What kind of environmentalist are you?

I watched on BookTV with Paul Driessen, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death author yesterday. Are the Greens and the PETA people going too far for animal rights, at the expense of millions of human lives in third world countries?

I have been thinking about what he said for 24 hours, now, and I am distressed.

I'm not familiar with Driessen or his writings.

Animal rights is a far different issue from environmentalism. I am a strong environmentalist, and I love animals, but I do not consider myself a supporter of the 'animal rights' movement or PETA. In fact, on some very significant issues, I am opposed to their goals.

--Peter

that greens are more concerned with destroying animal habitats in reference to building dams, etc, and the use of DDT to prevent malaria etc, while people die.

If it were up to PETA, land being used inefficiently to feed farm animals and then eat the animals would be used much more efficiently by people eating the crops directly.

What is that author's argument against PETA?

The q and a session ran 2 hours, you'd have to watch the whole thing to get the broad view. Maybe they'll replay it next weekend. Or you can get the book at CSpan via a link, he used to be a member of Greenpeace, but his point it we comfortable American ecologists need to let 3rd world countries make choices to save lives first rather than protecting habitats, etc.

The Food Revolution. He make a very strong argument that the environment would be better off if we ate a plant based diet.

I am very impressed with this group and recently joined the Pacific Northwest chapter. Not only are they interested in environmental effects on health, but they are politically savvy, and a lot of environmentalists are realizing that Congress tends to pay more attention to people who are advocating for human health, rather than the traditional "tree huggers." So by getting together, the political power is magnified greatly.

In other words, there is no reason to have a split- just the opposite.

http://www.cheforhealth.org/

<snip>
The Collaborative on Health and the Environment is a nonpartisan partnership working to further knowledge, action and cooperation
regarding environmental contributors to disease and other health problems.

Established in 2002, participation is open to
health professionals, researchers, health-affected and patient groups,
advocacy organizations and indeed anyone concerned about
protecting the health of current and future generations from environmental harm.

We invite you to review our work and join our activities.
</snip>

s_m

Many people say they are environmentalist or are addressing environmental concerns but actually working against positive environmental outcomes. The most famous case of course is the beast in the White House who simply uses doublespeak to declare deregulation of air pollution a "Clear Skies Initiative" or unrestricted logging a "Healthy Forests initiative." Unfortunately, not all claims masquerading as environmental solutions are quite so baldly false. There are also people who are far more well meaning who nonetheless are contributing to the decline of the environment, albeit unintentionally and without regard to personal reward.

In judging any issue, not only environmental issues, the point is not to embrace the stances of particular organizations, even those whose memberships, as opposed to the Bush "administration," are generally composed of thoughtful, ethical people. People can mean very well and proceed with excellent reasoning and still draw incorrect conclusions. The important requirement is to look at the consequences of actions and proposals to try carefully to assess, on one's own the likely or demonstrated consequences of actions. This is more difficult than reading a position paper, or embracing the most popular viewpoint, or aligning oneself with a respected organization, but it is also, in my opinion, the most rewarding way to approach issues. Think clearly and think hard. Learn to understand the issues as best you can. Once you have done so, do not fear to speak up.

in the same vein as Dixie Lee Ray's books -anti/psuedo-science republican fairy tales.

The DDT and malaria crap is the worst - don't believe a word of it...(on edit: check out these links).

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/panic.html

of the list of considerations . . . and in virtually all cases, my presumption is in favor of the environment . . . what the world needs to learn is balance . . . and the natural world is a great teacher . . . by insisting on maintaining natural balance in the environment can we, hopefully, learn the importance of balance in human affairs as well . . . the Earth is our Bible, if only we'd learn how to read it . . .

It certainly sounds like a noble philosophy. But what do you mean by the "natural balance"?

Take for example the destruction of predator species in the wild. In VA, where I live, most predator populations (wolves and coyotes, principally) have been cut down considerably. The result is a massive increase in the populations of the animals those predators ate (deer, etc.). But if you let the predator population flourish, they start attacking your domesticated animals and causing problems in towns as they go about looking for stuff to eat.

The "solution" to restoring the "natural balance" comes as an awful shock to a lot of environmentalists (esp. the PETA types). Instead of letting the predatory species roam free and cause problems, you reduce the excess supply of prey animals directly, by killing them. =O

Instead of letting the overabundance of prey animals consume themselves out of food, you reduce their population by hunting them. This certainly seems to restore the balance, with a large number of prey animals able to continue with their existence without starving to death and a smaller population of predators allowed to continue doing what they do, but preventing them from interfering with human society.

I doubt this is what you mean by restoring the natural balance, but it does protect the prey and predator population in the face of human encroachment.

~AbM

The probem isn't predators, the problem is we take up too much space and will not share. Predators can be a problem for domestic livestock on occasion, no doubt. The judicious use of dogs and fences can allievate that to a great degree, as has been done since ancient times. Local prey deficits and isolated individual/group conditioning(a "taste" for _____") may require direct action but are uncommon and no excuse for genocide. The occasional taking of livestock should be considered the predator's tithe.
I would happily pay a little more for meat and erect suitable fences to protect my dogs if we had puma back to control the deer that are overrunning my area.

...via pollution, nuclear war, overgrazing, etc., we will pay the price.

Driessen is a charlatan. I saw his written Congressional testimony at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/108/testimony/2004/pauldriessen.pdf, where he talks of millions of deaths from "the malaria virus" that could have been prevented by DDT. But malaria is not caused by a virus, it is caused by a protozoan! This error in his written testimony to Congress, and his exaggerated claims show that he is a charlatan.

Currently it is legal to use DDT to fight malaria under international law, and the last time I checked, 8 countries use very small amounts of DDT sprayed on the walls of people's homes to control malaria. It is false to claim that environmentalists oppose this application of DDT. It is also false to imply that DDT is as effective now as it was in the 1960's, when mosquitos resistant to DDT were still relatively rare.

I read Paul Driessen's book (a right-wing religious leader mailed it to me). His numbers suggest that DDT is 95% effective, but he does not cite any medical or scientific literature to support his claim. In many parts of the world, DDT is useless against mosquitos because they have evolved resistance to DDT in response to overuse of DDT.

Driessen is not a former member of Greenpeace (maybe you have him confused with Patrick Moore). Driessen's bio says his degrees are in law and public relations and he formerly worked for an "energy consortium."

Driessen's claims are ridiculous and absurd. You could get a more balanced view by going to www.usaid.gov and searching for "malaria publications" or "malaria, publications, DDT."

There was a good story on DDT in last weekend's New York Times Magazine. I think that if there isn't enough money for better treatments, some countries should use DDT, but even better American should put a billion dollars a year in foreign aid for treating malaria with more effective medicines, and that would save millions of lives.

Anyways, to answer your question, I am the sort of environmentalist who conserves energy and buys windpower and recycles and I cheer on the Sierra Club and Greenpeace because they are doing the right thing. And when I hear outrageous claims I take them with a grain of salt and I search for information on important issues at the library.

I believe the animal rights ties in with DDT being harmful to birds and other animals, plus the desire to slow the current mass extinction by preserving crucial habitats. Supposedly, these issues pit humans against animals. The reality is that humans need a healthy environment, and the humans versus animals argument is a false choice.

In the long run, the policies advocated by Driessen are harmful to humans, and the poorest people of the world would suffer the most from the environmental degradation and disease that Driessen's short-sighted policies would unleash.