Misplaced Activism

The Pseudo-environmentalists

Amrevis
The most frightening aspect about the Green Movement is that instead of being condemned for their anti-human agenda the so called environmentalists are being feted everywhere in the world. They have access to all sorts of funds, from businessmen, from government grants and from many other resources. Their harebrained theories about impending doom due to reckless scientific development get plastered on prominent media networks leading to fear mongering among the general population. In the name of love for the earth these environmentalists are doing everything to thwart human progress.

In Africa these days a brutal mass murderer called malaria is stalking the landscape. For years sundry environmentalists groups had campaigned against pesticides like DDT, claiming that it is harmful for the soil. Heeding to their campaign the United Nations banned the use of DDT, with the result that the incidences of malaria have gone up manifold in the Dark Continent. In India too since the ban on DDT was imposed many more people have started succumbing to malaria.
In his seminal work When Politics Kills-Malaria and the DDT Story' Dr. Bate writes, Nearly one million Indians died from malaria in 1945, but DDT spraying reduced this to a few thousand by 1960. However, concerns about the environmental harm of DDT led to a decline in spraying, and likewise, a resurgence of malaria. Today there are once again millions of cases of malaria in India, and over 300 million cases worldwide - most in sub-Saharan Africa. Cases of malaria in South Africa have risen by over 1000 percent in the past five years. Only those countries that have continued to use DDT, such as Ecuador, have contained or reduced malaria.' For that matter the environmentalists are yet to come up with a conclusive data to show that DDT spraying is harmful for the environment. But when have fundamentalists of any hue bothered about facts!

Then there is the case of genetically modified crops. The environmentalists won't allow the farming of genetically modified crops because they say it is harmful for the environment and may have long-term implications on human health. But on what grounds do they base these claims. In USA people have been eating genetically modified food for close to 50 years now, are they any less healthy than people in India? Environmentalists are taking us for a ride. They have all but stopped the farming of modern crops such as BT cotton in the country.

The impact of environmentalists in the energy sector is even worse. One effective way of gauging a country's level of progress is by calculating how much energy an average citizen of that country consumes. In civilized countries the citizens have access to easily usable energy sources, whereas in uncivilized countries there is stagnation and untold misery in the absence of modern means of generating energy. But why are the uncivilized nations in the world unable to generate their energy needs as USA, Canada, Western Europe and Japan? Well, in many cases it is because some environmentalists with vested interests won't allow new energy projects to come up. In Gujarat, the Narmada Dam has taken more than 50 years to build because of opposition by a small, but determined group of activists.

Scientists define everything that we can perceive in the natural world as a form of energy. Einstein's famous equation E = MC2, denotes the fundamental correlation between mass and energy. The only difference between different substances is that some are easily converted into energy and with some it is a more difficult process. So the lamentations we get to read in the popular press notwithstanding, there is absolutely no shortage of energy. Nuclear power plants convert mass into nuclear energy, which has thus far proved to be the cheapest, safest and the least polluting. But the environmentalists have successfully demonized nuclear power as an evil form of energy. Thanks to their efforts the gullible majority in the world is frightened to death of nuclear power, they would rather be without electricity than live under the glow of nuclear energy.
Another bogey with which the environmentalists are trying to frighten the people is Global Warming- the level of CO2 in the world is raising, leading to rise in average temperatures. This myth of human-caused global warming' is being promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the international media. The promoters of this myth are the same people who have been campaigning against DDT, nuclear power plants, and BT Cotton. The facts are completely different from what the environmentalists are trying to make it out to be. CO2 is the single most important constituent in the cycles of all plants and animals. Without CO2 life on earth is not possible.

Yes, human activity does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the amount is miniscule compared to what is already here. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, but the oceans contain about 40,000 gigatons. So whenever there is an ordinary rise in world temperature, the level of CO2 in atmosphere rises due to out-gassing from the ocean. In fact many prominent scientists in USA now believe that there is correlation between solar activity, radiations from outer space and the temperature on earth. The process has nothing to do with human activity. Even if all development were halted and society went back to the Stone Age civilization, the cycles of rise and fall in the temperature of earth would not be affected.

Published by Amrevis

I am a regular freelance writer, with more than 1000 articles and short stories published in various magazines and newspapers.  View profile

  • The impact of environmentalists in the energy sector is even worse.
  • Another bogey with which the environmentalists are trying to frighten the people is Global Warming
  • many prominent scientists in USA now believe that there is correlation between solar activity, radia
The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, but the oceans contain about 40,000 gigatons.

9 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Kermit4/7/2007

    Lack of paragraphs make for hard reading. Notice this is an old article (2005) advertised today (2007). Solar and wind power is better than nuclear. Dobt that environmentalists want to go back to the Stone Age. Like me, they are probably concerned with the earth that we leave to our children and great grandchildren. Oil is not a replenishable natural resourse, for instance. Billions of dollars to create more natural sources of power would be well spent. There are other countries that do not rely on oil nor nuclear power, and the US would do well to emulate them.

  • Linda Miller3/2/2006

    A well written article repleat with facts and logical argument. The damage the "green" movement has done to the environment is never mentioned but some interesting facts may be mentioned that opens the eyes of anyone who wants to see. On the matter of DDT, malaria is not the only disease that has spread again because of DDT bans, there is West Nile Virus and other mosquito borne diseases as well. When the "green" movement condems modified food production one wonders if they would like to return to the days of hunting and gathering because all the efforts of civilization to feed the people have resulted in some modification to the foods we eat. Nuclear energy is as safe as any other form of energy production and much cheaper and less intrusive to the environment than some other forms. Great work....an article worth repeating.

  • coyote11/14/2005

    what an amazing world we live in!
    Anoop Verna is the intellectual love child of of Sean Hannity and Ayn Rand!

  • Rakesh8/18/2005

    Jacob, but why should anyone allow a nuclear power plant in their backward. Nuclear power plants have to be built and they can be built in areas where there is no human population. Every nation has vast stretches of waste land, these can be used to build power plants.

    I think Anoop Verma has made an wonderful point in his article. It is only some eco-fundamentalists who are raising what are by all means non issues.

  • wiseacre8/18/2005

    I think the author has made a wonderful point in his article. If any one has any doubts he or she should try to refute him with facts rather than with worthless comments.

  • alexandra Zobel8/15/2005

    What an ignorant article. If you have any doubts about the problems with the dams in India I duggest you check out Arundati Roy's expose on just what those dams to do to the people they are supposedly going to help.

  • Jacob7/17/2005

    Genetically modified crops? If man really does thing he's more qualified than nature (Or God, if you're in to that sort of thing) to decide how the organisms on this planet should evolve, I say let us perish - because we deserve everything we'll get. You reap what you sow. Pun intended.

  • Jacob7/17/2005

    As for nuclear energy, the day YOU allow a nuclear power plant to operate in your backyard, feel free to come back and be sanctimonious.

  • Jacob7/17/2005

    There are much better ways to fight malaria than with DDT (which goes WAY beyond harmful to the soil, by the way. Like softening egg shells for instance). What about proper irrigation? What about dams? It's not that it can't be done, it's just that selfish, rich royalty (who never even earned their wealth in the first place) screw their own people in the poorest countries in the world - and take the money needed for infrastructure and spend it themselves.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.