Why the Greens’ Charm Offensive Failed
Roger Kerr has an excellent column on why the Greens’ charm offensive failed.
One extract is worth repeating:
A common view of greens generally is that they are well-intentioned and at worst harmless, if somewhat utopian in their ideas.
There is no basis for complacent assumptions. Many green crusades have been responsible for human misery and environmental damage.
A classic example is the campaign against DDT. Despite massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife, the ideological ban on its use in many countries led to a resurgence in malaria and an estimated 50 million deaths. South Africa has gone back to using DDT and deaths have fallen away.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:48 am
It’s worse than lame, it’s bizarre. As an attempt to respond to the Green’s meeting with business leaders, you’d expect him to actually refer to some of the Greens’ policies. I find it hard to believe that Rod & Jeanette were lecturing business leaders on the evils of DDT. I guess Roger found that story in some book of anti-green arguments.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:52 am
“One extract is worth repeating:…”
I take it you think the rest is not then David.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:54 am
I guess if National/Act had won and they tried to charm Maori into accepting their position of abolishing the Maori seats they would similarly have failed (not that I think the Greens meeting with business was a failure). Talking about the Maori seats – I’ve started up my own blog (finally) and my first post is on the Maori seats…
October 11th, 2005 at 10:58 am
David, do Kerr and their chums ever do a moment’s research before opening their mouths with the latest talking points? And don’t you think you should spend a second checking for facts before you endorse what they’re saying?
Yes, the use of DDT has been re-introduced to control malaria in some African countries, on the recommendation of the World Health Oraganisation, as the lesser of two evils. But *only* for malaria control, and *not* as an agricultural pesticide, which is what environmental campaigners have historically opposed.
The acute toxic effects of DDT are mild to moderate, but the problem lies with chronic effects: DDT stays in the body, in fatty tissue, for a long time. There bloody well is *not* “massive evidence” of its harmlessness. Some links:
Being exposed to the pesticide DDT in the womb could delay a woman becoming pregnant as an adult, researchers suggest.
The chemical has already been linked to premature births and low birthweights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3023416.stm
There was a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum DDT and the risk of early pregnancy losses.
http://www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemiology/fulltext.00001648-200509000-00036.htm;jsessionid=DKg1KBYFequDY9DplffaMj2nCBOMSyxNC1NPKGdgPfPKgcUC7GKR!-1774793403!-949856145!9001!-1
According to the Lancet last month: ” Science Byte: Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings, research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning. Other risks, such as neurological and reproductive effects in spraying staff, might also apply. Decisions to use DDT for malaria control should balance the benefits and risks.”
Also:
http://pops.gpa.unep.org/14ddt.htm
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm
I find it highly ironic that the political and business right feels able to consistently indulge in the kind of faith-based proclamations that it likes to attribute to the Greens. You can apologise now if you like.
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 11:04 am
David, you have forced me to use the other 50% of my Saying Something Positive About The Greens quota for the year.
Firstly, I haven’t heard the local Greens make too much of an issue of this.
Secondly, the DDT as described is simply not true. Tom Lambert is very reliable on the issue – have a look around his site – http://timlambert.org/
October 11th, 2005 at 11:10 am
You beat me to it sock thief. Tim Lambert indeed does an excellent debunking as he consistently does on issues such as climate change and the recent Lancet study on deaths in Iraq.
This link to “The Great DDT Hoax”
http://timlambert.org/2005/02/ddt3/
October 11th, 2005 at 11:11 am
DPF’s site has been taken over by the lefties, sigh.
Wussell, surprise, the Lancet and BBC don’t carry too much weight here.
And the point is not how DDT could be used, but that the Greens have opposed every usage. Point to an article where the Greens have advocated the use of DDT for malaria control. You can’t. And again you try to shift the debate to something that isn’t the point, your usual tactic. The greens value nature over human life. Some even consider men to be a blithe on this earth. And that is scary.
Take for example Nandor: after losing the election, is he going to talk to another human? No, he’s going to hug a tree.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Berend, point to a malaria problem in New Zealand that might necessitate using DDT.
Then maybe you could try to stop making lame posts that play to every ignorant myopia that infests your being.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Roger Kerr acuses the Greens of being utopian? Isn’t that more than a touch ironic coming from someone most people would describe as a utpoian free market capitalist?
Pot, Kettle, Black!
October 11th, 2005 at 11:35 am
You really are a bore berend. If someone is using their real name and contributing to a debate don’t you think it is disrespectful and extremely childish to try and denigrate them by calling them pureile names. Grow up.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Berend: “Wussell, surprise, the Lancet and BBC don’t carry too much weight here.”
And neither, apparently, does actual science. As I pointed out, this is precisely what the Greens are perennially accused of by the right. Thanks for clearing that up.
“Point to an article where the Greens have advocated the use of DDT for malaria control.”
They voted for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill, which *specifically provides* for the import and use of persistent toxins such as DDT where there is a public health need, such as an outbreak of malaria. Fitzsimons’ speech in support is here: http://greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech6516.html
You’ll also find that Ralph Nader is on record as backing the use of DDT for malaria control.
Yes, there are some entrenched views in Green circles, but by the same token Kerr’s claim of “massive evidence” that DDT does no harm to humans is a complete fantasy. Stay with your faith-based reasoning if you like, but please don’t claim that it’s rational.
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am
I shouldn’t have followed the link, but I did. Kerr said:
Other Green arguments are demonstrably wrong as a matter of simple economics.
One example I gave at the briefing is the proposition that a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, adds to GDP because of the need to spend money on goods and services to repair the damage. A moment’s thought indicates why this is absurd – would several Katrinas be even better for GDP?
Did the Greens say natural disasters were good because they helped GDP? I’m lost here.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:52 am
RB, that link is probably wrong. Nothing about support for DDT there as far as I can see. Perhaps you can post the proper link?
October 11th, 2005 at 11:53 am
I shouldn’t have followed the link, but I did. Kerr said:
Other Green arguments are demonstrably wrong as a matter of simple economics.
One example I gave at the briefing is the proposition that a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, adds to GDP because of the need to spend money on goods and services to repair the damage. A moment’s thought indicates why this is absurd – would several Katrinas be even better for GDP?
Did the Greens say natural disasters were good because they helped GDP? I’m lost here.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:55 am
I shouldn’t have followed the link, but I did. Kerr said:
Other Green arguments are demonstrably wrong as a matter of simple economics.
One example I gave at the briefing is the proposition that a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, adds to GDP because of the need to spend money on goods and services to repair the damage. A moment’s thought indicates why this is absurd – would several Katrinas be even better for GDP?
Did the Greens say natural disasters were good because they helped GDP? I’m lost here.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:58 am
LMD, Just ask RB why he earned the name Wussel…
October 11th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Sorry about all that.
I also saw this:
They seem unwilling to engage with well-documented criticisms of doom-mongering, such as the work of Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg.
Bjorn Lomborg? That’s hardly some undisputed science we’re talking about.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
And speaking of not engaging, climate sceptics have long used Bjorn as their poster-boy, before (or should that be without) realising that he doesn’t actually deny that climate change is real.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
One more thing Wussel: you now claim that the Greens support for the Stockholm Convention implies they are actually in favor of spraying small amounts of DDT on interior walls? Isn’t that stretching things, even for you?
I can’t find any claim on the Greens website that would support your statements. They supported the Stockholm’s Convention, despite the allowance for spraying miniscule amounts of DDT on interior walls. That is the only truth I can gather from all their speeches.
Nothing to what you claim.
Don’t bother to apologise.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
I think there needs to be hard analysis of many of Green policies. They are basically a religo cult with no factual analysis and abuse concerns about the environment to make a huge grab for state control. They are power tripping socialists first and a distant second is concern about the environment. They are little better than a suicide bomber’s concern about human life and Islam.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
I went to the Stockholm Convention text. Quote: “With the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT, the Conference of the Parties shall encourage …”.
No wonder the Greens were in favor. The goal is abolishment of DDT, not the use of DDT to prevent another death in Africa. What do Greenies care about human life anyway?
Full text here: http://www.pops.int/documents/convtext/convtext_en.pdf
October 11th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for bringing some well needed perspective to this discussion Tim. When you think about it, people with concern for the environment ARE just like suicide bombers.
Roger Kerr on the Greens. Gimme a break. Now let’s have a cool dispassionate analysis of Nationals defense policies by Nicky Hagar.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
RB writes: “But *only* for malaria control, and *not* as an agricultural pesticide, which is what environmental campaigners have historically opposed.”
As my previous quote from the Stockholm Convention proves, the Greens have opposed the use of DDT for all and sundry reasons. The goal was to abolish the use of DDT. Not just for agricultural pesticide control.
Let me quote from that speech from Jeanette Wussel: “The Greens, of course, are happy to see any progress on getting rid of some of the worst environmental contaminants anywhere in the world. Persistent organic pollutants, particularly the organo-chlorine family, have already contaminated human beings and wildlife around the world, including accumulating in the fat of polar bears in the Arctic, many thousands of kilometres from where they had actually been used. They are in food chains, and it will take a long time before that contamination eventually declines. They are in our soils, and it will take a long time before they eventually break down. So this legislation is not before time, and the Greens have been pushing for the Stockholm Convention issues to be addressed for a long time. So we, of course, support this bill.”
The reason to support this bill is to get rid, completely, of POPs. No qualifiers Wussel, or am I reading that incorrectly?
October 11th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Berend quoted the Stockholm convention: ‘With the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of DDT, the Conference of the Parties shall encourage . . .’
You really are a sad, laughable, contemptible little creature aren’t you Berend? You’ve read the rest of this sentence, know exactly what it says, but you’d rather quote it wildly out of context to try and score a point than make any attempt at accuracy.
So let’s see the rest of the statement.
’3. With the goal of reducing and ultimately, eliminating the use of DDT the Conference of Parties shall encourage,
(a) Each party using DDT to develop and implement and action plan as a part of the implementation plan specified in Art. E. This action plan shall include:
(i) Development of regulatory and other mechanisms to ensure that DDT use is restricted to disease vector control;
(ii) Implementation of suitable alternative products, methods, and strategies, including resistance management strategies to ensure the continuing effectiveness of these alternatives.
(iii) Measures to strengthen health care and to reduce incidences of the disease.
(b) The Parties, within their capabilities shall promote research and development of safe alternative chemical and non-chemical products, methods and strategies for Parties using DDT, relevant to the conditions of those countries and with the goal of decreasing the human and economic burden of disease. Factors to be promoted when considering alternatives or combinations of alternatives shall include human health risks and environmental implications of such alternatives. Viable alternatives to DDT shall pose less risk to human health and the environment, be suitable for disease control based on conditions in specific Parties, and be supported with monitoring data.’
Kinda confirms everything RB said, doesn’t it? Run along, loser.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Green policies probably have less rationale than a suicide bomber. They simply cannot look past banning something or taxing it. And they have never heard of cost-benefit analysis. The DDT thing is classic: a real benefit v’s hypothetical environmental harm. In their weird little world hypothetical harm must be stamped out at all cost.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Tony:Talking about the Maori seats – I’ve started up my own blog (finally) and my first post is on the Maori seats…
Were you planning on opening comments?
October 11th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
If you can’t show some grace Berend why don’t you just fuck off back to Sir Humphreys where bashing Russell is acceptable sport. You might note at the same time that Russell unfailingly shows respect for those he is debating and counters argument with argument rather than cheap personal slurs.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I think I agree I’m not in the same world as you Tim.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
There is nothing wrong with Kerr’s statements about DDT, the Greens and why they failed, and more importantly will continue to fail with any charm offensives. When describing the Greens in a general form, which he was, he doesnt have to restrict himself to one thing they said one time.
The very reason why the Greens fail to connect is exactly because, for all their talk about cooperation, they are some of the most closed minded individuals in NZ politics. Oh sure they are very open minded when it comes to hip and funky stuff, like drug use, sexuality and pretty much any alternative lifestyle. But they are uncomprimising when it comes to discussing things which most people care about. The economy, industrial relations, food production, education etc.
Not only this, they continually demonise their politcal opponents. I look forward to the day when a Green party member admits that GWB isnt intent on deliberately destroying the world and that Don Brash MIGHT actually care about poor people too. I think I might be waiting a while though. For another example, just look at the scorn they pour onto Bjorn Lomberg. He isnt a REAL scientist, he’s a crack pot, he’s in the pay of big oil, he’s a traitor. I have never come across a greenie who has said, “he could very well be a nice guy, but I think he has made a couple of errors in his thinking.” And I dont think I ever will. Invariably the discussion comes down to a personal attack on a thoughtful man who DOES NOT DENY THAT THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING and to my knowledge IS OPEN TO THE IDEA THAT IT MAY BE CAUSED BY HUMANS.
What he has said is that the reasoning and testing behind the most outrageous and scary claims about global warming are founded on poor science. He has said that much more good could be done for the cost of “fixing” the climate, namely providing clean drinking water for every human on the planet. This guy is a GREENIE himself, he is a leftie, but it really speaks to the character of the modern left that they would turn on one of their own for daring to question the orthodoxy. Remember when being a hippy meant not “bowing down to the man”, not automatically accepting what authority tries to tell you? What happened?
The left is the new orthodoxy, and in a perverted way they are the new conservatives (based on their own definition of conservative – which is wrong-headed anyway).
PS
“do Kerr and their chums ever do a moment’s research before opening their mouths with the latest talking points?” This is delicious irony Russell. And it is pleasant to see you dont rely solely on .org sites.
PPS
Dim, do you still believe that the Greens primary care is the environment? Sure it may be one of the main objectives of the party, but it is a key policy area for almost all parties.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
I am indebted to Russell Brown, that well known expert on everything, for enlightening me about the selective banning intentions of the econutters. I can assure him from direct experience, seven years of observing at close hand the statements and tactics of the ‘anti-pecicide’ lobbies during the seventies, that at no time until today, can I recall any of them calling for a partial ban. It has been total total total. Aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, chlodane, lindane, BHC, DDT, you name it, if it was an organo chlorine it was ‘by definition bad.’ One of the major arguments put forward by the pesticide industry has always been the need to balance the good with the bad. No such attempts at balance ever were evident. Millions of people, yes millions, Mr crocodile tears Brown, have suffered premature deaths entirely at the hands of these fanatics. They have killed more people than Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Caesar between them. My memory of it is that an outfir called ‘Freinds of the Earth’ were at the forefront. I don’t know whether the greens actually existed then did they? They were still calling themselves Baader Meinhoff. Oh, and one more tjhing, please spare me from the Lancet, which once might have been respectable.
October 11th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
dim, what’s your point??
The Stockholm Convention allows DDT while the goal is to get rid of DDT. Jeanette goes even further and doesn’t even mention a qualifier in her speech, she simply assumes the point of view of this convention that we should get rid of DDTs.
Despite the cost, as Roger pointed out. And we’re back at where we were.
Every 12 seconds a human being unnecessarily dies because the greenies worldwide oppose DDT. They care just as much as they care about the victims of dictators: just let them rot in hell, and let’s not do anything to actually help them, but march against those that actually do care about human beings.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Berend, what I said was that that the Greens supported the bill. Fitzsimons didn’t even flag the emergency provisions as a concern in her speech. That hardly indicates a neo-religious fanaticism.
Hobbs at the first reading: “Any exemptions permitted by the convention, which New Zealand decides to adopt, can also be added. This mechanism also allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to approve the import and manufacture of a persistent organic pollutant for use during a foreseeable emergency
October 11th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Kimble: “There is nothing wrong with Kerr’s statements about DDT …”
Er, yes there is. His claim that there is “massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife” is not true.
*That’s* what’s wrong with it. Go back and read the links I cited in my first post, them read the Lambert link. And then, of course, carry on believing whatever suits you …
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Lomberg’s position is that even if global warming is real and man made it doesn’t make economic sense to pursue a Kyoto like solution. He argues that the limited resources for “good works” should be focussed on projects that are cheaper and will have a larger and more immediate pay-off than Kyoto. These include water purity, preventing HIV and (ironically) malaria.
As for the rest of this “discussion”. It seems to have degenerated into a link-fest pissing competition among people no who are no more qualified than Kerr to judge the quality of the science they propound. By getting distracted by one of his many examples we have neatly avoided discussing any of his actual arguments.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
“When describing the Greens in a general form, which he was, he doesnt have to restrict himself to one thing they said one time.”
Hows abouts you read what I wrote. Do you think that MAYBE I was saying that he had every right to discuss the Greens stance on DDT rather than solely the issues brought up in the most recent business “charm offensive”?
Lets see what I can stich together using the RB Selective Quoter Machine
October 11th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Russell,
‘His claim that there is “massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife” is not true.’
‘*That’s* what’s wrong with it. Go back and read the links I cited in my first post’
Your links say nothing of the sort. The first link was a “suggestion” by researchers.
The second was a “positive association”.
The third link states that “DDT is generally non-toxic” but that there “might” be risks.
The scientific terminology for these types of findings is “weak”. For the statement “DDT to be not harmful to humans or wildlife” to be false, scientific reports would have to use _far_ stronger language with far greater impact. As things stand, DDT is less toxic than licorice or coffee.
October 11th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
“How is the comments section coming along?”
So we’ve reached the familiar point in the conversation where you run out of arguments …
But seeing as you ask, yes, I have some commercial plans along those lines, and a little more besides. It’s not as simple as turning on comments: we use a bespoke CMS and we have to build it, and I like to pay my developers these days. I also need to work out how to handle moderation. So, like the lady says, it won’t happen overnight …
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Aren
October 11th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
RB: “Berend, what I said was that that the Greens supported the bill. Fitzsimons didn’t even flag the emergency provisions as a concern in her speech.”
Please Wussel, can you read? The bill wanted to phase out DDT (its “goal” as I quoted). Jeanette doesn’t raise any concerns about this phasing out part. Surprise.
But I see you have backed down from your first post where you twisted things into: “Jeanette supported the use of DDT for malaria control.”
Or are supporting facts for that twist still coming?
October 11th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Berend da Bore,
Congratulations! You win the “don’t let the truth get in the way of a good argument award” for today. Particularly of merit is your comment:
“Every 12 seconds a human being unnecessarily dies because the greenies worldwide oppose DDT.”
In a recent article in the NYT they checked the policies of Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature and, guess what, they don’t oppose the use of DDT for fighting Malaria.
Moreover, resurgence of Malaria in parts of the Developing World is, in part, the result of mosquitoes developing resistance to the chemical. A consequence of overuse of DDT for agricultural purposes – something that greenies have opposed.
Don’t let inconvenient facts like this stop you though.
Kimble,
You deserve praise too – particularly for your grasp of logic: using the claim that the Greens indulge in ad hominem attacks as the basis for your ad hominem attack on them. Well done
Adolf,
Are you sure that your close involvement with pesticide hasn’t damaged you in some way. Your comment provides intriguing evidence for this.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
The use of Tim Lambert as a reference site all but disqualifies the poster from being considered rational ! Lambert has had his head handed to him on a plate so often it is a wonder that he knows where it is right now. Then again, as he apparently relentlessly trolls the net for each and every reference to his name, expect a post here RSN.
Oddly enough though, Lambert actually has some nuggets of information, and on DDT he as close as he comes to sense. DDT was senselessly and harmfully overused as an agricultural pesticide in many places. It was largely abandoned as a general pesticide and environmental groups assisted in that although it is stretching a point to claim that they were alone in such efforts.
However DDT is still useful in malaria control if appropriately used, it is cheap and effective although by no means a “magic bullet”. It was extremely effective in some areas in the 50′s and 60′s, and the early cessation of its use in malaria control is quite possibly due to its very success rather than any conspiracy, green or otherwise.
Right-wingers of various stripes would do well to properly research the background to their accusations on this matter, their assertions about the original reasons why DDT stopped being used are probably largely incorrect. However Greens should also do the same, there have been a number of attempts to completely ban DDT for any use at all by “environmental” groups, and green assertions on the effects of DDT are also frequently embroidered.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
No, Mr Brown we reach the the familiar part of the conversation where yet again you have been spiked so you decide to ‘move right along quickly.’ Do share with us your wide knowledge of toxicology, Do you know your oral LD50 from your LTSA or your LED?
October 11th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
terence, look up the term ad hominem. Seriously, you need to. Also,
” guess what, they don’t oppose the use of DDT for fighting Malaria.” Gosh, that would be a good point… if it actually meant anything. They may not oppose it NOW but that doesnt mean they didnt oppose it THEN.. you know.. back when it may have really mattered.
Oh, and very nice logic, RB.
“So we’ve reached the familiar point in the conversation where you run out of arguments”
Except, I didnt argue any of your points. You miscontrued the argument I did make and I corrected you. You havent countered any of my arguments, so there doesnt seem to be any need to further my case.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
PM: There are two separate studies referred to above: one in 2003 and one reported last month. There was also the Longnecker study in 2001:
http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010719/pf/010719-3_pf.html
That was based on follow-up research on 42,000 American women from whom blood samples were taken in the 50s and 60s, and their 55,000 children. It found that high levels of DDT may have tripled mothers’ chances of having a pre-term birth. The same resarchers also found an independent correlation between low birth weight and DDT exposure.
If you can equate all those with “massive evidence” of *no* harm to humans, *which is what Roger Kerr claimed*, then I humbly bow to your rhetorical skills.
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Russell,
Surely as a journalist, you should know that “may have” is not the same thing as “proven”, which is what you are insinuating. It isn’t a matter of rhetorical skills but knowing standard english.
As for the link between DDT usage and pre-term births, I would expect a number of other linkages to arise. Why? Because people living in regions where DDT was regularly used are most likely to be poor people. So disentangling the usage of DDT from the general issue of problems caused by poverty is something that can’t be easily worked out.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Berend, what exactly is wrong with wanting to “phase out” the use of a highly environmentally persistent chemical that has demonstrated minor impacts on human health and some aspects of the broader environment as well as major toxicity to other aspects like invertebrate aquatic life (Kerr is just wrong on that point, as far as the cdc and extoxnet)?
I think it is realistic to keep DDT as an option for the time being and absolutely sensible to seek alternatives to its use in the meantime. Which is precisely what the Stockholm Convention sets out. Where is the hatred for humanity in wanting to improve an imperfect situation? And where is your evidence that any contemporary, mainstream environmental group, let alone the Greens in New Zealand today, are opposed to the considered use of DDT while alternatives are pursued? You have nothing but a knee jerk opposition to ideas that may have some sympathy from environmentalists or anyone whose political views you disagree with.
And Kimble, there is a lot wrong with Kerr’s statements about DDT. They are just wrong. He is welcome to whatever opinion he likes about the Greens, but if he’s going to try and back them up he should try and do so without the rabid sensationalism of statements like “massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife”. There are plenty of links here, or you could just Google it and look for your preferred GO, IGO, NGO or industry body. They all say pretty much the same thing.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Peter a casual glance at the article Wussell – sorry, Russell – linked to would have saved you the effort of your post:
‘After controlling for factors known to contribute to premature birth, such as smoking, income level and size of the mother, the researchers found that the likelihood of premature birth in their sample increased with increasing DDE concentrations.’
You might also want to look into the term ‘independent correlation’.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Kimble,
Here’s a deal: I promise to use a dictionary if you promise to take a basic reading course.
BDB wrote:
“Every 12 seconds a human being unnecessarily dies because the greenies worldwide oppose DDT.”
Take close note of the present tense there (a/dies/oppose) – this is indicative of why NOW is relevant.
As for Ad homenim – my understanding is that, when used in the vernacular (rather than in the Philosophy of logic) it refers to attacking the person rather than the point.
Here’s a quote for you (from you):
“they [the Greens] are some of the most closed minded individuals in NZ politics.”
Well hey…
October 11th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Let me quote from a document, signed by 260 environmental groups: “Once a substance is listed as a POP, it is inappropriate to accept its continued generation and release into the environment. We reject the claim that emissions and releases of POPs can be effectively managed and controlled. When a substance is listed as a POP, the plan of action set out by the agreement should set out a time-table to stop all its uses and all its emissions. The elimination of a POP should not be gauged by its measured presence in the environment. A POP has no acceptable emission limit, no acceptable daily intake, and no acceptable level in the environment;”
From: http://www.portaec.net/library/pollution/i_p_e_n.html
That is what the greenies actually believe. That’s what they campaign for. No acceptable emission limit. No matter what. Because of the environment. Regardless of the cost to human beings.
Let me quote another person: “Few things compare for drama with an effective DDT spraying programme. In its heyday, DDT was successfully used to eradicate malaria from some nations (United States, Europe) and to lower case rates by over 99% in others (Sri Lanka, India). In South Africa it was used to eradicate the two most dangerous species of malaria mosquitoes, Anopheles funestus and A gambiae, from the country. All this SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES.
So, if DDT can be this successful, why ban it? The latest campaign stems from charges that DDT is an “endocrine disrupter” whose ability to cause harm (like Melville’s Moby Dick and all excellent monsters since) is both indiscriminate and vast. The World Wildlife Fund and Physicians for Social Responsibility indict DDT chillingly: as a carcinogen, a teratogen, an immunosupressant, and so on.
All this would be worrisome if it were true.”
Precisely.
Source: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7273/1403#B1-1
I don’t know why people here still claim that the greens have not campaigned against ANY use of DDT.
We can have a discussion on the merits of DDT, but we cannot have a discussion that it works. It did work. It controlled malaria.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
As it seems people here like the Lancet, let me give another quote from it: “Very few other chemicals have been given such extensive scrutiny, and there is still no epidemiological or human toxicological evidence to impugn DDT”
Smith AG. How toxic is DDT? Lancet 2000; 356: 267-268
October 11th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Wikipedia on the effects of the Stockholm Convention, used by Wussell as a sign that Jeanette was so happy about usage of DDT for malaria control: “Countries can apply for exemptions to use DDT for health reasons. The WHO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) review the DDT exemption every three years. Rules and regulations regarding the trade, storage and use of DDT under the convention have made DDT use MORE DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
But it doesn’t really matter. Only those people in non-white regions are affected by malaria, so if it is expensive for poor countries to control malaria, who gives?
October 11th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
A recent editorial in the British Medial Journal: “Roll Back Malaria: a failing global health campaign”
“And what about the third tool, insecticides? Here we need a re-think. The Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty aims to completely phase out global use of dicophane (DDT), while many donor agencies will not fund any malaria control programmes that use this insecticide. But dicophane is effective, with a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions. Malaria cases soared in the KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa after it stopped using dicophane in 1996. Its reintroduction together with artemisinin based combination therapy for treating malaria brought the disease back under control. Dicophane, a “dirty word” in the malaria world, must surely be reintroduced into the conversation on rolling back malaria.”
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7448/1086
Roger Kerr was right. Worldwide the Greens have consistently campaigned to ban DDTs, regardless of the cost to human lives, and without regard for scientific facts. They are scary, not harmless do gooders.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Berend – I’m at somewhat of a loss to figure out what you’re arguing, and who you’re disagreeing with. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that DDT is an effective anti-malarial agent, or that it should be unconditionally banned.
As I see it, the current points of contention are:
1. Do the Green Party want to ban DDT? As you’ve pointed out some overseas environmental groups are in favour of a total ban. They don’t speak for the New Zealand Green Party, however – and you’ve failed spectacularly to provide any proof that the NZ Greens have called for a total ban, while RB has provided sound evidence to the contrary.
2. Is DDT harmful to humans? The answer is that no one knows for sure. However, there have been more than enough studies carried out that strongly suggest that there are links between human health and DDT levels in the blood-stream. This makes Kerrs claim that there is ‘massive evidence’ against claims that the substance is harmful to humans a falsehood.
Invent all the straw-man arguments you like – these are the points of contention.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
ah, but terence, the fact that they NOW support DDT use for malaria (which they dont, they are calling for a phase out and eventual abandonment of the ddt being used) doesnt alter the fact that they fervently oppposed it in the PAST. It is those actions and efforts which meant that DDT isnt being used as widely today as it could be.
For arguments sake, lets say that in the past I was against a particular stem-cell research based cure, and I took actions like discrediting it unfairly, scaremongering etc, which meant that cure wasnt widely used. Even IF I later changed my mind, the fact that it isnt as widely used today and saving as many lives as it could is in part my fault.
People are dying today because of the IDF’s actions back when it mattered.
As for the ad homenim, ask yourself this. Is it possible to criticise anyones actions without it being an ad homenim attack? Can you refer to someones arguments or philosophy being a certain way without it being ad homenim? Because that is all I have done. I have criticised the Greens for not being open minded, for not being willing to even listen to opposing arguments in many cases.
When the topic is whether or not a person is particularily liked, the only way to avoid your definition of ad homenim attack is to say absolutely nothing at all.
And now for my first statement on DDT itself. It is not harmful to humans normally. There has been one (unreplicated, to the best of my knowledge) study which found a correlation between DDT and preterm births. The study time frame was when it was being (over-)used in agriculture. No study has been done on the low exposure of ddt for malaria control. Also, the study mentioned previously was conducted in 2001 (I could be corrected on this), several decades AFTER green organisations claimed that DDT was a great harm to humans.
Also, whilst ddt resistant mosquitos probably do exist, this does not mean that DDT is any less ineffective in preventing malaria, given that it still acts as a deterant.
I havent been able to find any proof that DDT is harmful to humans in the low doses required to prevent malaria. And if I cant find any TODAY, how could people three decades ago have found any?
October 11th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Berend, can I have some acknowledgement that, as Russel pointed out, the HASNO act, which the Greens and National supported, has clauses that allow for the use of DDT in NZ in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY case that it is required, and that therefore the Greens are not the extremists you and Roger Kerr paint them as?
Something just occurred to me, you’re about to start a DDT retail venture, aren’t you? Otherwise I can’t fathom the time you’ve spent tireslessly campaigning its benefits…
October 11th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
dim, Jeanette wants to unconditionally ban DDTs. As I have previously quoted: “The Greens, of course, are happy to see ANY PROGRESS on getting RID of some of the worst environmental contaminants anywhere in the world.”
That is quite the opposite of what RB tried to let Jeanette say, namely that she only wanted to ban agricultural use. That’s simply not true. She wants to GET RID OF THEM. IS THAT CLEAR?
And as I’ve quoted, reputable journals (let me include the Lancet here), have come out with articles saying there is no evidence DDT is harmful. That’s a bit more than “no one knows for sure”. You seem to argue no one has been looking. The opposite is the case. Lots of people looked, and there is no evidence it is harmful.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
All right. I should finally go and do some work. I think we’ve established that, as the WHO, Greenpeace and others say, the use of DDT for malaria control (as opposed to as an agricultural pesticide) should be approved as a lesser evil.
While its harmfulness to humans is a matter of debate, at least three studies in the past four years have linked environmental exposure to DDT to reproductive health problems. There may be flaws in all these studies, but they would seem to put rest the idea that there is “massive evidence” of it posing *no harm* to humans. In larger quantities than might be typically be expected from environmental exposure, its toxicity is in no doubt. So don’t sprinkle it on your kids’ breakfast cereal.
In the end, this isn’t about science. DDT has become a conservative cause celebre in the past five years, the subject of a “Bring back DDT” campaign as it were, focused on the idea that the environmental movement stands guilty of the deaths of millions of millions in the third world by blocking the use of a harmless substance. This is doubtless where Kerr got his facts from. I’ll leave you with a good blog post from two Australian scientistists (parasitologists, so they should know) referring to a column in The Australian that made precisely these claims. It’s quite good:
CHRISTOPHER Pearson (Inquirer, 24-25/1) blames “the environmental lobby . . . with direct responsibility for millions of needless deaths, mostly of children in the Third World, from malaria”. The argument is that Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring falsely accused the insecticide DDT of dangers to both human health and the environment, that this accusation led to the banning of DDT in mosquito control programs in areas where malaria is endemic (mostly the tropics), and as a direct result of this ban, millions of people died.
This argument is arrant nonsense, recycled from an article in Quadrant, in turn recycled from a number of unscientific and unsubstantiated websites. As professionals and teachers in the field of parasite disease control, we are only too well aware of how such rubbish can be transmuted from cyberspace junk to popular folklore. Your readers should be aware of the facts:
The manufacture and use of DDT was banned in the US in 1972, on the advice of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The use of DDT has since been banned in most other developed nations, but it is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate chemicals.
DDT usage for malaria control involves spraying the walls and backs of furniture, so as to kill and repel adult mosquitoes that may carry the malaria parasite. Other chemicals are available for this purpose, but DDT is cheap and persistent and is often a very effective indoor insecticide which is still used in many parts of the world.
DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors.
Reductions in the use of DDT did occur in a number of developing nations after the US ban in 1972. This reflected concerns over environmental consequences of DDT, but was also a result of many other factors. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. This problem, in fact, was anticipated by Carson: “No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored . . . The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse.”
Malaria is a major, ongoing disease problem in much of the developing world. Increases in the incidence of the disease have occurred for complex reasons. Reduced insecticide usage is one, but others include the resistance to treatment in both the parasite and the mosquito vectors, changes in land use that have provided new mosquito habitat, and the movement of people into new, high-risk areas.
Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor.
Malaria is responsible for enormous suffering and death. The facts are readily available in the scientific literature. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong. To blame a mythical, monolithic entity called the environmental lobby for the total reduction in DDT usage is not just paranoid, it is also demonstrably wrong. Your article is not only poor journalism, it is an insult to the people who work for the control of parasitic diseases that afflict developing nations.
Dr Alan Lymbery
Professor Andrew Thompson
Parasitology Unit
Division of Health Sciences
Murdoch University
http://kenethmiles.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_kenethmiles_archive.html#107570569615970184
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
“Invent all the straw-man arguments you like – these are the points of contention.”
Berend and others have spent quite a bit of time providing references and comments suggesting the complete ban on DDT chased by the Green Party and similarly-minded organisations is wrong and has probably harmed many more people that it could ever have saved. Why don’t you respond with counter-references rather than trying to assign yourself the role of referee, when it is obvious you are no neutral bystander to this argument.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Berend, are you capable of reading an entire document or does your mind wander of to dreams of dusting the world with magic pesticides to rid yourself of dirty lefties?
From the same source:
a) “For the listed POP pesticides, measures should be taken torapidly phase out remaining production and subsequent remaininguse as alternatives are made available for the small number of remaining recognized uses.”
e) “[S]ocio-economic factors should be addressed in developing and implementing international action [on POPs] including the following: Possible impacts on food production; …possible impacts on human health (e.g., for vector control agents); …need for capacity-building in countries and regions; …financing concerns and opportunities; and possible trade impacts….”
Hardly advocating elimination of POPs “regardless of the cost to human beings”. And your other link hardly damns efforts to mitigate the harms and potential harms of DDT. The second author in particular supports the development of alternatives, while managing the use in the meantime, while the first just makes a case not to end the use of DDT as a localised application to interior surfaces. There is nothing inconsistent in there with the environmental policies the Greens have supported.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
The Greens’ interpretation on what the Stockholm Convention would contain, when it was being negotiated:
“A global and legally binding convention for the ELIMINATION of POPs is currently being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This is a result of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. UNEP has since concluded “..that immediate international action should be initiated to protect human health and the environment through measures which will reduce/and/or eliminate the emissions and discharges of the 12 persistent organic pollutants [POPs]…”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR3414.html
October 11th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
New Zealand not at risk of Malaria? Not according to Jeanette: “New Zealanders are under-rating the risk of malaria spreading to this
country, Alliance Environment Spokesperson and Green Party Co-Leader
Jeanette Fitzsimons said today.”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR3580.html
October 11th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Berend, are you capable of reading an entire document or does your mind wander of to dreams of dusting the world with magic pesticides to rid yourself of dirty lefties?
From the same source:
a) “For the listed POP pesticides, measures should be taken torapidly phase out remaining production and subsequent remaininguse as alternatives are made available for the small number of remaining recognized uses.”
e) “[S]ocio-economic factors should be addressed in developing and implementing international action [on POPs] including the following: Possible impacts on food production; …possible impacts on human health (e.g., for vector control agents); …need for capacity-building in countries and regions; …financing concerns and opportunities; and possible trade impacts….”
Hardly advocating elimination of POPs “regardless of the cost to human beings”. And your other link hardly damns efforts to mitigate the harms and potential harms of DDT. The second author in particular supports the development of alternatives, while managing the use in the meantime, while the first just makes a case not to end the use of DDT as a localised application to interior surfaces. There is nothing inconsistent in there with the environmental policies the Greens have supported.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
dont bother Al, Wussell in particular much prefers to pretend to be neutral while in fact playing an utterly partisan hand.
It helps if you realise that all right thinking hip lefties – just like all wussel’s friends, think the same way about most things – and because “everybody” thinks this way – it must be the normal and natural state of affairs.
therefore anyone who disagrees, is both wrong and an extremist
coming to this late, its most amusing to see how the normal RB trick of dropping quotes from on high with his special patient *talking to the righties* tone, immediately sharpens and becomes more zealous and strident when he gets pinged for misrepresentation.
QED
October 11th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
“Many green crusades have been responsible for human misery and environmental damage.”
Yes Sir. The Iraq debacle, for example – thousands killed, maimed, all that depleted uranium . . . that wasn’t the greens doing? My bad.
Seems to be DPF’s job to perform handstands whenever Kerr opens his mouth.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Berend,
Why is the elimination of DDT and other such pesticides a problem here in NZ? The Greens support the Stockholm Convention, which as you’ve pointed out, directs the phasing out of such chemicals when better alternatives present themselves. The bit about “…through measures which will reduce/and/or eliminate the emissions and discharges…” doesn’t mean we get rid of it overnight without thought or without replacement.
If we got a malaria epidemic today, and DDT was all that was available, then this is what we use. I’d be interested in any information you had to show that the Greens would block DDT in such an event.
Besides, in NZ, we can use something like Bacillus thuringiensis, which is the chemical used in the recent Painted Apple Moth and Asian Gypsy Moth programmes in Auckland and Hamilton. DDT most likely wouldn’t be necessary. But you can bathe in it if it makes you feel better…..
And thanks for that quote about the malaria risk from Jeanette Fitzsimons. It’s to do with that Global Warming thingy you don’t believe in.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Tim: “I think there needs to be hard analysis of many of Green policies.”
Tim: “Green policies probably have less rationale than a suicide bomber. They simply cannot look past banning something or taxing it. And they have never heard of cost-benefit analysis”
Tim,
I’d accusing you of blatant lies, except I think you’re too ignorant to be lying here.
If you want to comment on the Greens policies, then read them first. They’re posted on their website. Try their energy policy for a start, if you want to talk cost-benefit analysis. Graduate to their transport policy.
You may not *agree* with their policies. That’s fine. But at least you should stop talking complete nonsense about them.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
“There may be flaws in all these studies,” So they are wrong but accurate?
“but they would seem to put rest the idea that there is “massive evidence” of it posing *no harm* to humans.”
AHA! I have found what Kerr did wrong. There are indeed many studies which cant find any link between DDT and harm to humans, BUT, you cannot prove a negative. So there is no way to PROVE that DDT does NOT harm people, all you can say is that there is little evidence it does.
There cant be a MASS of evidence showing no harm, simply a mass of inconclusive evidence.
“In larger quantities than might be typically be expected from environmental exposure,” Than might EVER be expected in household malaria prevention.
“its toxicity is in no doubt.” In large enough quantities vitamin C is toxic, whats your point?
“So don’t sprinkle it on your kids’ breakfast cereal.” Gee thanks, Professor, first sugar now DDT? Well, at least we still have anthrax!
“In the end, this isn’t about science.” FINALLY an admission, oh wait..
“DDT has become a conservative cause celebre in the past five years” As opposed to being the green cause celebre for the past 35 years. And what is the conservatives crim ein this instance?…
“the subject of a “Bring back DDT” campaign”. Of course this is completely at odds with…
” the WHO, Greenpeace and others say, the use of DDT for malaria control …should be approved as a lesser evil.” Or maybe it isn’t.
So the greedy conservatives saying “Bring Back DDT” are completely different from the enlightened greenies saying “DDT for malaria control …should be approved”.
I will leave you with something that I quickly found copied and pasted, I think it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand,
“Bum Fluff
Facial hair that is so sparse it can be considered as good as the fluff on one’s bottom.
“That’s not a moustache – that’s bum fluff”
Hmm, interesting, but in the interests of being openminded, an alternative opinion,
“Bum Fluff
Originating from leprechaun rectums in south ireland, bum fluff is the fibres of sweaty underwear that sticks to the scrotum and “Batty criece” when a respectable amount of sweat has been produced that day. On a hot day, people may be seen pulling their underwear out of the arse with their hands, this usually occurs when bum fluff is present.
“Ooh it’s hot today isn’t it?” *pulls underwear from bum crack*
-or-
“I think i better have a shower, my bum is currently covered in smelly wool.”"
October 11th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Kimble,
Before I go any further can you please promise me that you are not actually some devious liberal parodying a right winger for laughs. I am starting to suspect that you are. I mean, you wrote:
October 11th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
You’ve got to laugh when the professor from Murdock Uni (Is that Perth WA?) talks about DDT being deliberately left out of a total ban on organophosphates. Only one teensy problem. DDT is not an organophosphate. If he doesn’t know his phosphates from his chlorines how does he tell his arse from his elbow? Don’t know? Just ask Russell, he knows everything about anything. Not until later did I see the good professor is himself a CArsonogen. The fool quotes Rachael Carson as an authority. Say no more.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Heh. I was wondering when Adolf, Berend et al would drag AL in to save their sorry hides from total humiliation.
I dispute the claim that the pro-DDT team have cited any worthwhile sources. All they seem to have done in this thread is take random statements out of context from a variety of environmental and scientific sources.
And now they’ve come to the conclusion that there is NO evidence that DDT is harmful (apparently the various studies concluding the opposite don’t count as evidence. Well, it’s impractical, but I propose there’s only one way to settle this: the Sir Humphries boys will just have to obtain some DDT (a couple litres of 10g/cm3 should do the trick) and drink it down. If you’re still alive in an hour then I’ll admit I’m wrong. You can share it with the rest of the Sir H’s crew as well (you’ll still be exposing yourself to several dozen times the median lethal dose, so I feel I can afford to be generous).
Well?
October 11th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Heh. I was wondering when Adolf, Berend et al would drag AL in to save their sorry hides from total humiliation.
I dispute the claim that the pro-DDT team have cited any worthwhile sources. All they seem to have done in this thread is take random statements out of context from a variety of environmental and scientific sources.
And now they’ve come to the conclusion that there is NO evidence that DDT is harmful (apparently the various studies concluding the opposite don’t count as evidence). Well, it’s impractical, but I propose there’s only one way to settle this: the Sir Humphries boys will just have to obtain some DDT (a couple litres of 10g/cm3 should do the trick) and drink it down. If you’re still alive in an hour then I’ll admit I’m wrong. You can share it with the rest of the Sir H’s crew as well (you’ll still be exposing yourself to several dozen times the median lethal dose, so I feel I can afford to be generous).
Well?
October 11th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Tane: “If we got a malaria epidemic today, and DDT was all that was available, then this is what we use. I’d be interested in any information you had to show that the Greens would block DDT in such an event.”
Well, of course, they wouldn’t. As we noted bloody hours ago, they voted for a bill with just that provision.
“Besides, in NZ, we can use something like Bacillus thuringiensis, which is the chemical used in the recent Painted Apple Moth and Asian Gypsy Moth programmes in Auckland and Hamilton. DDT most likely wouldn’t be necessary. But you can bathe in it if it makes you feel better…..”
It’s funny, really, because I *did* strongly disagree with the Greens over the painted apple moth spraying (it doesn’t take much to get me disagreeing with Sue Kedgely). I was actually mildly allergic to the spray, but I went and read the research and decided that the use of BT, while it might cause temporary distress to some people (me included), was justified and posed little long-term risk.
Cheers,
RB
PS: Berend: your quote from the Lancet was from 2000. Mine was from last month. Which one do you think might be better appraised of current research?
October 11th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
terence, settle the fuck down, take a ritalin, chill bro, seriously. The mosquitos may be DDT resistant, but that just means it doesn kill them. They still dont like being around it, and they will avoid it if they can. There. Feel like a dick now? Wish you could take back your comment? Well you cant.
As for your second point, well, the topic being discussed was the greens. Remember when DPF wrote, “on why the Greens’ charm offensive failed.”
Remember when I wrote, “The very reason why the Greens fail to connect is exactly because…”.
Kerrs article wasnt about DDT, it was about the Greens not being successful in their charm offensive because they arent as harmless as they seem to think they are. At best DDT was only one example, only 54 words out of 814.
Discussing why the charm offensive didnt work, and why they will not work in the future, is very difficult to do without discussing the greens themselves.
Until the second to last post, I didnt even express an opinion on Kerrs correctness of fact with regards to DDT.
Ahem, “The very reason why the Greens fail to connect is exactly because, for all their talk about cooperation, they are some of the most closed minded individuals in NZ politics.”
If you think it is ironic that I would use (as you see it) ad homenim attacks on the Green’s ad homenim attacks on others, then you are going to shit yourself sideways with the irony in someone using ad homenim attacks on someone using ad homenim attacks on the Green’s ad homenim attacks on others himself using ad homenim attacks on someone else.
“His colum[n] just illustrates how uninterested he is in dialogue.”
October 11th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Russell,
“…Well, of course, they wouldn’t. As we noted bloody hours ago, they voted for a bill with just that provision.”
It was a rhetorical question aimed at the likes of Berend, Kimble and co. But thanks for pointing this out, you’ve saved them the trouble of having to compromise their principles and admit the Greens would put people before ideology.
I’d also like them to talk about why we would want DDT in this country, if BT could do the job instead.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Kimbles starting to talk tough. I’m getting a woody.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Kimble,
You wrote:
“Wish you could take back your comment? Well you cant.”
erm no….not until you can provide me with some evidence that Mosquitoes – which are resistant to DDT – still avoid DDT spreayed areas because they “don’t like it”.
I don’t have a problem with ad homs.; they have their place when used with evidence and as part of an overall coherant arguement. My original point to you about ad homs. is that you are self-contradicting when you engage in an ad hom. on someone and then accuse them (in the same post) of doing the same thing.
I don’t know about taking any Ritalin myself;(so close to dinner and all) but you might want to lay off the stuff.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Kiwiblog needs comment management. This discussion is ridiculous.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Kimble: “The mosquitos may be DDT resistant, but that just means it doesn kill them. They still dont like being around it, and they will avoid it if they can”
T’would be a good trick, given that DDT is tasteless and nearly odourless. Honestly, *give up* on that one …
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
I agree, but what do you expect when the original posting by David Farrar was ridiculous?
October 11th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
I think Kimbles confused DDT with DEET.
Meanwhile, in an alternate reality very different from our own, Sir Humpreys has declared themselves the winners of this little debate.
See them crow here
October 11th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
“Meanwhile, in an alternate reality very different from our own, Sir Humpreys has declared themselves the winners of this little debate.”
That’s so funny. Honestly, part of the reason I occasionally kick into these debates is for the sheer, spluttering spectacle those men provide.
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Love you too, Russell.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Ms Marple, let me go over it again. A bit slower, ok?
Claim: “the Greens have advocated bans on DDT.” Status: proven. See this for the worldwide green position on this issue: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
Counterclaim: “but they’ve signed documents wherein use of DDT is allowed under specific circumstances for a short period of time.” Well, as even of those conventions admit: the goal is to ban DDT. And as Jeanette said: every small step in the right direction is to be applauded.
Counterclaim 2: “But the Greens are happy with spraying of DDT on interior walls!” Doesn’t do a lot for countries where outdoor transmission is the predominant form, as in India…
Along comes a Wussellism: “the fact that they signed the Stockholm Convention is proof that the Greens that they APPROVE of the use of DDT”. That is utter bullocks of course. If you sign a document that wants to abolish DDT as soon as possible doesn’t mean you approve its use!
And the whole Green world campaigned for an outright ban in the Stockholm Convention!! They didn’t get it, but not because they APPROVED of its use. RB, how can you claim they approve its use if all the greenies have campaigned for a ban in this convention??? You’re completely nuts. That’s the only reason I could come up with to explain this position.
And of course, Wussel cannot quote a source for his opinion that the Greens approve of DDT. Because no greenie actually believes what he claims they believe.
If Wussell gets a Green MP on his show who is willing to admit that: “I unconditionally support the use of DDT to fight maleria, and believe there should be no restrictions on its use nor on programs that use DDT to prevent malaria nor on financing for such programs” I will give $100 to an organisation of Wusssell’s choice. I really hope I lose this bet. I rather pay $100 and see some support against unnecessary deaths in Africa than being proven right.
There’s another interpretation on this that is also not suported by the facts: “The Greens are comfortable with the use of DDT until a better replacmeent comes along.” That’s what some here are willing to read. But the Greens are campaigning for ELIMINATION, not for responsble use.
And how do you know that a replacement works? You don’t use DDT of course. And you experiment with human lives. And if that leads to a couple of million dead children, you say sorry. Oops. Replacement didn’t work.
The Greens campaign to eliminate DDT has had the following documented effects (all from links I’ve posted earlier):
1. Donor organizations have often refused to fund public health DDT programs.
2. Many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from the US.
3. In 1977 environmental groups sued to ban exports of DDT, after which many countries could no longer obtain any.
4. The World Bank extended $165 million dollars to India’s malaria sufferers, but specified that no DDT could be used.
5. Dozens of other countries, where massive numbers of malaria deaths continue to occur, also cannot receive financial aid unless they agree to control mosquitoes by not using DDT.
6. In 1986 Secretary of State George Schultz telegraphed orders to all embassies stating that “The U. S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: … DDT …
That is what the Greens are about: eliminating DDT, regardless of scientic studies. As dim said: “I don’t think anyone’s disputing that DDT is an effective anti-malarial agent”. So why advocate for an unconditional ban which the green movement has been trying to do?
Because of scientific studies that prove it’s harmful? Wussell’s post shows that there were no such studies. He has abandoned his search to come up with studies from the past that show that DDT was harmful as there are no such studies. He now has some new studies. But that wasn’t the point. The point was if the Green’s support for eliminating DDT was based on scientific fact, AT THAT TIME. If there are no such studies at that time, there position wasn’t based on science, but on scaremongering.
So let’s recap:
1. The green movement advocated for a world wide ban coming into effect in 2007 as part of the Stockholm Convention.
2. There is no effective replacement for DDT.
3. Jeanette viewed the Stockholm Convention as a step in the right direction, i.e. the elimination. Nowhere is she on the record saying she is opposed to an outright ban, not even that she thinks DDT is an effective anti-malaria agent.
4. Countries are severely punished for using DDT, such that most of them have dropped the use of DDT, leading to many more malaria cases then before the use of DDT, leading to many more deaths.
QED.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Sorry, a little Off Topic: Hi Russell. Wouldn’t it be more PC to say “spluttering spectacle those people provide” ? SH has gone from boys to men on this thread, but there are 8 of us and 1 is female.
Also, I understand you have a “blog” with several contributors. I’ve tended to treat them all as individuals, with their own distinct (possibly overlapping) opinions to your good self. Is it possible the 8 commenters on SH are capable of holding (at least slightly) different opinions?
I know you said we are “all nasty all of the time” but statistically, the odds are improving one of us might take a moment away from our Bad Jelly the Witch Schedule.
Just a thought. Back to the bun fight folks.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Berend, you can go as slow as you like; you’re still misreading arguments, misrepresenting sources, misunderstanding the debate and missing the point. It doesn’t matter how much drivel you can fit into a comment, it’s still drivel and it still contributes nothing to the debate as a whole. For rebuttal of each and every one of your points above, try actually rising above your reading age and checking out all of the posts above you.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
actually Ms marple Berend’s points are entirely valid.
Environmentalists did and do oppose DDT. The Stockholm convention is trying to eliminate it, and the horror stories about DDT use were scientifically fraudulent.
To argue that Green groups havent pressured the World Bank or African Governments to link non-use to Aid money is a flat lie, of course they have.
But of course that wasnt the point of the thread was it, it was that the Green charm offensive failed, well given the quality of the lefty/green comment here, you can kind of see why.
If you want another example closer to home, why are african countries denied golden rice and scared of growing GM corn. Oh thats right, its not because it grows well and is much more nutritious than starving to death, its because Euro-Greenies will block Aid to and trade from any country that goes into GM.
Yes, greenies, nice people
October 11th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Wow, that
October 11th, 2005 at 6:32 pm
And my point was that it is not an ad homenim attack when the subject being discussed are the people themselves. I was saying that they dont connect with people because they are uncompromising on certain issues even though they try to project open mindedness about things people dont really care about.
An ad hominem attack is when you ignore what the person says and simply attack their motivations for saying it. For example, if one child says to another, “I think that superman could kick the ass of every other superhero”. And another child responds, “But youre a stinking jew”. Well then, THAT is ad hominem.
If someone says, “I think that these guys will have trouble trying to appear reasonable to alot of people”, and another person says, “Yes, they are uncompromising on too many issues, to the extent of shunning debate or criticism.” Well, now, that ISNT ad hominem.
“erm no….”
No dice, terence. You cant back-track and try to make it seem as if you were really asking a serious question. It is right there for everyone to see.
You were bouncing around like a complete asshat, “How in god
October 11th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
I’m tempted to jump into this debate. Since I know nothing about the facts or background, but I do have a good store of ad hominems, I’m as qualified as 90% of the posters.
But I’d rather take a tangential view of the original statement “Why the Greens’ Charm Offensive Failed” to this utterly fascinating discussion of science by political commentators. I put it to you all that your hostility overrides anything they could say or do, and if that’s marginally reflected in the business community, then they’re pushing shit uphill.
I found it amusing they were going that way in the first place. What could the Greens seriously hope to get from business, which they themselves have declared as the main environmental enemy? It’s one of those pointless parleys where neither side actually has anything to offer the other. Perhaps they were just sounding out the true anti-green sentiment in that camp, which it would seem runs pretty deep.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
David Winter, the market did produce a malarial drug. It was called DDT.
Russell, do a google search for ‘ddt deterrant’ and see what uour favorite paper The Guardian has to say. You really do need to know something about a subject, not just how to use the big words.
October 11th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Wow, Ben! Way to try and drag them all back to the point of the main post!
The Greens see Business as the problem, and themselves as the solution. And Business knows they do.
(Oh and I am willing to retract what I said about the deterrent properties of DDT. Cant be bothered looking it up, but my original source is dubious enough that it wouldnt surprise me if I was put wrong, and it wont bother me if I am put right.)
October 11th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
DDT is an insecticide, Adolf – not an anti-malarial agent.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
quick search found this, cant readily find the primary source though.
“”Resistance” may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/ physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied — this still reduces mosquito-human contact. “This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raiseserious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.”
[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]“
October 11th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Aha, something I can get my teeth into, an argument about informal logic, in particular the use of the ad hominem.
Kimble, you are kind of right about your definition of what an ad hominem is, although (if you will excuse the ad homINEM) not right about how to spell it. It’s attacking the person, not the argument. However, you’re using sleight of hand to hide your own uses of this extremely popular tactic. Any time you attack character rather than argument, you are using it.
Ad hominem is not always irrelevant in political discussions, since character is actually relevant sometimes. For instance, Don Brash being accused of being a flipflopper might give people pause to wonder if he will follow what he says. Helen Clark being childless could give some pause to wonder if she cares about children.
The only real accusation that can be levelled at the ad hominem is that it is not working at the level of logic. Brash may be a flipflopper generally, but not on some points. Helen may be childless and still care about children. These are logical possibilities.
However, logic is by no means the biggest deciding factor in most people’s decisions. Pointing out someone’s using an ad hominem (so long as you spell and pronounce it right) might just make you look like a smartarse university type, and shit people off so they vote against you. Hence it’s popularity as a method, especially, I must say, on forums, where the most common method of dealing with really personal attacks (a punch in the mouth) is not available. That’s both a strength and a weakness of this format.
I apologize for my coming back to the point, I’m just too much of a big picture guy. Which makes me as useless as most politicians. And since DDT was mentioned in the original post, it’s not entirely unreasonable it went deep down that path.
But the originally quoted article by Kerr pretty much backed up my earlier post here. He (as the executive director of the business roundtable) simply had no time for anything they might say. His article was a diatribe against them. Most of his points included no reference to any Green party response to any of his points, or indeed any reference to any discussion held at all. It was the parley before the offensive, it seems. And this article is his speech to his troops – ‘the business roundtable will never surrender for those evil little men want to make the whole world a green-land’.
It doesn’t seem to occur to Kerr that a discussion is a two way process, and his only solution is that the green position must move. Right-going Zax, it seems.
If that’s an ad hominem, fine. I voted Green so I’m not apologizing for thinking Kerr’s being an arrogant jerk, any more than you ACT supporters will apologize for thinking I’m a silly pinko.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Apologies for the spelling, but I never did Latin at school. I disagree that with ad hominem attacks “Any time you attack character rather than argument, you are using it.”
To get a little philosophical, where does the argument stop and the man begin? And what is a political party if it is not the personification of the parties ideals?
My definition of ad hominem is an attack on the person making the point rather than the point itself. But if no specific point is presented, as in this case, then a discussion of the character of the subject is fair.
Indeed, the article itself is intended to right some (as Kerr opines) misconceptions about the Greens as being “well-intentioned and at worst harmless, if somewhat utopian in their ideas.”
This is the point. This is the origin of debate.
“Most of his points included no reference to any Green party response to any of his points,” He is not under any obligation to.
” or indeed any reference to any discussion held at all.”
The article was not about the meeting alone. Rather it was about the reasons why the Greens will fail to connect with people across the political divide.
I agree the meeting was a waste of time because both sides went there with nothing to offer the other. And really noone expected it to have any positive outcome or result, (despite what the Green PR machine said afterwards). It was all a put on. The Greens went there so that they would have some sweet PR about being a party open to compromise.
But why would Business bother with it? They dont have the same desire or need for popularity. But it would be in their best interest to attend and try to get some sort of policy concessions or at the very least present their position on certain issues to a party that wouldnt normally give them the time of day.
Either way, Business turning up at all showed that they were willing to take the time and effort to open a dialog. Business in NZ does not have the political influence it does overseas. Here in NZ the voter is the power base. The Greens are answerable to the voter. Business has little or no political power. They arent in any sort of position to bargain with political parties. Nor are they in a position to give concessions. The Greens dont need business. If the Greens want to do something and they have it within their power to do it, they will do it regardless about what Business wants.
Business couldnt GET anything from the meeting, because they arent in a position to DEMAND, they are at the mercy of the Greens to GIVE. Nor could Business GIVE anything as the Greens would simply TAKE if they could.
Business knew this going into the meeting, but they still went, you know, on the off chance. The Greens, however, went for no other reason than PR. Really, if there wasnt an election the meeting wouldnt have happened. Also remember that only one group was standing for election.
October 11th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Hey
What I really like about ‘The Greens’ is they make wonderful statements like they want NZ to buy local, down with multi-nationals blah blah and then turn around and say they want 500,000 Solar Panels (great, good idea I think) only the price will be a bit high so they will force the price down by going with only one supplier.
Well.. guess what.. that will kill off any other Solar Installers already in business here and will probably be supplied by some foreign multinational from a subsidized country.
I must conclude they are either horribly naive or evil undercover multinationalist pretending to be green to remove any suspicion from them as they carry out their dastardly plan of world conquest.
I kinda like the Germans (yes they do have a sort of sense of humour).. they call them ‘Muesli’s’.
Lance
October 11th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Goodness I wake up in Belfast and find 95 comments. Actually excellent to see so many lengthy comments and extracts, references to articles. This is one of the reasons I much prefer blog debates to what you can cover in the media.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
“Just a thought. Back to the bun fight folks.”
Fair call. I do tend to conflate Adolf & AL with SirHumphreys. My apologies.
Cheers,
RB
October 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Kimble, if you want to use the term it’s often a good idea to know not just what you mean by it, but also how it’s more commonly used by other people. That said, your definition is close enough, makes me think you’ve been accused of it before
.
If you really want to get philosophical, you’ve come to the right person, that being one of my majors. But I can’t just answer your question outright, there being very few clear answers in philosophy. My take on where the argument stops and the ad hominem begins is when the counter-point does not address the subject under discussion, and instead addresses the character or other features of the person who raised the point. This person who the ad hominem is against doesn’t actually need to be present, or involved in the discussion, so long as it is their character that is being attacked, to discredit their argument. It would, for instance, be ad hominem for me to say Bush shouldn’t be starting wars because he is a draft dodger himself.
This is why I make the point (clearly, I thought) that ad hominem is not clearly a bad way of arguing, although it is a *logical* fallacy. It’s only bad if you claim to be logical.
Most of the common informal logical flaws can usually be explained away by pointing out the missing premises that the arguer assumed. In the Bush example, my missing premises are:
‘war leaders should not exemplify cowardice and hypocrisy’
‘dodging the draft and starting a war exemplifies cowardice and hypocrisy’
which puts it back on a more logical footing for the conclusion
‘war leaders should not dodge the draft’
and its corollary
‘Draft dodgers should not be war leaders’
I’m only illustrating here – there’s plenty of missing, although evidently implied premises, like:
‘Bush is a war leader’
and
‘Bush is a draft dodger’
furthermore, the premise:
‘war leaders should not exemplify cowardice and hypocrisy’
is an ad hominem in itself until it undergoes a similar padding out.
So all in all, I’m saying in a boring philosophical kinda way that ‘ad hominem’ is no more of a killer point than ‘pinko’ is. You can always show why the ad hominem is relevant by pointing to the missing premises. That would be logical, if tiresome, and (like this post) not in the spirit of forums.
Same goes for most of the informal fallacies – ad baculum, tu quoque, ad misericordium, ad populum, etc etc. Which is why it’s called informal logic in the first place – it’s not an exact science. There’s no formula for appraising arguments in English, just vague principles like ‘sound backing’, ‘good research’, ‘logically connected’, ‘not too fucken rude’, etc. And even those seem to fly in the wind here. At least where the more radical viewpoints are concerned, it would seem.
To respond to some of your other points (ad nauseum):
you say:
“Most of his points included no reference to any Green party response to any of his points,” He is not under any obligation to.
No, of course not. But it would be prudent to, if he wants anyone to see his article as anything but partisan. I’m not going to twist his arm to be impartial.
I’m personally a business owner, an exporter, a green voter (this time), an advocate of our moderate-to-high taxes, and I don’t feel in the least bit represented by Kerr and his clique of monopolists, and a partisan regurgitation of the National party line doesn’t swing me round, I’m sorry.
I don’t agree that each side has nothing to offer the other. That is only true if neither can compromise. And compromise is a two way process.
Nor do I agree that it was a put on. It may have turned into one, due to rigid views on both sides, but these ‘business leaders’ could easily have gesumpted the entire ‘being open to compromise’ PR, by actually *being open to compromise*. As responsible leaders they surely even have an obligation?
You are utterly wrong that Big Business has no desire or need for popularity. It is very important to them, both in terms of sales and in terms of influence on politics. If NZ was as Big-Business-friendly now as it was in the 90s Brash might have got some traction from being supported by them.
As it was their shadowy influence was simply unpopular, and they have no-one to blame but themselves for that. If they didn’t take every opportunity presented to screw customers, staff and the environment, like it’s some kind of mission from God, then Business-friendly wouldn’t be a dirty word.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
RB: No problemo. Judged by the company we keep and all that…
After catching up on the thread, bun fight as it may have been, I find myself impressed that several good points have been made by both “sides” in spite of the bonus words! Most interesting, and somewhat enlightening, IMHO.
Whether we are talking DDT, GE, Dihydrogen Monoxide, the dropping of Diesel exemptions, the side effects of a 500,000 solar panel tender, or paying out a few billion dollars on Kyoto rather than actually spending it on environmental initiatives, I suspect the commenters are right about the general mistrust between Greens and Business.
Frog Blog is currently pushing a book outlining the possible ways of ending capitalism. Apparently, it explores a range of options, including 100% State Control – but this time for good reasons!
There are obviously other options in the book (and I’m going to grab a copy) but whilst there is this undercurrent of the preferred way of doing things versus the “we’ll see how far we get before the revolution” way, the distrust will continue, I suspect.
In general, the solar panel idea is one that might make the Greens work hard to better explain themselves (i.e. we get to read the tender to see how they handle local supply versus supply via an Aussie owned, but Chinese manufactured units) and how they navigate the RMA and what happens when solar panels on office buildings turns out to be a lot less effective than the brochure suggests. Then there is the issue of how they set incentive to those “rich landlords” that don’t make money if the tenant saves on the power bill, but are also struggling under interest rate and council rate rises, and just a hint that the Greens want to hit them with CGT on investment properties…
In general, its a good idea (the solar panels), and will not bankrupt the economy and we get to see Green economics in action, with much to praise or criticise, rather than this theoretical sledging.
I’d vote for it, just to see the effect.
Well, that’s the way I see it.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
That sounds almost like a compromise. You have no future in United Future :0). Nice though. I’m not convinced about solar panels either. If government negotiating power is strong enough to make it cost effective, cool. Currently it’s not economic enough even for a n00b greenie like me.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Look, I’m disappointed that very often the Greens don’t inhabit Planet Science. But the DDT issue is just not evidence of this. GE and Sue Kedgely’s views on immunisation, on the other hand, are.
And there are other, very real, worrying trends in the Green thought, such ZenTiger’s bit on frog and “ending capitalism”. We’ve been down that road a few times and the results we not pleasant.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Kimble,
Good googeling…You have some evidence and, as such, I conceed that DDT may act to repel mosquitos that are resistant to it.
I don’t however “feel like a dick” or, at least, if I do, it is to a lesser extent than you ought to be feeling “like a dick”, given the number of points you have been corrected on in this thread.
I’ll also add here that your evidence is to two studies only and that, if mosquitos are repelled by DDT the effect is still not significant enough to overcome that which is lost when they develop resistance – as is evidenced by countries where Malaria transmission has gone up in the event on resistance developing. So my original point – about not using DDT for agric. purposes being a benefit in its use against Malaria – still stands.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
RB: “Berend: your quote from the Lancet was from 2000. Mine was from last month. Which one do you think might be better appraised of current research?”
I dunno Wussell. If I have a paper from let’s say 1950 that says cold fusion is impossible and another from let’s say from 1989 that says it is possible, which one is better?
October 11th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
Aren’t the greens also the ones that wanted an immediate ban on dihydrogen monoxide?
October 11th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
“quick search found this, cant readily find the primary source though.
“”Resistance” may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/ physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied — this still reduces mosquito-human contact. “This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raiseserious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.”
[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]” ”
It comes from here
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
and this is the Wikipedia page on the author, Steven Milloy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
Chances are if you watch Fox News regularly you would have seen him. I wouldn’t describe him as impartial.
I think the facts about DDT and malaria are a bit lost in the whole right vs. left discussion.
As far as I could tell from some articles I read today a link between DDT and harm to humans can’t be ruled out. But then I’m not a scientist.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
nigel6888, Berend’s points are not entirely valid at all. Environmentalists have and do oppose the use of DDT because it has negative impacts, both human and environmental. The movement against POPs that 260 environmental groups signed up to included caveats for the use of agents like DDT while they remain the only available or effective means of achieving desirable human ends. The Stockholm Convention aims to replace DDT, not to remove it while it is still the most effective means of control. And the horror stories about DDT were about as fraudulent as Roger Kerr’s assertion that there is “massive evidence that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife”. At the time of the panic over DDT the science showed high environmental persistence, high toxicity to aquatic life and impact on the human nervous system and potential to promote tumour growth, particularly in the liver. Now, I’m not going to defend the hysteria in the face of the massive loss of life that can be contributed to it, but to suggest that it was some deliberate Green plot to kill millions of people, or that the environmental lobby celebrated or was even indifferent to the impact of the rise in post-DDT malaria is just pointless left-bashing and has no basis in reality.
The World Bank is rarely if ever influenced by “Greenies”. I think you’ll find that ant-DDT measures were championed largely by the US and later Europe. Their motivation was in large part the potential impact of DDT on waterways and aquatic life – the one area where DDT has consistently demonstrated high toxicity. This is borne out by the fact that it was the use of DDT as a wide area pesticide that was discouraged, not its use in homes and buildings to keep them mosquito free.
And you’re right about the point of the post, but I would suggest you’re wrong in your analysis. The Green Charm Offensive failed in the main because it pitted intractably divergent world views against each other. Much as this post has done.
Your suggestion that Golden Rice, an unproved (both in terms of its core efficacy and its environmental and health impacts – no one has actually eaten it yet!) technology designed for South East Asia and the Indian subcontinent is somehow supposed to be a silver bullet for hunger in Africa if it weren’t for dirty Greenies hating human life is completely stupid. I’d love to have a GE debate with you at some point (I’ve no blanket opposition to it, but I think people who wave it around as a silver bullet to people dying in Africa are totally deluded), but I think you and Berend are struggling enough with DDT at the moment.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:17 am
I’m loath to jump in on this debate since I don’t know/care much about enviro. stuff generally or ddt in particular… I *can* say, however, that Kerr’s POV that ddt has been irrationally eliminated (regardless of whether he’s right to suggest that Greens are to blame for that) is a standard one…I had a professor in grad school who used to have himself dusted down with ddt *during his lecture* to undergrads about all the original bannings to help sell the core point to skeptics (I admit I was glad I didn’t have to TA in that course!). There may be new evidence to suggest that that standard account is wrong (and that the original bannings etc. made at least some sense)…. but, hell, there’s recent reseach suggesting that McCarthy was really onto something and there *were* lots of commie infiltrators in Hollywood and in the US state dept. C’est la vie. The point is that the smart money is still on the standard accounts being broadly right – It’s still very respectable to hold that McCarthy was an ass (despite being right about a few things) and that ddt was prematurely banned – its non-use has caused untoold unnecessary death etc. (despite it being worth avoiding in the odd context).
Kerr’s remarks about the Greens on Katrina and GDP are, however, completely mean-spirited at the very least. Donald’s point when he made the remark was just that GDP measures economic *activity* and leaves out a hell of a lot including even prima facie economic stuff like the fixed assets/sunk cost/benefit stuff that natural disasters often destroy. (The Kobe Earthquake in Japan in the 90′s led to one of best quarters of GDP growth during the decade there I seem to remember – despite being a huge net loss for the japanese economy by any sensible measure) That’s a standard econ. point – all econ. texts have chapters about the shallowness of GDP as an economic measure, consideration of alternatives etc. (Donald wants to use the point as an opening wedge for all sorts of potentially wacko stuff, but set that aside here). It’s somewhat disturbing to see Kerr not grant the basic point, maybe not understand it, and attribute a completely garbled version of it to the Greens.
Bitter partisanship, the first refuge of scoundrels perhaps?
October 12th, 2005 at 8:07 am
The Washington Post just had an article on this subject “Look Who’s Ignoring Science Now”. People here will love the intro:
“The flip side of Bush cronyism is hostility toward experts — toward people who care about what’s what rather than who’s who. Economists have depressingly little influence on the Bush economic policy. Climate scientists are incidental to the Bush climate-change policy. …”
Well, that’s all good stuff isn’t it?
But wait, what’s this? What does that elimination program of the Greens actually mean?
“But the worst culprit is the European Union. It not only refuses to fund DDT spraying: In the case of at least one country, it has also threatened to punish DDT use with import restrictions.”
And so forth. Another killer quote:
“So the sin of the environmental movement — at least of its more responsible exponents — is not that it’s flat wrong on this issue. Instead, it is more subtle. Environmentalists think it’s their responsibility to campaign against the damage done by toxic substances, but not to campaign against the damage done by the over-regulation of substances that actually aren’t very toxic. Of course, the environmentalists’ credibility in calling for necessary regulation would be enhanced if they were willing to denounce unnecessary regulation. But you don’t hear them yelling about the European Union’s absurd position on Uganda.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901255.html
Wussell, it seems you’re out of touch with your left comrades.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Why do you call him Wussell, tough guy?
October 12th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Hey Berend, check out this article:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org/news.php?ID=566&month=September%202005
It basically blames commercial interests rather than environmentalists for EU bans. It also contains a statement from the EU saying they don’t block the use of DDT, but required compliance with maximum residue limits.
Now I’m sure there are counter arguments and we could throw articles yelling bullshit at each other for hours to come. I just didn’t want you to sit there feeling smug for finding some commentator pushing a particular perspective by simplifying aspects of the debate. It doesn’t add much, because it’s pretty much what we’re all doing here already.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:28 am
The Greens arguement often appeal on emotion, not science.
One example (although this is a reverse example) is the way someone conned Sue Kedgley into supporting a ban on water by using a chemical name for water (Dihydrogen Monoxide) and emotive langauge like – ‘used as a coolant in Nuclear Reactors’ and ‘found in many cancer tumours’.
Another example of emotive language is the famous McDonalds Hamburger test. Someone hid a hamburger in a cupboard for two years and then wrote that is must have been full of preservaitves cause it didn’t go mouldy. Of course the actual explanation is that McDonalds thoroughly cooked the burger and therefore it had no moisture for mould to grow!
October 12th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Sue is the main reason I didn’t vote Green. A lot of people seem to feel the same way – hard to grasp why they ranked her over Nandor, although apparently she’s rather more popular within the party.
Meanwhile, back at Sir H’s discussion of this thread , AL is sulking because I’ve – apparently – ‘managed to assign me (AL) to the opposing group without my consent’. Without his consent? Sounds like political correctness gone mad over there!
October 12th, 2005 at 10:35 am
tell you what though, if you microwave a cold big mac to warm it up, it stays warm for a freakishly long time…
October 12th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Has anyone else noticed the pathological obsession the Sir Humphrey’s mob have with Russell? They are still banging on about it. It’s kind of creepy.
October 12th, 2005 at 10:58 am
They’re just flattering him with their attention. Kinda like the kid that teases the girl he likes.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:00 am
It seems the point is being missed here, millions of people are dying from Malaria and related diseases. The use of DDT offers a short term solution with demonstratably dangerous long term effects.
One of the main problems in finding a medical cure or preventative is that there is no profit to be made from such a cure for the western dominated drug companies, simply stated Malaria doesn’t affect the west and the west cannot make alot of money from developing a cure.
Now if this is the problem then who is in actual fact trying to do more to break down this profit driven cycle? Sue Bradford or Roger Kerr?
October 12th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Ms Marple, you said: “The movement against POPs that 260 environmental groups signed up to included caveats for the use of agents like DDT while they remain the only available or effective means of achieving desirable human ends. The Stockholm Convention aims to replace DDT, not to remove it while it is still the most effective means of control.”
That statement is ENTIRELY FALSE. The environmental wacko’s campaigned to have a BAN in this convention. But their attempts failed. That’s why there is no ban in these and other conventions.
That’s not due to the concern THEY have for people dying from malaria, it’s exactly the opposite.
Now put up or shut up by quoting a Green MP in the period up to the time that this treaty was drafted who was concerned that the wacko’s wanted DDT banned. Just get a SINGLE person on the record who suggested that DDT should not be banned.
You can’t. Wussell can’t. That’s why you have to resort to twisting quotes and speeches.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:18 am
What odd folk you right wingers are, no wonder you are more or less politely ignored in reality-based discourse.
And if you don’t believe me, think about this: Do you often experience a sort of awkward silence marked only by nervous slurping of teacups followed by a polite Kiwi changing of subject when you let forth your Anne Coulter fundy thought on unsuspecting innocents?
Well here is a newsflash: That doesn’t happen to normal people.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Berend, read the full text of the link you put up here yourself which covers the campaign against POPs:
http://www.portaec.net/library/pollution/i_p_e_n.html
Then read the information at this link:
http://www.geodon.com/index1.asp
I think it could help.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
After sleeping on this I have come to a conclusion that Ben Wilson would br proud of. The pro DDTers are on the right, the anti DDTers are on the left.
If left is right then right is wrong but left cannot be right so left must be wrong and right is right.
This seems to be the argument of the right.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
As a business owner I am surprised that you espouse some distinctly anti-capitalist views. That business leaders screw the little guy, etc. Do YOU screw the little guy, the worker, the poor customer? Are you corrupt? If not then why do you think that people who are essentially doing the same thing as you, have different motives or different results?
Anyway, I dont think you understood what I was trying to say in regards to the meeting. There can be no compromise. Not because both sides are too rigid (although that was what I was saying about the greens at the very start), but because the Greens dont NEED a compromise. Business has nothing to offer them. The only thing they would have been able to get out of the meeting, that they would not have been able to get if the meeting hadnt taken place, is a slight shift in their image with voters.
To say that Business needs popularity and that “It is very important to them, both in terms of sales and in terms of influence on politics.” is quite wrong. Specific businesses may need good PR for sales reasons, but Business does not. In NZ campaign funds are less sensitive to Business contributions, the politicians dont have to pander to them. Some do, obviously, because Business people are still voters. The Greens however dont care about the votes of business people. That side of the voting public is pretty much dead to them. Why? Because as I said before, their ideology often paints Business as the problem needing to be solved. The Greens are anti-business and anti-capitalist. Regardless of how they try to dress themselves up in public, their ideology still shines through.
terence, i would like to see you present any example of one these “given the number of points you have been corrected on in this thread.” Almost the entirety of my discussion with you has been about the term ad hominem, and you hypocritically accusing me of being hypocritical.
You went well off the handle with the “deterrent” remark. You laughed at my supposed ignorance because insects dont make conscious decisions or something. I then explained that this wasnt what I was saying at all, something which shouldnt have to be explained to any rational adult. I said my sources were dubious, offered to retract the statement, but then presented some information I did manage to come across to show I might be right afterall. The worth of a scientific opinion is not determined by the number of studies, but by the content of the research. I dont have the time nor the inclination to conduct an extensive survey of all scientific opinion on the subject, and the fact that you seem to be demanding it shows you are knwo that. If I dont come back with conclusive proof of what I said off the cuff, you will claim victory.
In the end, it still doesnt matter too much whether I was right or not, it was a side point, a single statement, a throwaway line. But I think I am seeing a pattern here. You will focus on one single erroneous statement from a much larger argument, then claim a much larger victory for refuting it. Myopic is the appropriate term I think. God forbid you should ever address my main point in an intelligent way, such as Ben Wilson is attempting.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
After sleeping on this I have come to a conclusion that Ben Wilson would br proud of. The pro DDTers are on the right, the anti DDTers are on the left.
If left is right then right is wrong but left cannot be right so left must be wrong and right is right.
This seems to be the argument of the right.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Ms Marple said: “The movement against POPs that 260 environmental groups signed up to included caveats for the use of agents like DDT while they remain the only available or effective means of achieving desirable human ends. The Stockholm Convention aims to replace DDT, not to remove it while it is still the most effective means of control.”
Berend said: “That statement is ENTIRELY FALSE. The environmental wacko’s campaigned to have a BAN in this convention. But their attempts failed. That’s why there is no ban in these and other conventions.”
As I see it, it is possible that organisations which campaigned to have a ban in the convention, also signed up to the final convention which does not include a ban. That is called compromise. Perhaps that is to be regarded as vile?
Also, I can’t see the (logical) link between Berend’s first sentence and the rest of his statement.
No further comments from me about the (ab)uses of logic in this thread!
Some comments have been about scientists “suggesting” conclusions meaning they are not “strong” conclusions. This is the nature of scientists, they don’t jump to conclusions and are often aware of the possibility that there just might, perhaps, be some other explanation they haven’t thought of, in spite of months or years research. For example the Watson and Crick paper in Nature announcing the structure of DNA includes “suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material”. There may be another explanation, they are not about to claim there isn’t. Scientists tend to be open-minded – they have to be to be scientists.
Twould be nice to see similar behaviour/thinking here.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Ms Marple said: “The movement against POPs that 260 environmental groups signed up to included caveats for the use of agents like DDT while they remain the only available or effective means of achieving desirable human ends. The Stockholm Convention aims to replace DDT, not to remove it while it is still the most effective means of control.”
Berend said: “That statement is ENTIRELY FALSE. The environmental wacko’s campaigned to have a BAN in this convention. But their attempts failed. That’s why there is no ban in these and other conventions.”
As I see it, it is possible that organisations which campaigned to have a ban in the convention, also signed up to the final convention which does not include a ban. That is called compromise. Perhaps that is to be regarded as vile?
Also, I can’t see the (logical) link between Berend’s first sentence and the rest of his statement.
No further comments from me about the (ab)uses of logic in this thread!
Some comments have been about scientists “suggesting” conclusions meaning they are not “strong” conclusions. This is the nature of scientists, they don’t jump to conclusions and are often aware of the possibility that there just might, perhaps, be some other explanation they haven’t thought of, in spite of months or years research. For example the Watson and Crick paper in Nature announcing the structure of DNA includes “suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material”. There may be another explanation, they are not about to claim there isn’t. Scientists tend to be open-minded – they have to be to be scientists.
Twould be nice to see similar behaviour/thinking here.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Man, I just wasted time reading this thread on the recommendation of RB. Where to all you right wing idiots hang out, if not on my planet, …? Sad. Just sad.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Barnzy, I suspect you’re accusing me of sophistry? You might remember I didn’t bring logic into the discussion. I merely decided that having studied the subject for many years I might be able to contribute something to that minor and misconstrued part of an otherwise pretty detailed and interesting discussion.
I don’t have any opinion on DDT whatsoever. My vote for greens was more about the general flavour of their views. I am disappointed that the one individual who I most respected within that team didn’t make it through because of internal politics, and 5 candidates who I couldn’t even name got listed ahead of him. It gives me pause about my vote.
Then again, I was similarly unenlightened about what National thinks about just about anything, so general flavour was all I had to go on.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
oh just fuck off john
October 12th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Ben, I was not accusing you of anything if I were accusing anyone of anything it was “The Right” of being arrogant biggots, as usual. I think if this is how our buisness people view anyone with a social conscience we should all worry.
Oh, and good on yer Russ, keep em busy while the rest of us get on with the important stuff
October 12th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Ben, I was not accusing you of anything if I were accusing anyone of anything it was “The Right” of being arrogant biggots, as usual. I think if this is how our buisness people view anyone with a social conscience we should all worry.
Oh, and good on yer Russ, keep em busy while the rest of us get on with the important stuff
October 12th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Having read through this exhausting and arduous debate I have come to a few conclusions:
(1) Everyone (i.e. both sides) talks in factual certainties but uses evidence with ‘conditional’ or ‘qualified’ language. Because most experts are to clever to give definite answers to issues that they know are still up in the air. I suggest that many here could emulate this behaviour.
(2) Most of you would rather be mauled by a bear than acknowledge a point to someone you percieve to be on the ‘other side’.
(3) Any discussion that degenrates to attacks on spelling/syntax/poster’s grasp of ancient persian/whatever has instead become a mud slinging match and loses any inherent value it might have had.
(3) I now know more about the position of thread contributors than I do about the efficacy of DDT, or culpability of any environmental group, which is sad really, given the thread’s original premise.
I am reminded of something someone with a very non-PC bent once said to me about arguing on the internet…”Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics – even if you win, you are still a retard.”
October 12th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
That’s the second time we’ve been likened to the special olympics.
Do I qualify for some kind of parking privileges now?
As to your edification, given the original post was to proclaim the excellence of Roger Kerr’s column which included the characterising broad claim of massive evidence against any harm inherent in DDT, and given you have come away unconvinced by arguments from either side, I think we can safely say that Roger’s statement was wildly hyperbolic to the point of demonstrating the complete fallacy of everything the right believe.
Now, you friend seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the special olympics is only for the mentally impaired or “retards”. In actually fact it is open to a wide cross-scetion of the differently-abled community…
October 12th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Heh, Ewan, I have that T-shirt, except instead of ‘on the Internet’ it says ‘a Hippy’.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Heh, Ewan, I have that T-shirt, except instead of ‘on the Internet’ it says ‘with a Hippy’.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Man,
I also followed Russell’s quote, and I second that, John. You people are seriously really sad. Berend, I for one, would like to know why you insist on using the term “wussel”. I am going to assume that it’s something so childish and pathetic that you’re ashamed even to say.
All you hard-core right wingers are the same: angry about something, but you can’t quite peice together what it is: sometimes you blame the greens, or the homosexuals, or *whatever* and coble together whatever spurious arguements to try and justify your spluttering outrage, and pat each other on the back for it: ‘Well done lads, we sure justified our neurotic fervor that time’. Graham Capill is the classic example:
It’s not hard to figure out where the bulk of his virtiol stemmed from.
What’s your problem, Berend?
October 12th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Man,
I also followed Russell’s quote, and I second that, John. You people are seriously really sad. Berend, I for one, would like to know why you insist on using the term “wussel”. I am going to assume that it’s something so childish and pathetic that you’re ashamed even to say.
All you hard-core right wingers are the same: angry about something, but you can’t quite peice together what it is: sometimes you blame the greens, or the homosexuals, or *whatever* and coble together whatever spurious arguements to try and justify your spluttering outrage, and pat each other on the back for it: ‘Well done lads, we sure justified our neurotic fervor that time’. Graham Capill is the classic example:
It’s not hard to figure out where the bulk of his virtiol stemmed from.
What’s your problem, Berend?
October 12th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Some of you guys need to lighten up a bit and widen your perspectives – there’s some seriously narrow thinking & stereotyping going on here. Greenies aren’t the eco-fundies you make out. I’m a greenie voter, earn over 600K and don’t agree with all their policies (e.g. capital gains taxes). I also have a science degree (Chemistry) so am actually qualified to evaluate much of their policy from a strictly science-based background, and on energy and transport they are spot on. Chemists state that DDT is certainly harmful, especially to aquatic systems, and it’s manufacture creates a raft of persistent and dangerous compounds such as dioxin, which is frequently present in commercial DDT. Perhaps look up some facts and get an education before pontificating on things you have no understanding about.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Heh you guys are taking shit from a guy who counts to four, 1,2,3,3
Heh though he does have a better point than anyone else has managed to come up with.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
“Roger’s statement was wildly hyperbolic to the point of demonstrating the complete fallacy of everything the right believe.”
Roger Kerr may have been incorrect in ONE 54 WORD SENTENCE IN AN 814 WORD ARTICLE, so obviously the whole of Right thought is a complete fallacy? Do you sometimes wonder why people refuse to take you seriously?
Also, I hate this term, “differently-abled”. What more is a one legged person ABLE to do that a two legged person cannot? Except hop that is?
October 12th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Um… Kimble? You okay?
October 12th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Some of you guys need to lighten up a bit and widen your perspectives – there’s some seriously narrow thinking & stereotyping going on here. Greenies aren’t the eco-fundies you make out. I’m a greenie voter, earn over 600K and don’t agree with all their policies (e.g. capital gains taxes). I also have a science degree (Chemistry) so am actually qualified to evaluate much of their policy from a strictly science-based background, and on energy and transport they are spot on. Chemists state that DDT is certainly harmful, especially to aquatic systems, and it’s manufacture creates a raft of persistent and dangerous compounds such as dioxin, which is frequently present in commercial DDT. Perhaps look up some facts and get an education before pontificating on things you have no understanding about.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Ewan, your commnent naturally cuts both ways. We’re all *special* people with a *special* obsession.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Peter – “sometimes you blame the greens, or the homosexuals, … Graham Capill is the classic example”
What an utterly contemptible thing to say! If you said that to my face I would punch you in yours. The infuriating thing is that probably you consider yourself reasonable by calling us all homophobes and child molestors, you arrogant cunt.
But if that is the way you want to play it then fine! Right back atcha then.
People like Peter are all the same, they call others homophobes and equate them with child molestors, but in the end Peter still ass-fucks rotting baby corpses.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Eww, Peter you shouldn’t do that it’s nasty. And I’m not sure it’s strictly condoned, you know, legally.
Kimble, what the fuck is wrong with you at the moment? Did you just blow your NCEA level 1 Introductory Concepts in Workshop Technology final assessment?
(yeah I know “School C. Woodwork exam” is pithier, but we’ve got to move with the times).
October 12th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Does that answer your question, Marple?
October 12th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
I think a bunch of people might be coming over from a Public Address referral & the regulars are showing off – just to disprove RB’s qualifying remarks no doubt…
(and yeah, what is this “Wussell” shit anyway?)
October 12th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Two things Marple,
1. Nobody really fails in NCEA
2. What is “wrong” with me is that any discussion usually results in several cheerleaders bouncing over from his site to abuse people here. So we have people who’s only input to any discussion is
“I just came from Pubic Address, I have read everything here and have decided that the left wins, or that the right hasnt come up with a single good argument. Also, all you rightwingers are sad and pathetic and have been royally spanked by our superior leftist rhetoric. [Insert random insult here]. [Insert baseless accusation here]. [Insert projection here]. [Insert annecdote supposedly proving any of the previous points here].”
Its a fucking formula. I wasnt really even having the same discussion you lot were, but it still pisses me off. Do people do it in real life? Do you stand outside of a circle of people debating a topic, then step into the middle and declare that you think one side has won? Most probably both sides will tell you to “fuck right off, noone gives a shit what you have to say if that is all you have to say”.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
My apologies, Kimble. I didn’t mean to specifically imply that anyone was a child molesterer except the person I named in the actual example.
I was, hoever, trying to point out that the anger of certain right wing people’s anger seems less to do with a factual analysis of the actual issue than a need to vent unexamined personal frustrations.
Well done for proving me wrong though. Pat yourself on the back.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Well how about this one for a current example of ideological blindness to suffering (from Agbioview):
‘But biotech crops such as “golden rice” could help with the severe Vitamin A deficiency that afflicts hundreds of
millions in Africa and Asia, including 500,000 children who lose their eyesight each year.
As pointed out by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, now a vociferous critic of the activist group, “Greenpeace activists threaten to rip the biotech rice out of the fields if farmers dare to plant it. They have done everything they can to discredit the scientists and the technology.
“A commercial variety is now available for planting, but it will be at least five years before Golden Rice will be able to work its way through the Byzantine regulatory system that has been set up as a result of the activists’ campaign of misinformation and speculation,”
Moore said. “So the risk of not allowing farmers in Africa and Asia to grow Golden Rice is that another 2.5 million children will probably go blind.”‘
October 12th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Our very problem with the initial ban DDT (and the bans on GM and any discussion about nuclear energy for that matter) is that they werent based on factual analysis and they just came down to the general Greenie religious prejudice against non-natural insecticides.
The term Wussel spawned from Russell Browns own annoying and patronising tendency to shorten the names his counterparts.
“All you hard-core right wingers are the same… Graham Capill is the classic example…It’s not hard to figure out where the bulk of his virtiol stemmed from….What’s your problem, Berend?”
“I didn’t mean to specifically imply that anyone was a child molesterer”
The fuck you didnt. Stick your non-apologies and your own sanctimonious tone up your arse Peter.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
I persevered through this interminable and heroically egomanaical blogfest in the diminishing hope that there might be an “achievement” in the end.Ho Ho bloody Ho!I conclude that most of you should really stop playing with yourselves and your keyboards.Christ,if any of you are old enough to remember wristwatches that ran on “movement”,your timepieces would already be reading 2025/10/2015.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
There’s no acheivements on these forums, just argument and abuse. Like most forums. If you filter the abuse, it could be usefully thought provoking. Or, like Kimble, you can just have fun living for the abuse.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
Usefull for background reading :
http://www.phs.ualberta.ca/documents/ReproTox.pdf
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/endocrin.htm
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Bibliography/General/bib.endocrineDisruption.cfm
Wish I had the article to hand .. evidently some plastics contain substances which are mildly estrogenic ..
October 13th, 2005 at 2:43 am
Just skimming this fascinating discussion, but it looks like I can make someone happy :
“I look forward to the day when a Green party member admits that GWB isnt intent on deliberately destroying the world and that Don Brash MIGHT actually care about poor people too.”
Kimble! Your day has come mate!
I am a Green Party member, and I admit it :
GWB isn’t actually intent on deliberately destroying the world (in my opinion, for what it’s worth). The fact that it generally looks like he does, is due to a combination of factors :
* preferring ideology to facts, first and foremost;
* preferring his cronies to the general interest;
* sheer ineptitude.
But he means well.
As for Don Brash : I’d have to think about that a bit more. But I suppose he MIGHT.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Out of interest arising from the whining of the left, I’ve just done a quick count of ad hominens in this thread, and I reckon the left have made about ten personal attacks to each one made by the right. Particularly noticeable is long comments relating to the psyche or personalities of right wingers with very little in reference to the main issue. What is it with leftists that they appear to consider themselves such experts on character analysis?
October 13th, 2005 at 7:42 am
Dim, are you there?
DDT ‘It is a highly hydrophobic colorless solid with a weak, chemical odor that is nearly insoluble in water but has a good solubility in most organic solvents, fat, and oils’
My recollection of the product is that it is very difficult to produce any liquid containing more than 25% active ingregient. Remember technical DDT is a solid material which must be disolved in solvent then mixed with emulsifier. (You might need to rush off to find out what these words mean.) While you’re rushing, please explain how you propose to disolve ten kilos of active DDT ingredient in one litre of liquid, any liquid. For your information the highest concentration sold commercially was 25% w/v, a tolouol based product. Do you know what w/v is represented by 10g per cm3? Do you know what w/v means/
Oh, the humiliation of it all.
October 13th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Hello Adolf,
You’re right – I didn’t calculate the proper solution for my challenge, and I find it somewhat disturbing that you did. You know I was just joking, right?
October 13th, 2005 at 10:22 am
Wacko!! Dim’s joined the Jordan Carter Club. Wrong, bugger it, but didn’t you know I was joking? Well yes, but you sounded so scientific!!!
October 13th, 2005 at 11:02 am
I guess when you’re Adolf you have to take your triumphs when you can find them, even if they are largely self-invented. Oh well – even if I accomplish nothing else between now and Christmas I’ve clearly made Adolfs year – crack open the champagne, little fella!
October 13th, 2005 at 11:56 am
“But it doesn’t really matter. Only those people in non-white regions are affected by malaria, so if it is expensive for poor countries to control malaria, who gives?”
How does it go…uh, Roger Kerr doesn’t care about black people. No maybe that was some other old white man and his cronies. Ah hell they all look they same to me.
October 13th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Whilst all this discussion on DDT is fascinating stuff why has Mr. Curr’s completely erroneous comments on GDP calculation slipped under the radar?
Here we have an executive director of the Business Roundtable of New Zealand displaying utter ignorance of how GDP is calculated.
Hurricuan Katrina does increase GDP (assuming reconstructive efforts). GDP is not a measure of wealth. It is a measure of economic activity.
On this matter of “simple economics” Mr. Curr is “demonstrably wrong”. High school students learn this.
It is shameful that a person in his position doesn’t know what GDP is or how it is calculated.
If he is an example of buisness leadership in New Zealand, then New Zealand business is doomed. The Business Roundtable should sack him for bringing the nation into disrepute.
Regards,
Lev
October 13th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Lev, REconstruction simply redirects expenditure. The GDP of the state of Louisiana may get a bump due to the influx of interstate aid (though it is pretty much fucked anyway). But the overall affect on the US’s national GDP is approximately zero.
Google ‘bastiat broken window’ for a simple explanation.
I can see where you made your error. Like many in this thread you only read half the sentence. You thought that Kerr was saying that GDP was harmed because “investment worth billions of dollars in houses, businesses and infrastructure was destroyed”, but he wasnt. The pertinent part of the sentence, which you have chosen to ignore, is “and the resources being diverted to restoration would otherwise have been put to more highly valued uses.”
You can write, obviously, but why cant you read?
October 13th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I think (reading between the lines) the Green’s original point, which Kerr was attacking without comprehending, was that simple economic analysis doesn’t capture the scale or importance of this disaster and could be highly misleading. People should not obsess about GDP like it’s a one figure summary of the nation’s health.
October 13th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
So between these lines are they saying that it requires complex economic analysis and that they are the ideal people to do it? Did you refer to the Greens original statement or simply Kerrs article?
GDP is an estimate, it has its flaws and its fair share of reasoned detractors. BUT, higher GDP per capita means higher productivity per person, and given the link between productivity and wealth (and the link between wealth and general happiness and well being) it is still an important statisitics despite its flaws.
Consider the level of someones bank balance. It is just one figure, doesnt tell you much on its own. But if that was the only statistic you had, you would still feel comfortable saying that a person with $1mil in the bank is going to be happier than a person with -$50k overdraft. (And no, I am not equating GDP to a bank balance, I am merely showing that even single statistics can be enough to make broad statements.)
October 13th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Between the lines they are making a joke out of using GDP like it’s a statistic from God. As you say, things are much more complex than that. I refer to the obvious fact that the Hurricane was not a good thing, even though it could ‘improve’ the GDP.
I personally use a far more complex method for determining my own happiness and wellbeing than my bank balance. Thank you for making, in a nutshell, my point.
And GDP isn’t the only statistic we have any more than my bank balance is. It’s a measure of productivity, as you say, which is one aspect of economic wellbeing, which in itself is only one aspect of general wellbeing, which is itself only one aspect of good governance. A very one-dimensional benchmark.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I never said it was the ONLY statistic we should use, only that even with its flaws it is nonetheless informative.
“I personally use a far more complex method for determining my own happiness and wellbeing than my bank balance”
I dont know why you brought this up, it isnt an issue of contention. I simply used it to illustrate a point, which was, if you had to consider SOMEONE ELSES happiness, and all you had was their bank balance, you could still feel somewhat confident in saying that someone with alot money is happier than someone who had none. It doesnt mean you are right, but as a general rule it holds. More money means more choice, better opportunity to satisfy your needs and wants. Sure, there are heaps of other non-monetary things that make people happy. But you dont have information on those.
Though I have noticed how Lefties love saying things like this, as if it destroys any economic argument. “Like, reducing everything to money makes you materialistic, man!”
It is ironic though that for all the Left insists that happiness is not achieved the same way for everyone and indeed the measurement of well being is erroneous because happiness cant be measured, it still doesnt stop them from trying to manipulate, legislate and control peoples lives in the pursuit of making things better and people happy.
“even though it could ‘improve’ the GDP”, thank you for proving Kerrs point. GDP will not be positively affected by Katrina. Katrinas damage to GDP (the reduction in production and productivity) will NOT be mitigated by the “new” spending in NOLa. This is exactly the error that Kerr said proved the Greens economic illiteracy.
Are you reading something the greens actually said, or are you simply refering to Kerrs article?
October 13th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I brought it up because you did. You seem to be saying:
‘if we have only one figure, we should use it’. I don’t dispute that. But we do have more than one figure. This world is drowning in statistics, including statistics on things that make people happy.
I think I’ll wait to see what the effect of GDP is, rather than just trusting Kerr on it, thanks. And no matter what happens to GDP, the Hurricane is a shocking tragedy for the US. I don’t need the executive director of the business roundtable to give me tedious economic stats to understand that.
I’m referring to Kerr’s article, since that is where the point is raised with such sagely arrogance. He asks the rhetorical question: Can a disaster contribute to GDP? And the wierd and well known stat is Yes it can. But he makes it SOLELY to point out how silly the greens are for thinking such a counter-intuitive thing. Well, news for you, Kerr, counter-intuitive things happen all the time in accounting. Like the wierd fact that war also can create GDP growth, despite creating nothing but destruction. Which all goes to the damn point between the lines, obvious to anyone who gives it more than the self confessed ‘moment’s thought’ that Kerr gives it (without quoting any research to speak of in his article), that GDP is an unreliable figure to obsess about. Not useless, but certainly not the whole story.
Or do you seriously think the Greens were trying to say we should have more Hurricanes to stimulate growth?
October 13th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Well I wasnt saying that.
There is nothing on which to be “trusting Kerr”, the error is a logical fallacy. One that is often made, and with a long history. Kerr wasnt making any statement about the impact of Katrina on the US, rather it was a statement of the Greens economic ignorance. He didnt provide any stats for you to be tedious about. He simply refuted an opinion of the Greens as being blatantly, but revealingly, illogical.
Overall, however, GDP growth for the next few quarters will possibly be down around 1 percent. Which considering the size of the US economy, is an absolutely huge figure.
“counter-intuitive things happen all the time in accounting.” Who is saying anything about accounting? This is economics. The two are quite different.
“And the wierd and well known stat is Yes it can” A disaster like Katrina will have a negative effect on GDP, and this is going to outweigh any positive effect by several magnitudes.
The impact of the reconstruction in New Orleans will be close to zero nationally. In actual fact, given that a percentage of resources required to rebuild will have to be imported, this rebuilding will have a negative affect on GDP (which is actually one of its flaws).
“without quoting any research to speak of in his article” He wasnt writing an academic paper, what an absurd thing to demand of an article that at its core was a refutation of the popular media message that it was Business who was intractable in the meeting.
Google ‘bastiat broken window’ for a simple expanation of this prevalent logical fallacy.
“Or do you seriously think the Greens were trying to say we should have more Hurricanes to stimulate growth?” I am not saying that, but it should worry people that the Greens might consider destruction and rebuilding the equivalent to growth.
You try to make it sound as if the Greens were pointing out the deficiency of the GDP statistic. But if the Kerr article was all you base this one then you are reading far too much between the lines. As far as the article is concerned, the Green simply said that Katrina would boost GDP. I dont see how you can possibly find a rebuke of modern economic statistics in that.
October 13th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
I am trying to say the Greens are pointing out the deficiency of the GDP statistic. Cheers for the summary.
As far as the article was concerned I don’t have any clue what the Greens said, since it doesn’t even discuss that, despite Kerr actually having been there. It just refers to Green policy like it’s some massive international conspiracy, putting tons of words in their mouths from international sources.
Yeah, sure David Suzuki made the point that poisoning rivers can conflate to GDP growth. He wasn’t advocating poisoning rivers, he was criticizing the measure. That’s fairly obvious.
This is all economics 101, man. Standard criticisms of GDP. Google it. I’m really surprised Kerr didn’t get it. But then maybe he’s an accountant rather than an economist, huh? Or was he just being obtuse? Or maybe he just assumed the Greens didn’t know about it, even though it’s their point in the first place. I don’t know. All goes to my point that they’re not listening to the actual NZ Greens because of their own preconceptions.
Since you’re keen to go to sources, perhaps you’d like to point to the NZ Green policy on Hurricane Katrina? As I read the article, Kerr raised the point himself. I can just imagine the Green folks looking at each other in confusion, mouthing ‘what the hell is this guy talking about?’.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
What are you basing your “the Greens are just pointing out the flaw in GDP” on? Guesswork?
But the point isnt GDP, the point is the Green economic illiteracy. It isnt economics 101, it is that greens dont seem to have ever done economics 201.
BTW Suzuki was incorrect with his statements as well. If you had looked up Bastiat, you would have discovered that the point of the Broken window argument is that in economics there is what is seen, the glazier being paid to fix a wilfully broken window, and what is not seen, the tailor not getting income for a new suit because the window owner used the money to fix the window. Suzuki never took into consideration the full unseen affect the river poisoning would have had on GDP.
He wasnt advocating the poisoning of rivers, the Greens arent advocating hurricanes (though I am sure I read somewhere they linked the hurricanes to some EB pamphlet or something). But they both made mistakes in logic. Neither considered what is not seen in those sorts of situations.
It is something a lot have people do. Paul Krugman, who should know better (on a lot of things) made the same mistake when he claimed that 911 would be a boost for the economy.
October 13th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
What are you basing your disagreement with my point on?
The point is the assumption of Green economic illiteracy without any facts to back that up.
I’m well aware of the Broken Window fallacy. It is the very thing that Suzuki was pointing out. What you’re not getting is that GDP *measurement* can miss a lot of stuff and get what it’s trying to say totally wrong. This is not just a theoretical point, but has been shown many times in practice. The Kobe quake is a good case in point. It doesn’t measure destruction of capital, which obviously is a matter of serious economic concern. Are you even vaguely starting to get the point? The GDP I’m talking about is the measured one, not some number handed from God that magically takes all the other factors into consideration.
You still haven’t addressed my question of where you get your information about what the Greens said about Hurricane Katrina. You’re pretty quick to question my sources so I’m just holding you to your standard.
October 13th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
The greens will always be the scary ones until they confine themselves to what what they are percieved to stand for – the maintenance (or improvement) of the environment.
Unfortunately they get involved in all sorts of other things like trying to come up with some alternative to transport; they just love compulsory maori culture for all (All of you would think the maori party were real soft compared to what the greens would trot out if they got their way) and they have difficulty applying any serious thought to some of their ideas.
For example – the ONLY source of energy that will ‘save’ the planet is nuclear (its got no CO2, no acid rain, no particulates. It does have radio active waste – but thats easier to dispose of than trying to get rid of CO2 from coal)
All other new ‘save the planet’ ideas are all CO2 producers (hydrogen all comes from electricity – and very inefficiently at that, electric cars all get their recharges from electricity and all new electricity is almost certain to come from coal if nuclear isnt used)
If the greens put some thought into this sort of stuff rather than some of their other waky ideas, then they would get the respect of many more people
October 13th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Coming up with alternative (read more energy efficient) forms of transport *is* about saving the environment, as well as sensible resource usage.
I think you missed some options for energy that the Greens (who have put some thought into the matter) wouldn’t, such as solar power. Nuclear is non-renewable so it’s only delaying the planet’s problem. If that sounds a bit whack, you might want to consider that most of NZs energy is solar – that is the ultimate source of hydro power. Furthermore, it’s the only new energy entering the planet. Everything else is far more limited in life span. By billions of years.
You’ve also missed one of the famous side-effects of nuclear, namely the risk of accidents. Personally, I’m not against nuclear power, but I can’t see that it’s needed here. As for the rest of the world, it could help, depending what time scale you’re dealing with.
I can also see why they’re generally leftist economically – there is plenty of merit to the argument that unrestrained capitalism damages the environment.
October 14th, 2005 at 1:39 am
I would suggest, Kimble, that your supposition of economic illiteracy on the part of Greens is nothing but blind prejudice on your part. On the part of Kerr, it’s more sinister : he actually knows better, he is using bluster and lies in order to reinforce the prejudices of the likes of you and Bernard (“The greens will always be the scary ones”), to make sure that you don’t actually check for yourself or think about the issues.
Perhaps I’m being unfair to you, however. If you are genuinely interested n Green Party economic policy, you’ll find several hundred documents linked from this page.
http://greens.org.nz/docs/theme.asp?theme=2
Cheers.
October 14th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
My source of what the Greens have said is simply the Kerr article, as is yours. But you seem to be reading much more into a few simple words than I think any reasonable person could.
The greens were flat out wrong if they said that Katrina would boost GDP.
As for solar energy being the only new energy entering the planet, you are forgeting gravitational forces creating kenetic energy.
Simply because nuclear (pronounced nuke-u-lar BTW) energy isnt an eternal power source doesnt mean it isnt one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives. It isnt viable for NZ due to our small size however.
The capacity for industrial accidents with nuclear power would be more of a worry if they were regular as regular as anti-nuclear fanatics claim they are. However the last (and arguably only) major accident was what, 30 years ago? France has been running on nuclear energy for decades without any major incidents.
Solar power is too inefficient at the moment. When it becomes easier to produce and cheaper, it wil lreplace other forms of energy production. Artificially making it cheaper through subsidies (which simply transfer the cost from the user to the tax payer) and the imposition of extra costs on other forms of production arent going to solve the problem as well as advancing technology.
The problem that the greens worldwide have is that they consider nuclear energy (like many issues) non-negotiable.
In the meantime, an increase in the use of nuclear energy would help wean the world of carbon based fuels. Something you would think the greens would support.
Also, it is a purely greenie misconception that the only alternative to their economic policy is unconstrained capitalism. This could be one resaon why they will fail to connect with most of NZ; they arent willing to accept the political spectrum has a centre. And if they are they obviously dont recognise that they certainly dont populate it.
October 14th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Yup, thought so, your baiting me for sources was just laziness on your part too.
You still haven’t offered anything but an ideological argument to show why measured GDP doesn’t get wierd bounces from massive disasters. It does, there’s ample evidence which is simply empirical, not theoretical.
I’m not forgetting gravity, but perhaps you don’t realize that kinetic energy is not self renewing? What goes up must come down and all that… Using gravitational energy (perhaps using tidal generators?) has an effect of slowing the earth’s spin. Imperceptibly, probably, but it’s there. That’s why I said ‘the only *new* energy entering the earth’.
Not against gravity power, though. But it’s really quite tricky to exploit. Tidal movement is nowhere near as huge as the kinetic energy (ultimately derived from solar power) in rivers. You need to exploit enormous basins to get small amounts of energy.
I seem to remember a massive nuclear accident in Russia not that long ago which resulted in many deaths and widespread ecological and health damage to the region. The Russkies were cheaping out though, so it’s less likely elsewhere. But the more you use it the more likely.
Solar power is definitely small. But it’s there and it’s constant. It’s not running out. The only inefficiency is the cost of the equipment, and that may very well fall to cost-effective levels if government sized bargaining power is used.
There’s many different kinds of solar power which are commercially viable even today, albeit only in a minor way. Solar panels exploiting the photoelectric effect are only one. A far cheaper option that I’m personally going for as soon as my wife gets her kitchen is a ventilation system that uses hot air from the roof. Saves power in the winter, as well as other benefits. Solar water heating is also popular, hot water being one of the biggest power eaters.
Enery from biofuels is ultimately solar too. Not optimistic about it, though.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
As I said, the only reason I was asking your source is because you seemed to have more information than was presented in the article. I was simply wanting to read the same thing so we could discuss it more specifically.
It isnt an ideological argument, predicting a GDP jump from a natural disaster would require the exclusion of the largest contributing factors as well as good sense. The negative impact of a natural disaster such as this, with the damage to infrastructure and production capabilities (compounded by the unique energy supply contraints) is MUCH higher than any benefit from reconstruction. The spending on reconstruction can be considered simply redirected spending for the most part, but even if it was all ‘new’ expenditure there is no way the activity would be more than the activity that was lost as a result of the disaster.
You say there is ample evidence to the contrary, well then present it. At the moment though it is you that’s failing to back up what seems an illogical position. All you have said so far is that a GDP bump does occur as if the unsupported assertion is as self evident and as noncontroversial as simply saying the sky is blue. I have presented logical reasons for my assertion, you have yet to do so.
Even if natural disasters DID have a positive impact on GDP (and I am not conceding they do) the Greens position was that Katrina would do the same. Of all the natural disasters, this has to be the most difficult example to prove. If they are saying, as you assure me, that GDP will improve because of Katrina and this proves that GDP isnt a very good statistic, then in orderfor them to be correct, GDP will have to improve because of Katrina, which it wont. Empically they will be wrong. And even for them to be right theoretically requires, as I said, the exclusion of the largest contributing factors, as well as good sense to do so in the first place.
Slowing the Earths spin? You have got to be kidding me. Do you have any comprehension the size of the force you are refering to? It would require more than all of the energy man has used in the history of our species to be able to alter the earths spin in any significant way.
I can just see what sort of situation we would be in today if we had used gravitational energy sources rather than carbon based sources for the last 150 years. Greenies would be complaining that the Earth is slowing down because of mans hubris, whilst reasonable people would be scorned and ridiculed for suggetsing that maybe there was a natural cause.
Even if government mandated the use of solar energy, the inherent inefficiency would still exist. All that would happen to the waste from the inefficiency is that it would be hidden from plain veiw through taxation and opportunity cost.
Chernobyl was the one accident I was refering to. And even that wasnt as terrible as dishonest people have been making out for the last few decades. Ironically the death toll from Chernobyl (which is much lower than the tens of thousands that has been quoted) would be much higher if the the needless abortions throughout europe in the wake of the event and the exhuberant post-accident scare-mongering were taken into account.
Do you remember technology from the 1980′s? Do you acknowledge that the advances since then have decreased the chances of the same thing happening (which was a human rather than systemic failure)? Do you consider 30 years not that long ago?
October 14th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
“predicting a GDP jump from a natural disaster would require the exclusion of the largest contributing factors as well as good sense”.
Yup, unfortunately that’s what GDP does lack, it being a formula and all.
Empirically, we’ll wait and see.
How much energy has man used in all the history of the species? Roughly? And, it would interesting to hear your workings on how much energy is required to stop the earth’s spin. You appear to have such confidence in these numbers.
I thought you might go off on a tangent to my clarifying my point about energy entering the system. I said the effect would be imperceptible but there. Which is a simple truth of physics. I further said I’m not against tidal energy, but unfortunately there are great difficulties in harvesting it. But hey, staw men are your bag so go on hitting it.
What’s the inherent inefficiency in solar? Is this another theoretical thing or are you going to start with some real numbers?
Talking down Chernobyl, huh. Wouldn’t mind it happening next door then?
I consider 1986 to only be 19 years ago, but why split hairs? Naturally new nuclear reactors are safer now. Having lots of them raises chances again. Like I said, I’m not against them, but I can’t see the point in NZ. We have more than enough power, we don’t need to take even that small risk.
October 15th, 2005 at 1:04 am
Nobody seems to have realized the extent to which Kerr has led you all up the garden path.
Kerr does not quote the Greens on Katrina at all. A search of the Green Party web site
http://greens.org.nz.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=Katrina&submit.x=14&submit.y=6
finds no documents at all (and all GP press releases are on the site). I don’t believe anyone in the GP has actually claimed that Katrina would boost the GDP of the USA…
… and in fact, if you read Kerr, he doesn’t even say that at all!
Other Green arguments are demonstrably wrong as a matter of simple economics.
One example I gave at the briefing is the proposition that a natural disaster, like Hurricane Katrina, adds to GDP because of the need to spend money on goods and services to repair the damage.
He is alleging that the proposition of a disaster boosting GDP is a “Green argument”… vague, but not entirely false, in the sense discussed by Ben Wilson… and giving Katrina as an example of a disaster (note the commas).
This is a certain number of light-years from Kimble’s statement :
Even if natural disasters DID have a positive impact on GDP (and I am not conceding they do) the Greens position was that Katrina would do the same.
No such position exists.
Sorry to knock the stuffing out of your straw man, kimble…
Had a look at the docs on the Green Party web site yet?
October 15th, 2005 at 1:20 am
The general thrust of the “Green proposition” concerning GDP (for the education of Kimble, and anyone else who might be listening!) goes something like this :
* GDP is greatly overrated as a useful statistic, and tends to get pursued as an end in itself, rather like corporate managers pursuing good quarterly results at the expense of long-term objectives.
* It takes no account of creation or destruction of capital value, and is worse than useless as a measure of wellbeing in general.
* As an example of the perversity of GDP worship, it is asserted that certain bad things can cause it to increase. Some of these (broken window example) may be controversial among economists, it seems. Katrina, as we have seen, has never been asserted at all.
However, I reckon the war in Iraq must be a major plus for US GDP. Anyone care to argue against that?
(production of arms, work for US contractors, replacing national guardsmen in the workforce boosts employment, ….. and all this financed by new borrowing from the Chinese… certainly not by reduction of other spending or by increased taxes, eh!)
October 15th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Ah, but alistair, you fail to get the point because you’re not a member of the business roundtable, which represent business people infallibly, and knows everything about green policy and economics. Far more than the Green Party know themselves, or any mere economists.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:39 am
A couple of other links of interest on DDT:
Rethinking DDT (Steven J Milloy):
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-27-02.html
Greenpeace, WWF Repudiate Anti-DDT Agenda (Heartland Institute):
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16803
October 18th, 2005 at 11:39 am
“No such position exists.”
As I said, I was simply working off the Kerr article, the same as ben. Like him I assumed the greens being discussed were the local greens. In any case ben has taken up the argument that disasters improve GDP. And he must really truly believe it, because it isnt likely that he would simply be parrotig what he thinks the greens have said.
“Yup, unfortunately that’s what GDP does lack, it being a formula and all.” Do you think when I refered to contributing factors, I might have meant things like the damage to oil refineries, factories, clubs, bars, hotels etc? All of which contributed to GDP before the disaster and wont be afterwards.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
GDP does not include infrastructure damage. That is the point. Is that clear or must this go on for 20,000 more words until you look it up in an economics textbook?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
The impact of infrastructure damage is reflected in GDP. Expecting a jump in GDP from a natural disaster requires that you IGNORE the impact of damage to the infrastructure and production base on GDP.
GDP doesnt measure direct production base loses, eg. GDP doesnt go down by $1mil when a $1mil building is flattened. But if that building was a factory that produced $5mil worth of goods which were consumed in the year, then without the factory the lower production will have a negative impact on GDP, that will not be offset by reconstruction which is is usually simply redirected spending.
You arent highlighting flaws in GDP, only your understanding of economics.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
I’m highlighting flaws in your reading of GDP. The number itself it what it is. The only flaws come in the interpretation.
Your post shows that you might be finally getting it. GDP doesn’t go down by $1M when a $1M building is flattened. And if that building was only producing $100,000 of goods, and it takes $1M to rebuild then there is a net GDP gain.
This is actually what happens in disasters. The infrastructure is very often worth a lot more than the lost production.
Sure, it’s a Broken Window Fallacy to equate that to real gain. That is the point Suzuki was making. It’s the point Kerr missed, which is that micro-analysing GDP misses a lot.
Can we rest it now, or would you like to claim my point, but for the right? By all means do, no-one is fooled.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
What the broken window fallacy also highlights is the opportunity cost of reconstruction, which is often expenditure or investment elsewhere in the economy.
YOU have been saying that a natural disaster will increase GDP because of the reconstruction. I have been saying that the negative impacts of a natural disaster (Katrina specifically) outweigh the positive impacts from reconstruction (see the first paragraph).
YOU said that GDP didnt include damage to infrastructure. I never said that it did, only that the IMPACT of the damage to infrastructure IS felt in GDP.
If the building only produced $100k worth of goods but cost $1m to rebuild does NOT result in a net gain. Because the $1m is most likely to simply be redirected spending or investment (spending that would have occured regardless, but simply on other things). What is seen is the spending of $1m, what is NOT seen is the forfiture of spending elsewhere in the economy. What is not seen is the reduced consumption by the recently unemployed workers. What is not seen is the increase in imports and the decrease in exports which results. All things which affect GDP.
Specifically dealing with Katrina, the increase in the fuel prices alone will have a retarding impact on national GDP.
October 18th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
You’re flailing around now. I said a natural disaster *could* increase GDP, and frequently they have done so. This is observed fact.
I explain it by analysing the calculation of GDP, with its obvious flaws. The broken window fallacy is the perfect example of one such flaw.
Opportunity cost does exist, but typically natural disasters are insurance jobs, and abnormal expenditures. So the money would not necessarily have been spent. Often it has to be borrowed, which was in no-ones plans. That doesn’t mean it’s good that the money did have to be spent. It’s a flaw with the measure, which is the point made days ago.
I can’t see that increased fuel prices will have the effect you suggest. It might even make GDP go up. People still need fuel, and will spend more for it. They might get less actual fuel, but that’s not in the measure. GDP measures turnover, not profit.
But why argue? Time will tell. You’ve made your prediction and staked the credibility of your amazing economic sense on it, so good luck.