Newt has some thoughts.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

If you start opening the debate up all over again, you won't have any time left over to do science. So stop that!

The earth is getting warmer, and it's my fault, and I need to either plant some more trees or stop breathing. Or maybe I could reduce it, you know: if I just sit here, very still-like, and don't do much of anything.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . Go out and find a girl;
Come-on come-on and dance all night,
Despite the heat it'll be all right.

And babe, don't you know it's a pity
That the days can't be like the nights
In the summer, in the city.
In the summer, in the city . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:54 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Injuns. Don't they know that we need to, like, tread lightly on Mother Earth?—but that, especially, they do?

Don't any of they people know their goddamned place?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

The industrialized world screws the developing world—but it's okay: the greens are doing it, and they have good intentions.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

is not a contradiction in terms.

Melissa Clouthier, over at my new weekend gig, discusses right-wing participation in those "strange bedfellows" ads regarding global warming.

This is a delicate issue, because no one I know (um, that is, among my political homies) wants to (1) join the stampede toward the "majority vote" approach to science; (2) concede that global warming is anthropogenic, without just a bit more evidence; (3) specify that an increase in the earth's temperature would necessarily be A Bad Thing.

And yet, like Ms. Clouthier, a lot of us are saddened by the idea of ceding all environmental issues to the left. Remember in the 1970s, when there were two approaches to what we now call environmentalism? There were ecologists on the left, and conservationists on the right.

Now we have the magic of ever-evolving language (no word means anything from decade to decade any more: that would be like sticking with one tie width for 20 years; don't be silly). And the term "environmentalism" means left-wing resource management. And there is no term for right-wing stewardship of Planet Earth. Mostly because many of us suspect that the Third Rock from the Sun is hardier than we've been led to believe. But also because we tend to recoil from the puritanism we see in the modern "environmental" movement.

And yet most of us recycle, and most of us try not to waste resources. Most of us support alternative fuels (if only for foreign policy reasons).

It is not, in short, that we disagree with the goal of keeping the ecosystems running: it is more that we have different ideas of what the tactics should be, and that we still think humans aren't an unmitigated scourge upon the Earth—nor is science and technology any particular enemy.

Like that.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Glenn Reynolds: "I wish people would make up their minds. I don't know what to wear."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Insty comes this great piece on the worldwide food shortage by Austin Bay. This is one of the reasons I don't like using corn or soy to produce biofuels; I'd much rather we concentrated on algae or switchgrass. (Though there is an argument to be made to have the capability of using surplus crops for some biofuel production, after we've figured out how to make the process vaguely efficient.)

And, of course: more windpower, more solar power. More nuclear plants, and make it snappy. Drill ANWR, and drill off the coast of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria. Hell: drill the La Brea tar pits, if there's any oil to be had there.

But the point in the comments section about how we have fewer "marginal farms" in this country, and therefore less of a buffer against shortages (and less to sell or give to other nations that need it) is interesting. I usually don't buy "organic" produce [as opposed to the inorganic kind, ba da PUH], because I tend to want food that was produced in the most efficient way, dammit. The reason The Population Bomb was wrong is that we've kept ahead of the population curve by increasing production. But maybe it's time to encourage more boutique farming; more family farming; more small farms. If that means I should buy organic lettuce and artisan cheeses so those less well-off can buy the stuff they pick in the fields, maybe that's a safety mechanism this country needs, and can afford.

Also, I happen to like artisanal cheeses, though I've been told the cheese is objectively better in France, due to our hyperactive, overprotective FDA over here. (I know, I know: we want cheese without bacteria. But then, we also want our mushrooms without fungus.)

Dinner for a small planet: lentil soup, with fresh-grated parmesan cheese (the cheapest I can find that doesn't come pre-grated, since pre-grated parmesan is the work of the devil). A little fennel, sauteed in olive oil with a tiny pat of sweet butter. Raw carrots on the side, and oversweetened juice from the supermarket that I was too lazy to dilute.

And life is good; let's export us some crops.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:57 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Matt Vadum, writing at the CRC blog, discusses Gore's new ad campaign to share his environmental concerns, which of course many people feel have veered over into "Chicken Little" territory.

An article in The Politico says GoreÂ’s Alliance for Climate Protection is producing a TV commercial featuring Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton

sitting on a couch on the beach. In the ad . . . they say that while they may not agree on many things, they do agree that they have to work to save the planet.

A future couple in the “strange bedfellows” or “unlikely alliances” spots will be recorded soon: Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Does $300 million sound like a lot of money? It does, except when you consider how much more Gore stands to personally profit from the climate of mass hysteria heÂ’s been been helping to create with a no-holds-barred campaign of misinformation aimed at marginalizing and ostracizing all those who dare to question his take on global warming.

As we reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch (”Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It,” by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has established a network of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis and keep himself in the spotlight.

Gore himself is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies
that are going green. GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

If carbon emissions trading ever comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. As a politician, Gore speaks warmly of transparency. But as GIM chairman, Gore has not been forthcoming. Little is known about his shadowy firmÂ’s finances, where it gets funding and what projects it supports.

Richard Campbell, a spokesman for Generation Investment Management, is apparently referring to Matt's charges as a “nonsense story.”

In an e-mail message to The Chronicle, he claims that neither Mr. Gore nor any other members of the investment company’s board will make money from the expansion of carbon trading: "To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry.”

Well, of course: Vadum didn't say they are benefiting now, in real time. He wondered whether they might in the future.

All I know is that Gore has a hammer—of sorts—and it looks like most of the most pressing problems in the country and on the globe are starting to resemble nails.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . China.

Is there nothing we can do to help the Tibetan people except put inane bumper stickers on our cars? One feels so powerless . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Eric on the reinvention of morality.

My mother and I squabble over this all the time. She tends to drink tap water, but I feel that (depending on the municipality I'm in at any given time) it tends to improve my water-consumption to drink bottled. Sometimes I drink tap stuff for the fluoride and extra minerals, or for conservation reasons, or to save money.

But plastic bottles are lighter than anything else out there, and the water doesn't spill out of them in a car as it does from water tumblers/glasses. Furthermore, ordinary bottles can be thrown away at airports and the like, when one is prohibited from bringing liquids into any given area. Finally, the smallest water bottles ("vendable" versions, and those marketed to kids) can fit in one's purse, so one can always have water around.

And regular bottles are supremely recyclable. So I just don't see the problem.

Growing up in a parsimonious family, I'm well aware that just about any move any person can possibly make can be considered "wasteful." Any consumption of resources whatsoever can be made into a source of shame.

But what, exactly, is the point to that? We have to make rational cost-benefit analyses on these issues.

At least, I have to.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:47 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

1 As I posted on the classicalvalues.com post, if you have any reason to watch what you send through your kidneys, you'll probably back up bottled water. Some municpal tap water, while perfectly fine for a person with two healthy kidneys, is verboten for a dialysis patient. Even those with one kidney (naturally or via surgery) should keep an eye on the water content.

Posted by: Lysander at November 05, 2007 01:04 PM (ShW/G)

2 What Lysander says should be tempered with the knowledge of both your municipality's track record of water quality, and the company that produces the brand you are considering drinking. As for it being a "sin," it brings to mind the point that the radical environmental movement is trying to inculcate guilt into anyone who is affluent.

Posted by: John at November 05, 2007 03:01 PM (yYn5l)

3 When the $$ were going to Europe for Perrier and Evian. it was the thing to do. Now that Coke and Pepsi lead the way, it is now a sin of excess.

Posted by: Darrell at November 05, 2007 04:15 PM (+6xS/)

4 John - I agree. I'm not advocating some "Brand X" bottled water over tap, but knowing what is coming out of the tap and what is coming in the bottle.

Posted by: Lysander at November 06, 2007 10:38 AM (ShW/G)

5 Flouride (actually flourosic acid) + copper pipe = Alzheimers. Most of the webpages that carried the original story have disappeared, but this, less scientific one, is still up. http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/0628gl-alzheimers28Z18.html -Bob

Posted by: Bob at November 06, 2007 12:01 PM (CP6tB)

6 "Flouride (actually flourosic acid) + copper pipe = Alzheimers." Absent any scientific knowledge of that "fact," of course. Ditto aluminum, lead(including solder for copper pipes), smoking, lack of intellectual stimulation, acetylcholine deficiency, genetic abnormalities, lack of physical exercise, aging(and senescence in general), lack of social interaction, head injuries, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: Darrell at November 07, 2007 09:13 AM (Yguc3)

7 Darrell, the guy is a scientist and he's published. Also, (from one of the vanished articles) the water has to be acidic enough to get the copper in it. FWIW, last I read, the "flouride" the MWD puts in our water was actually industrial flourosic acid, not some sort of pharmaceutical additive. And they've been sued because they regulate the content so poorly that allegedly kids are getting flourosis of the teeth. -B

Posted by: Bob at November 07, 2007 05:19 PM (k94s3)

8 I thought there were genetic contributors to Alzheimer's. And that nuns who do crossword puzzles don't get it as much. Or something.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2007 11:37 PM (aywD+)

9 "nuns who do crossword puzzles don't get it as much." You were referring to Alzheimer's, right? Lately, I've been reading "Faith and the Placebo Effect" by Lolette Kuby. Her thesis is that whatever you believe will heal you will heal you. She also discusses the "nocebo effect" -- which might be described as whatever you believe will kill you will kill you. She had breast cancer. http://www.originpress.com/pXaceboeffect/ (Replace the 'X' with an 'l' -- your content filter doesn't like "pX".) -Bob

Posted by: Bob at November 08, 2007 10:25 AM (CP6tB)

10 Yes--Alzheimer's. Though I was being facetious. I had a great-aunt with Alzheimer's, and I may be third in a matrilineal sequence of women with an extreme fear of dementia. The placebo effect does, I think, provide us with a window into the unharnessed power of the human brain.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2007 02:01 PM (aywD+)

11 Just saying nothing explains it totally. Not yet. Correlations are not causation. When an answer is found I will let you know. All the factors I listed have been linked at one time or another. They comprise the questions. One day we'll have an answer.

Posted by: Darrell at November 08, 2007 09:43 PM (bckFZ)

12 By the time an answer is found, you'll let me know and I'll promptly forget Yeah--I know about the causality arrow problem. But the genetic argument is very seductive to me (in areas other than obesity, of course--though it could be that there are families in which such things run, but every once in a while a supremely disceplined ubergirl arises, and maintains something like a normal weight against all odds, which makes her all the more admirable, blah blah blah . . .).

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2007 12:25 AM (aywD+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I love it.

The fact that we lose so many children to this disease is outrageous in this day and age. I'd love to see it eradicated.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:22 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Finally. And that's just installment #1!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

I really hate it when people refer to green extremists as "environmentalists." It makes it sound as if center-right libertarians don't care about this cool little planet, and it ain't so.

Courtesy of David Linden comes this interesting essay that attempts to restore Rachel Carson's reputation with respect to the DDT/malaria issue. It makes me sigh a little, though: once again, the Far Left and the Hard Right (or vice versa, if you like) are talking past each other. Dang.

The author of the piece, Aaron Swartz, discusses at length the development of DDT-resistant strains of malaria, but doesn't talk about the fact that agricultural use of DDT has been much more responsible for this effect, rather than the indoor spraying used for disease control.

One of Swartz' most interesting passages deals with early attempts by anti-malaria activist Robert Bate and his colleagues to use the DDT issue as a weapon against the environmental movement:

Perhaps the most vocal group [. . .] is Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM). Founded in 2000 by Roger Bate, an economist at various right-wing think tanks, AFM has run a major PR campaign to push the pro-DDT story, publishing scores of op-eds and appearing in dozens of articles each year. Bate and his partner Richard Tren even published a book laying out their alternate history of DDT: When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story.

A funding pitch uncovered by blogger Eli Rabbett shows Bate's thinking when he first started the project. "The environmental movement has been successful in most of its campaigns as it has been 'politically correct,'" he explained (Tobacco Archives, 09/9 . What the anti-environmental movement needs is something with "the correct blend of political correctness (...oppressed blacks) and arguments (eco-imperialism [is] undermining their future)." That something, Bate proposed, was DDT.

In an interview, Bate said that his motivation had changed after years of working on the issue of malaria. "I think my position has mellowed, perhaps with age," he told Extra!. "[I have] gone from being probably historically anti-environmental to being very much pro-combating malaria now."

I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that some people have used strict restrictions on DDT use as an tool against the green extremists. After all, activists on both sides use whatever they can in terms of imagery to put forward their own points of view. Both sides try to "market" themselves, no?

And I'm not sure that everyone who thinks DDT should be used more widely now is simply trying to save Western money that might otherwise be spent on medications and mosquito nets. The fact is, over a million people a year is too many to lose to an old disease: this should be a solvable issue, if we were all to quit taking swipes at one another for a few minutes and focus.

DDT has to be part of the international toolkit in fighting malaria, and its use has to be monitored by people who don't have an axe to grind: people who are interested in truth rather than scoring political points in either direction.

"You're using junk science!"

"I know you are, but what data am I using?"

I wonder how many people really do want to solve the problem. Despite Swartz' spirited—and probably necessary—defense of Rachel Carson's place in history, I'm not sure he's on fire about the malaria problem itself. He notes that AFM claims not to have taken money from tobacco companies, but seems skeptical about that claim, probably due to articles by Bate such as this one. And yet, tobacco farmers in Malawi tend to oppose the use of DDT, even when it's limited to indoor spraying:

At a time when countries are anxiously waiting for Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACT), a new malaria drug yet to hit the market, government is on the other hand encouraging the use of Dichrolo Diphenil Trichroloethane (DDT) in the country to try minimise the figures of children that are dying from the disease, but there are divisions in the use of the chemical because some quarters blame DDT as being non bio-degradable and a source of pollution.

Tobacco bodies such as Tobacco Association of Malawi (TAMA) are against the use of DDT in wiping out malaria saying it would compromise with the quality and purity of the countries greatest forex earner, tobacco leaf.

Director of Preventive Health Services Dr. Habib Somanje defends government decision to use DDT to destroy malaria, arguing that it (DDT) shall only be used in indoor sprays.

Somanje observes that DDT can reduce malaria drastically as it sticks to walls for many weeks, thereby curbing malaria and saving the lives of children.

The attempt to line people up into opposing camps (tobacco companies must be allied with the right, as must proponents of DDT) muddies the water. It doesn't help.

Uganda's Director General of Health Services wrote an editorial for WSJ this past summer on how DDT—when used for malaria control only, rather than in agriculture—is a critical component in a comprehensive malaria prevention and treatment plan, and what he calls "African independence in the realm of disease control":

DDT lasts longer, costs less and is more effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes than Icon. It functions as spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes out of homes, as an irritant to prevent them from biting, and as a toxic agent to kill those that land. The repellency effect works without physical contact. And because we will never use the chemical in agriculture, DDT also makes mosquitoes less likely to develop resistance.

The U.S. banned DDT in 1972, spurred on by environmentalist Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring. Many countries in Europe and around the world followed suit. But after decades of exhaustive scientific review, DDT has been shown to not only be safe for humans and the environment, but also the single most effective anti-malarial agent ever invented. Nothing else at any price does everything it can do. That is why the World Health Organization (WHO) has once again recommended using DDT wherever possible against malaria, alongside insecticidal nets and effective drugs.

We are trying to do precisely this. In addition to distributing nearly three million long-lasting insecticidal nets and 25 million doses of effective anti-malarial drugs, we will expand our indoor spraying operations to four more districts this year, where we will protect tens of thousands of Ugandans from malaria's deadly scourge. We are committed to storing, transporting and using DDT properly in these programs, in accord with Stockholm Convention, WHO, European Union and U.S. Agency for International Development guidelines. We are working with these organizations and to ensure support from our communities, and to ensure that our agricultural trade is not jeopardized.

Although Uganda's National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us. The EU has acknowledged our right to use DDT, but some consumer and agricultural groups repeat myths and lies about the chemical. They should instead help us use it strictly to control malaria.

(My emphasis.)

And here's National Geographic on the history of malaria in Africa:

In much of the deep tropics malaria persisted stubbornly. Financing for the effort eventually withered, and the eradication program was abandoned in 1969. In many nations, this coincided with a decrease in foreign aid, with political instability and burgeoning poverty, and with overburdened public health services.

In several places where malaria had been on the brink of extinction, including both Sri Lanka and India, the disease came roaring back. And in much of sub-Saharan Africa, malaria eradication never really got started. The WHO program largely bypassed the continent, and smaller scale efforts made little headway.

Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."

This is a problem that should be solved by Africans, with the assistance of the West. The solutions must be driven by Africans, and the tools applied should not be limited by ideology or preconceived notions—on either side.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:00 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1451 words, total size 10 kb.

A review copy of Mine Your Own Business, which I've been dying to see.

I'll let you know if the finished work is as good as the trailer, and the excerpts most of us have come across here and there.

Special thanks to The Moving Picture Institute, for giving me the opportunity to review the film.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Sam Zaramba, the Director General of Health Services for the Republic of Uganda, explains why the West must support effective anti-malarial programs in his country, and in all of Africa:

Although Uganda's National Environmental Management Authority has approved DDT for malaria control, Western environmentalists continue to undermine our efforts and discourage G-8 governments from supporting us. The EU has acknowledged our right to use DDT, but some consumer and agricultural groups repeat myths and lies about the chemical. They should instead help us use it strictly to control malaria.

Environmental leaders must join the 21st century, acknowledge the mistakes [Rachel] Carson made, and balance the hypothetical risks of DDT with the real and devastating consequences of malaria. Uganda has demonstrated that, with the proper support, we can conduct model indoor spraying programs and ensure that money is spent wisely, chemicals are handled properly, our program responds promptly to changing conditions, and malaria is brought under control.

Africa is determined to rise above the contemporary colonialism that keeps us impoverished. We expect strong leadership in G-8 countries to stop paying lip service to African self-determination and start supporting solutions that are already working.

Via Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Bidinotto on climate change.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . for heresy against the Holy Church of the Greenhouse Effect?

Unfortunately, I am an old heretic. Old heretics don't cut much ice. What the world needs is young heretics.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Laurie David is all over the news.

Wow. Where does one start with this? She concedes that she's "confrontational" with respect to others' eco-crimes, but when presented with her own, she explains it all away: "Everybody has to strike their own balance between how they want to live and how they can reduce their impact." Everybody, that is, who can afford to drive a hybrid.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Sayeth Glenn,from Ohio: "Greenhouse effect? Global warming? Faster, please."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.