest and most influential firms—ARCO, Security Pacific, First Interstate, Union Oil, Sun America—disappeared in a host of mergers that saw their management shift to cities like London, New York and San Francisco. . . controlled by a machine of labor and the political leadership of the Latino community, the mayor is a former labor organizer. . . strangling regulations backed by a powerful and wealthy environmental movement. . . even liberal Democrats are catching on." The environmentalists are killing the port business, the generator of blue collar labor, and thus the unions have to expand into the once vibrant Latino small business sector.

How Los Angeles lost its mojo

Climate politics

My thoughts exactly. From a letter to the WSJ

"The politics of global warming is an updated version of colonialism by the developed nations, which want to impose regulations on the "primitives" through the threat of denial of finances. This is to be done while ignoring the more pressing needs of the subjugated people under the guise of saving the planet, and it is really no different from previous colonial powers that also ignored humanitarian needs with the theological rubric of saving souls. Now it will be the United Nations that is the colonial monarch that dictates to the developed nations and takes ransom via global taxation.

Zev Joseph

Charleston, W.V."

Captured CO2

Last week there was a dust storm over Australia that dumped tons of red dust in the ocean. The dust contained nutrients which fed huge blooms of phytoplankton. Those tiny plants provide food for larger ocean creatures. The plankton has captured about 8 million tons of CO2. This will be deposited on the ocean floor. That's one month of emissions from a dirty coal-fired plant in China making energy conserving light bulbs for Americans so they can sit in dim rooms feeling good about themselves for not using American clean coal mined here in Ohio and other Appalachian states providing good jobs. The DC and California greenies don't like the ocean doing the natural CO2 capture and storage primarily because they can't make any money that way or tax it.

Tougher EPA standards mean sluggish economic recovery under Obama

Another woman after power--Lisa Jackson. She's not waiting for a climate bill, either.

Even a very brief google search shows she intends to bring recovery to a halt. But Obama never was serious about it anyway. Hasn’t yet released most of the money for the “shovel ready” projects. No matter. Joe Biden says recovery has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. I hope so. I'm tired of seeing so many businesses go under.

EPA is suppressing climate data because it doesn’t fit the power grab. Link

“Though she is willing to use current law to cut greenhouse gases, Jackson said it would be better if Congress passed climate legislation. A new law would forestall lawsuits, she said. The House of Representatives passed a climate-change bill in June. The Senate has not yet acted. Link.


Most metropolitan areas in South Carolina face potentially tougher air-pollution rules that critics say will make it harder for industries to locate or expand in the Palmetto State. Link

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a revised set of standards for hospital, medical and infectious waste incinerators that will require facilities to reduce their emissions. . . The agency estimates that it will cost the existing 57 medical-waste incinerator operators roughly $15.5 million annually to comply with the new standards.Link

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says the government will consider tougher standards to limit the production of ozone, and that has raised concerns in Southeast Texas. Link

June 30, 2009: The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday that it will grant a waiver for California and 13 other states to set automobile emission standards that are higher than national ones—at least for the next two years. . . The Clean Air Act allows states to follow either national standards or California’s standards. Thirteen states have chosen to follow California: Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. Link

Our President was born in a backward time

Lucky for him. His unmarried 17 year old American mother didn't abort him--abortions were accessible but not easy in the 1960s. And his Kenyan father was old enough to have benefitted from DDT which was controlling malaria in his home country. For malaria statistics today, take a look at Kenya, and its under 50 life expectancy. Millions and millions of Africans died when DDT was removed from the market by environmentalists before there was an adequate replacement or plan. And those figures for treated bed nets don't look too promising either, do they? Less than 12% of the children under 5 are sleeping under treated materials in Kenya. And they are still blundering today with the lives of Africans. Where else but Africa can you find large pools of women at-risk-for-HIV on which to try out your iffy drug studies?

Vocabulary Review

New words are nice; but let's review.

Global warming vs. climate change

One is a political, social and economic juggernaut designed to bring down global investments, high employment and capitalism, requiring hysteria and lemming like behavior; the other is a scientific, measurable fact, something that has been going on since Ohio was covered with glaciers, Lake Erie was flooding Cleveland, and Greenland was green, requiring some humility, hard science and common sense. I've noticed in the last 2 or 3 years the terms "climate change" and "climate extremes" are replacing "global warming" in the media. Usually in cities where the writers are buried in snow up to their green tushies for the first time in 50 years.

Animal rights vs. animal welfare

One is a political movement designed to bring down or stop medical research and pharmaceutical companies, various industries and capitalism in general; the other is a compassionate, moral and scientifically sound way to treat animals for the best interests of people.

Feminism vs. women's rights

One is a far reaching political movement designed to stomp out certain patriarchal cultures and behaviors by replacing them with matriarchal forms just as repressive and capitalism in general; the other suggests that although not a better or more moral species, women have a lot to offer society especially in government and business.

Pro-choice vs. pro-abortion

One is a political movement in which struggling people fearing loss of convenience and power, destroy the weakest and most frail, often with cruel and painful methods, choosing death today; the other is the same but a tad more truthful. The first means "this is for you, not for me;" the second means, "it's OK for me, too."

Undocumented workers vs. illegal aliens

One is a political and social term used by most politicians, business CEOs and union officials, all looking for more votes, higher profits, or more members; the other is the term the rest of us use for the people flooding across our borders, swamping our social services, taking our jobs and sending money back to their villages to prop up a corrupt and failing government, primarily run by people of Spanish European ancestry whose ancestors used to control most of North and South America and now want it back. People who use the second term are more realistic and truthful. And sometimes the truth hurts. Usually, but not always, the more syllables, the more obfuscatory.

Technorati: climate change, global warming, animal rights, abortion change, illegal aliens

Big Green Tent

See what I mean about greengoes?

Here's the Greenbuild 08, November 19-21 hype

"Next up was USGBC president and CEO Rick Fedrizzi, with a high-energy stump speech rallying the unwieldy, many-shades-of-green eco-building community. He was adamant: the severe recession will NOT sink the sustainable design market.

His big-tent stem-winder veered all over -- from market data to the survival of the planet, social justice and racial harmony. And, since an Obama presidency bodes better for green business than the alternative, he gave thanks for Nov. 4 as Abe Lincoln's image flashed on the jumbo screens. Never mind the hoary business injunction against politics...

We then segued, by way of an excellent African childrens chorus and dance troop, to Desmond Tutu. Nobody else could or would try to invoke the deity, the Bible, partisan politics, excessive defense spending and liberation struggles in the name of green building and address a bunch of conventioneers as divine agents of change. But he made it work . ."

Never mind that Obama will tax them to death if they try to make any money. Dream on silly architects and building trades.

The Cellophane House

And for their next trick. The environmentalists and green design folks will probably try to foist this one on us, which truly exceeds the awful boxes that the USSR threw up in the mid-20th century to demonstrate their political theory, pizzazz, and how much they cared.

“The Cellophane House is a dwelling designed for mass-customization and minimal environmental impact, modular on a room-to-room basis and as an entire unit. It’s composed of 85-90 percent recycled material and its component parts are largely assembled off-site. It may be the tightest synthesis yet of Modernism’s dreams of orderly and egalitarian dwellings with the sustainable ideals of the current era.” Photo and story from AIArchitect This Week.

And what happens when you convince the general population to not be wasteful and the price of "recycled materials" soars? Or when bio-fuel hybrid efficient cars cause the government to lose gas taxes? Or when there are fewer dump trucks going to the landfill (a story in our local papers)? Well, guess what? The price of whatever you have left--materials, fees and taxes--just goes up.

Giving up on plastic

The other day I heard some kids chanting while biking up our street--“paper, plastic, Styrofoam.” I have no idea if this was some counting game they’d learned in a social studies class--a PC, 21st century “one potato, two potato. . .”--or if they just like the rhythm. A British blogger is recording his daily effort to live without plastic--not cutting up his credit card, but rejecting anything served or stored in plastic, and it’s harder than he thought. Even the loose fruit at the market he learns was shipped in huge containers of plastic to protect it--maybe more than those packaged fruits.

Glance around your house today, you'll see the problem. Looking around my living room, porch and kitchen here at Lakeside, I have some sympathy. It’s hard to live without plastic. After supper, I tossed out the plastic container and lid from the deli for the chicken salad; my Sunday coffee came in paper but has a plastic lid; I’m storing tomorrow’s coffee in a one quart plastic container; I made it with my new $14 Mr. Coffee machine, most of which is plastic; the shelves on the door of the 5 year old refrigerator are plastic, as are the drawers--I have 2 extra drawers taken from the 1960s model it replaced and they are metal; all the left overs and fresh stuff are stored in plastic containers or bags; the cord to my digital camera is stored in a plastic bag, as is the camera (plastic case) when it’s in my purse; my favorite #2 BIC (and I must have 50 of them) are plastic “mechanical pencils;" the basket on my 40 year old bike is plastic, the seat is plastic and I have it covered with a plastic grocery bag in case it rains; the bag from the optometrist for my new plastic frame glasses is plastic as is the bottle of lens cleaner; the cover on the 20 year old TV is plastic painted to look like wood; the flashlight under the TV stand is plastic; the jewel case for the several CDs on my desk are plastic; one of our porch wicker chairs isn’t wicker at all--it’s woven plastic to look like wicker and wears much better than the real stuff; the spiral binder on my blogging notebook is plastic and the cover clear acrylic (a plastic); over on my bookshelf many of my books have plastic spirals; all the pill bottles on the kitchen counter are plastic; the counter top is Formica--a plastic laminate; the kitchen trash can is plastic with a plastic bag inside ; the bag where I put the glass bottles and plastic containers for taking to a recycling location is plastic; our 10 year old outside trash containers which replaced the dented and abused metal cans are plastic; when I go to the Farmer’s Market and select lovely locally grown fruits and vegetables from the farmers’ wagons, the growers dump them into reused plastic bags; the kitty litter box is plastic and I scoop the poop into plastic grocery bags with a plastic slotted tool; my 20 year old dish drainer and dish pan are plastic as are all the containers of soap and cleaners under the sink which probably has some plastic pipes; I have a few colorful plastic drinking “glasses” and dishes in the cupboards; the doggie gate for our “grand puppy” which keeps her from pestering our cat is plastic; the cat’s feeding dishes are plastic--50 year old melamine; the night lights in all the rooms are plastic as are the wall covers for the outlets; our mini-blinds are plastic; the hand lotions and all my cosmetics are in plastic bottles; my computer case is plastic as is the mouse; the surge protector for my computer is plastic; my printer is plastic; the cover on the thermostat is plastic; the elaborate frame around a grandfather’s baby photo (ca. 1875) is probably celluloid, an early form of plastic; my white athletic shoes which look like leather are really plastic as are the tips of the cotton shoe strings; the buttons on my blouse are plastic (my slacks are so old that the zipper is metal, but most these days are plastic).

Environmentalists are really sort of snobs, aren‘t they? Especially the American and European e-nuts and greenies who jet around and want you to drive a little electric car so third world citizens will stay simple, culturally pure and starving. I’m a strong believer in recycling--it’s economical, saves resources, and creates jobs. However today's environmental movement is about 95% political and 5% spiritual. A huge power grab. Plastics have obviously enabled the ordinary person like me to live or buy the way only the wealthy could afford 40 or 50 or 100 years ago. Americans have lifted entire countries out of poverty by buying plastic doo-dads we really don't need in a global market. Buying locally grown produce and carrying it home in a cloth bag in the natural wicker bicycle basket to be stored in a cool root cellar or wind powered refrigerator, or growing your own, is fine if you live in rural California, or for 3 summer months in Ohio, but that’s a pretty restricted diet for most of us. People who can live without plastics probably have servants, or a 2nd world life style.

Also, is it just me misremembering, or weren't the environmentalists of the 1970s telling us to use plastic bags to save the trees and disposable diapers to save on water and utilities?

Asia's new threat

Is it an increase in cancer, or is it the social justice crowd looking for a cause. This looks a bit odd to me.

"Asia is on the cusp of a cancer epidemic of unprecedented proportions. Projections suggest that the number of new cases of cancer in Asia will increase from 4·5 million in 2002 to 7·1 million by 2020 if existing prevention and management strategies remain unchanged." Lancet Asia Medical Forum 2007 [may require registration]

Is there really more cancer, or is there just better screening, diagnosis, and treatment, like the breast cancer scare tactics (the increase is really better screening which finds lumps earlier)? OK, here it is. We knew this was coming, despite the unproven connection between industrialization and cancers (unless you count factory-made cigarettes, commercially prepared, high calorie foods, and plants which produce alcoholic beverages).

"The rapid rate of economic development in some Asian countries, along with the accompanying industrialisation and urbanisation, are contributing to an ever-increasing risk of common cancers."

Does this sound like a reason for rich western environmentalists to discourage development in Third World countries? God forbid that any country would ever aspire to the standard of living of a Norway or Germany.

Kill the children, save the trade of Silent Spring

That's what environmentalists in rich western nations do. Here's an article from a 2007 Lancet.

In September, 2006, WHO recommended wider use of indoor spraying with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)—once banned because of its toxic effects on the environment—and other insecticides to control malaria. Since then, a number of African countries have made their old foe DDT their new friend. Malawi is the latest, announcing last week that it would be introducing indoor residual spraying with DDT in its fight against malaria.

So what's the problem? While we wait for science and technology to find a cheap, effective vaccine or drug, why can't the lives of African children be saved? Agricultural products will be banned. That's how powerful the environmentalists are. Maybe one of the children saved might have grown up to find the answers. Very short sighted, these liberals.

Agricultural exporters in some African countries have already raised concerns. They claim that their produce will be banned from the EU if DDT is used for indoor residual spraying. It would be devastating if the health and economic gains of controlling malaria were offset by a deleterious effect on countries' economies. But fears of a ban appear to be unjustified. Last year, the EU said it would not automatically ban imports from countries if DDT is found to exceed tolerated levels. They will, however, stop consignments containing residues above their maximum limits, which are around five to ten times lower than for countries such as the USA and Japan. EU policy may need a rethink if food imports from countries using DDT for indoor residual spraying are turned away for levels of the insecticide that are not considered harmful by other countries. The global community should ensure that DDT poisons only malarial mosquitoes and not Africa's economy.Lancet, 2007; 369:248

I suppose this is one way to keep Africa from competing for energy resources--just kill them off or make them so weak they can't do anything but fight each other. Rachel Carson's legacy.

Which presidential candidate

is going to step up to the mike during a debate and tell China to turn out its lights, drive fewer or hybrid cars, and shutter its factories? The projected US demand for crude is actually going down. China's is going up. It's not the Arabs, it's supply and demand. This from Petroleum News, Jan. 11.

Current world crude output averages less than 72.5 million bpd, down about 2 million bpd from 27 months ago, while world oil demand, about 88 million bpd, continues to grow unchecked.

With global demand projected to grow to 115 million bpd by 2020, Simmons said numerous dangers would accompany a significant depletion of world oil supplies, including social chaos brought on by widespread hoarding as well as geopolitical conflicts that could lead to war.

“Oil shortages worry me,” he said. “China is extremely conscious of how flimsy oil supply is and is doing everything they can to lock up supply.”

Should Al Gore be required lose weight?

Should environmentalists lead the way to reducing the impact of obesity on the environment? [Interesting perspective on Gore's career leading to the prize, here.] "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated, albeit roughly, “previously undocumented consequences” of the ongoing obesity epidemic in America. They report that, through the 1990s, the average weight of Americans increased by 10 pounds. This extra weight caused airlines to burn 350 million more gallons of fuel in the year 2000, with represent an expenditure of $275 millions and emissions of 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide. In other words, obesity is causing increased fuel expenditures and emissions." from Sensors Watch This writer thinks cheap gasoline may actually lead to obesity since it encourages more driving.

Sheldon Jacobson, U. of I., has crunched the numbers (he looks a tad on the thin side) and figures "Americans are now pumping 938 million gallons of fuel more annually than they were in 1960 as a result of extra weight in vehicles. And when gas prices average $3 a gallon, the tab for overweight people in a vehicle amounts to $7.7 million a day, or $2.8 billion a year." (reported in Science Daily)

Forbes.com reports there are other social costs for obesity: "Obese people are less likely to be given jobs, they're waited on more slowly, they're less likely to be given apartments, they're less likely to be sent to college by their parents." Obese people miss more work, costing employers something on the order of $4 billion. Because people are fatter, airlines spend more on jet fuel, and the obese themselves spend more on gas. But these tend to be hidden from consumers themselves. Many researchers believe that it's actually cheaper, in our fast-food society, to eat a high-fat, high-calorie diet than it is to stay slim. Supersizing a meal at McDonald's, Burger King or Kentucky Fried Chicken costs a consumer only 67 cents out of pocket. But after health costs and the price of extra gasoline are factored in, for some people, the price of the meal may have been effectively doubled.

Over at Food System Factoids, the author reports "Food and drink cause 20 to 30% of the various environmental impacts of private consumption, and this increases to more than 50% for eutrophication. This includes the full food production and distribution chain ‘from farm to fork’."

Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for President, lost 105 lbs. after being diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. He says it was hard work.

DDT is no panacea

and is not always appropriate for every exotic disease, but neither does it kill millions of people every year the way the environmentalists do. Yes, people die when politics gets in the way of saving lives. I urge you to read the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Health Policy Outlook No. 14, November 2007 "The rise, fall, rise, and imminent fall of DDT."

The modern environmental movement began with concerns about DDT. Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring questioned the effect that synthetic chemicals were having on the environment. Her argument was that DDT and its metabolites make bird eggshells thinner, leading to egg breakage and embryo death. Carson postulated that DDT would therefore severely harm bird reproduction, leading to her theoretical "silent spring." She also implied that DDT was a human carcinogen by telling anecdotal stories of individuals dying of cancer after using DDT.[19] . . .p.3

The delisting of DDT as the method of choice in many countries was a direct result of Ms. Carson's book and resulted in years of death and injury of millions, mostly in Africa. DDT was reintroduced in South Africa in 2000, and in just one year malaria cases fell nearly 80% in one of the hardest hit provinces. In 2006, malaria cases in that province were approximately 97% befow the high of 41,786 in 2000. Zambia too had great success when a private mining company restarted a malaria program reducing malaria incidence by 50%. But that's all about to change. Environmentalists are again raising their voices exaggeratimg the dangers.

Bias in the academic literature is accelerating. A recent article in The Lancet Infectious Diseases alleges that superior methods for malaria control exist--without providing a single reference for this claim.[52] The authors claim that DDT represents a public health hazard by citing two studies that, according to a 1995 WHO technical report, do not provide "convincing evidence of adverse effects of DDT exposure as a result of indoor residual spraying."[53] Furthermore, the authors misrepresent those defending the use of DDT. They claim that supporters view DDT as a "panacea"--dogmatically promoting it at every opportunity--yet they do not provide any evidence to back up their opinion. . . p.7

DDT has a better record than any other intervention. Every day people die. Someday another method might be developed. But meanwhile, environmentalists might be killing the very people who could do the research.