> Why trade a public health disaster for an environment disaster that will likely lead to a different public health disaster?
This is a false dichotomy. And regarding your other point:
“Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations.”
-Paul Ehrlich, 1968
“By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”
-Michael McCloskey, 1971
“So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
-Alexander King, 1990
"An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products."
"WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention."
"Thanks largely to the use of DDT in Namibia, malaria related hospital admissions and deaths fell by 92% (29,059 to 2,264) and 96% (1,370 to 46) between 2001 and 2009. Similar trends have been seen in Botswana, South Africa, and Swaziland. For these benefits to be outweighed by risks requires reproducible evidence that DDT is dangerous, but none exists. WHO’s latest assessment found no evidence for concern “about levels of exposure for any of the end-points that were assessed” in carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Yet despite this endorsement and admirable malaria control results, UNEP is trying to eliminate DDT again. As major UNEP donors, including the European Union, have endorsed WHO’s position, UNEP’s motivations are unclear."
So, you are arguing that DDT is being banned simply as a means of population control?
"WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention."
By your quote there, it sounds like the World Health Organization stopped promoting the use of DDT 30 in homes years ago due to health and environmental concerns. Is that part of the conspiracy too?
It seems to be more of a regrettable alliance between chemical companies, conservationists who refuse to compromise when it comes to the environment, their elected representatives, and yes, a few Club-of-Rome type genocidal misanthropes who actually think that the planet is not big enough for everyone and so other people should have to die.
A conspiracy only in the sense that Julian Assange uses the word.
This is a false dichotomy. And regarding your other point:
“Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations.” -Paul Ehrlich, 1968
“By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.” -Michael McCloskey, 1971
“So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” -Alexander King, 1990
"An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products."
http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-ban-takes-effect
"WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
"Thanks largely to the use of DDT in Namibia, malaria related hospital admissions and deaths fell by 92% (29,059 to 2,264) and 96% (1,370 to 46) between 2001 and 2009. Similar trends have been seen in Botswana, South Africa, and Swaziland. For these benefits to be outweighed by risks requires reproducible evidence that DDT is dangerous, but none exists. WHO’s latest assessment found no evidence for concern “about levels of exposure for any of the end-points that were assessed” in carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or developmental toxicity.
Yet despite this endorsement and admirable malaria control results, UNEP is trying to eliminate DDT again. As major UNEP donors, including the European Union, have endorsed WHO’s position, UNEP’s motivations are unclear."
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6801?ijkey=H4KijaZlhGvkD...