David Suzuki is no saint to me

Markham Hislop beaconnews.ca | June 22, 2013  

• 0
  inShare

 

David Suzuki column offensive and ill-timed

Albertans are spitting mad at David Suzuki. The famous environmentalist and CBC host wrote a column yesterday tying Alberta flooding, in which three died, to his favourite hobby horse, climate change. “Too soon, Dave?” was a common comment heard in Tim Hortons across the province yesterday, uttered by Albertans reeling from the worst flooding in recent memory. Over 75,000 people evacuated from Calgary, much of Canmore and High River completely under water with local infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged,

Too soon, indeed.

 

As thousands of Albertans huddled in evacuation centres and contemplated the loss of their homes and belongings, the last thing they needed to hear was David Suzuki using their pain as a pretext to preach about climate change. “Can we say the recent flooding and extreme weather in Southern Alberta and B.C. were caused by global warming? Maybe not, but we can say we should expect more of the same – and worse if we don’t do something to get our emissions under control. As many scientists warn, climate change isn’t coming; it’s here,” he wrote.

 

Suzuki’s use of so much personal tragedy as a platform to promote his political agenda is repugnant. Am I surprised? No, because I have a personal history with Suzuki that offers a bit of insight into his judgment on these kinds of issues.

 

It was 1992 and I had just set myself up as a one-man public relations agency in Prince Alberta, Sask. My phone rang and it was a colleague asking me if I would help out the Meadow Lake Tribal Council with a sticky issue in their forestry operations. MLTC had recently bought a big sawmill in Meadow Lake. As part of the deal, the Tribal Council received a forestry licence that included re-foresting obligations. Some of the First Nations band members objected to the MLTC forestry company’s harvesting and silviculture methods, and had occupied a logging road, refusing to let workers and equipment onto the harvesting area.

 

Acting upon bad advice from their lawyer and a big Vancouver PR firm, the MLTC chief and council kept their head down and refused to talk to media. Well, after a couple of weeks the story was completely out of control and was leading national newscasts. Naturally, David Suzuki injected himself into the controversy.  He flew out to Saskatchewan, met with the protesting elders, and dominated the news cycle thereafter. Desperate to turn things around, MLTC asked me to help. I asked them one question: Do you have good stories to tell?

 

This was the height of the “BC is the Brazil of the North” campaigns (funny how BC is now a model of great forestry practices, eh?) and the Oka standoff was still fresh in everyone’s memory. The last thing I wanted was to be helping bonafide land rapers, even if they were First Nations. Our silviculture practices are world-class, we plant more than we harvest, and we do everything we can to protect the land, I was told. Their foresters backed up the story with data and examples. Soon MLTC was telling its story to Canadians via the national media. And a good story it was, too.

 

As part of my efforts, I reached out to David Suzuki. He needs the forestry data and information as much as the media, I thought. We had a cordial discussion, I sent him the info and we agreed to meet at his next press conference at the logging road blockade. I showed up a few days later, the lone company representative amongst a large group of protestors, a number of them armed young men with covered faces a la the Oka images we all remember so well. Suzuki began the press conference. Now that the had the other side’s information, with plenty of evidence about their responsible harvesting and silviculture practices, I thought he would moderate his tone and the protest would head in a different direction. Talk about naive.

 

He launched into a blistering attack on MLTC, completely ignoring the evidence that didn’t jibe with his conclusions. Then he did something I’ll never forget. He announced that Markham Hislop, a representative of MLTC, was in the crowd and pointed me out. Immediately, no doubt choreographed ahead of time, a number of large and armed men surrounded me, leaning in in a very threatening manner. They remained that way for the remainder of the press conference. Some of them muttered very nasty things in my ear.

Intimidating?  You bet. I was shaking when I finally got back to the car.

 

You’ll forgive me if I don’t think of Suzuki as Saint David. The man has a nasty, ruthless streak and he’s willing to take advantage of others if it furthers his greater cause. One, incidentally, I usually have a lot of sympathy for. So, the willingness of David Suzuki to exploit the suffering of Albertans came as no surprise to me. Perhaps he even thought of it as a form of cosmic revenge, since Alberta is the home of the Canadian oil and gas industry, and Calgary is the Houston of Canada. Whatever the case, his column was in very poor taste. And Albertans were not amused.

 

An apology from Suzuki is in order.

Americans meddling again in the Flathead

Wildsight, Sierra Club, Y2Y and CPAW’s (environmental NGO’s) are losing credibility with their continued opposition to resource extraction in BC and Alberta. The call to ban new coal mines and place a moratorium on expanding existing mines is part of the Y2Y strategy. The ultimate goal is to remove at least 50% of the land base from Yellowstone to Yukon and lock it away from human interference and habitation. This report is on the heels of another study,  Safe Havens and Safe Passages, produced by environmentalists from Montana. These two reports want the same end; a national park and land locked away from development. These groups are not accountable to anyone but their US funders who provide millions to push an anti-fossil fuel campaign hidden in environmental campaigns.

 

 

The environmental NGO’s will cherry pick data to support their ideology and this latest one by Hauer provides ample ammunition for their rhetoric. The report was commissioned by Glacier National Park (GNP) which has no connection to the Elk River and only borders the US portion of Flathead River. Why would GNP meddle in the affairs of Canada other than to assist environmentalists in their goal of creating the long sought after Flathead National Park? The objective of the study was to “focus on potential environmental effects of proposed coal mining in the Canadian portion of the Flathead River Basin”  One has to wonder why the report is focused on the Elk River when the study is supposed to be about the Flathead.

The information in Hauer’s report is not new, multiple studies since the late 90’s have been done on the Elk and Flathead River. Hauer fails to reference any of the historical data or the studies done by many selenium experts in Canada and the US. To further complicate the issue; Hauer is associated to environmental NGO’s on both sides of the border. In 2012 he was the coordinator for  Wildsight’s 2012 Bioblitz in the Canadian side of the Flathead. Science is supposed to work by building a body of research which takes us closer to the truth and is free from external influences.  We should demand better science from a university professor that expects no less of his students.

Selenium is a naturally occurring mineral that is found throughout the system and is a required mineral in our diet. The known science on selenium in the Elk River shows that it is not a mortality factor for fish over the entire length due to the fast flowing flushing capabilities of the Elk River.  In 1995 the river had a major freshet event that flushed fish and their spawning beds out of the river. It has bounced back to record levels of bull trout, cutthroat and whitefish without any intervention other than reduced angling regulations. For Hauer to suggest that “coal mines represent a significant threat to the ecological integrity of these streams and rivers” does not take into account the historic rise and fall of fish populations. This is a classic example of cherry picked data.

The environmental NGO’s definition of the Elk River as “polluted” “poisoned” “toxic’ are clearly ignorant of the natural beauty of the Elk. It is widely known as one of the best Cutthroat fisheries that attracts fishers from around the world. Fishers come here because of the size and quantity of cutthroat not the polluted toxic mess that activists want to frame the argument around.  Wildsight’s Ryland Nelson went out on a limb and recently quoted in the Fernie Free press “"You should not be eating more than one fish a week out of the Elk River otherwise you could be having health concerns". To suggest that people will be harmed by eating fish from the Elk River is fear mongering at best. Not one study has ever shown that correlation based on the values found in the Elk. Nelson uses no science to back up his claim; he is neither a scientist nor a health professional with any qualifications to make such a statement.

To place a moratorium on coal mining based on the Sierra Clubs rhetoric would be destructive at best. The environmental NGO’s are against all resource extraction regardless of the benefits to mankind. Environmentalist’s use a self-written version of the precautionary principle that places the onus on companies to prove nothing will ever happen to anyone forever into the future before they can proceed. Using their ideology a lot of the advances in modern science would never have been achieved.

 

Hauer's report only serves to fuel the media hype to ban coal mining and create a Flathead National park.  Environmental NGO’s and their American funders have the ability to be constructive and help the coal mines develop solutions to environmental issues, yet they choose the destructive path; using fear and misinformation to push their vision of what the world should be. It’s time we told these environmentalists to butt out unless they have something constructive or credible to add.

Paul Visentin Kootenay ThinkTwice group

Whos afraid of Fracking?

The BC liberals seem to understand that the opportunity to get BC's natural gas to the west coast, liquefy it and ship it to Asia is an opportunity similar to what Alberta cashed in on after they discovered oil. BC has an opportunity that most jurisdictions never have, a chance for 1000's of jobs and billions in government revenues.

Question is, what would an NDP government do with this opportunity? Let's do a quick comparison:

 

The BC Jobs Plan lays out how the Liberals expect to develop the LNG model

1) Greater emphasis on market diversification to increase the value of BC’s natural gas;

2) Supporting job creation together with industry, educators and communities;

3) Continued strong leadership on clean energy and climate change moving forward; and

4) A redefinition of government’s self-sufficiency policy to ensure BC is well-positioned to power expansion.

Adrian Dix has his LNG model laid out as well:

1) Appoint an expert panel to conduct a broad public review of fracking, including public hearings and consultations with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups and citizens.

2) Make immediate changes to protect B.C.’s water resources, including consolidating authority for water licensing within one public body; improving water mapping, monitoring and public reporting; and ending the current practice of issuing free water permits through the Oil and Gas Commission.

3) Extend funding for the Farmers’ Advocate office to ensure landowners in the natural gas fields have the support they need to deal with the gas industry.

4) Examine the province’s Climate Action Plan in order to take into account proposed expansions in gas development, which will bring more upstream greenhouse gas emissions.

Even the most fracking cynical person in BC can’t argue against the fact that royalties from LNG will help every sector of the BC economy. It is expected to generate trillions of dollars to gov’t coffers over many years. This would place BC on par with our neighbor to the east in resource royalties. The next election will dictate how fast that revenue gets into the tax stream. Companies with billions of dollars to spend will only do so in a pro-business environment. In the 1990’s under the NDP the policies created for resource extraction closed down most of the industry. It would appear the NDP, if elected, are on track to return BC to the days of bureaucracy. The NDP strategy will force companies to go thru multiple levels of government, committees, consultations, advocacy offices and First Nations to get approval on each and every drill site, bridge crossing, pipeline, road and trail. The environmentalist’s will make erroneous claims that increased expansion contributes to climate change which will force the NDP to review the development process yet again. Companies will quietly move away from BC and find other areas of the world that are friendly to business and we will become a have not province again.

The opposition to LNG extraction is largely based on the explotation of the media by  environmentalists using misinformation and half-truths. Suzuki Foundation, Wildsight, Sierra Club of BC, Greenpeace and CPAWS  are all hoping that the NDP, if elected, will follow thier ideological views.

 

The article below provides a look at the US experience on fracking where it has been used for over 60 yrs. The next election will decide whether the province and its LNG treasure trove is headed for rags or riches; ThinkTwice on how you want to move BC forward.

Paul Visentin

ThinkTwice group

Who’s afraid of fracking?

Federal and state environmental officials have given hydraulic fracturing a clean bill of health. Why do radical environmentalists continue to wage war on this game-changing technology?

to read the full article click here....

 

Our real manmade climate crisis

The crisis is due not to climate change, but to actions taken in the name of preventing change

Paul Driessen

In his first address as Secretary of State, John Kerry said we must safeguard “the most sacred trust” we owe to our children and grandchildren: “an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.”

Even the IPCC and British Meteorological Office now recognize that average global temperatures haven’t budged in almost 17 years. Little evidence suggests that sea level rise, storms, droughts, polar ice or other weather and climate events and trends display any statistically significant difference from what Earth and mankind have experienced over the last 100-plus years.

However, we do face imminent manmade climate disasters. Global warming is the greatest moral issue of our time. We must do all we can to prevent looming climate catastrophes.

But those cataclysms have nothing to do with alleged human contributions to planetary climate systems that have always been chaotic, unpredictable and often disastrous: ice ages, little ice ages, dust bowls, droughts and monster storms that ravaged and sometimes even toppled cities and civilizations.

Our real climate crisis is our responses to Mr. Kerry’s illusory crises. It takes four closely related forms.

Influence peddling. Over the past three years, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center alone poured $335 million into environmentalist climate campaigns, and $1 billion into green lobbies at large, notes Undue Influence author Ron Arnold. Major US donors gave $199 million to Canadian environmental groups just for anti-oil sands and Keystone pipeline battles during the last twelve years, analysts Vivian Krause and Brian Seasholes estimate; the Tides Foundation poured $10 million into these battles during 2009-2012.

All told, US foundations alone have “invested” over $797 million in environmentalist climate campaigns since 2000! And over $19.3 billion in “environmental” efforts since 1995, Arnold calculates! Add to that the tens of billions that environmental activist groups, universities and other organizations have received from individual donors, corporations and government agencies to promote “manmade climate disaster” theories – and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

Moreover, that’s just US cash. It doesn’t include EU, UN and other climate cataclysm contributions. Nor does it include US or global spending on wind, solar, biofuel and other “renewable” energy schemes. That this money has caused widespread pernicious and corrupting effects should surprise no one.

continue reading full article here...

Deer cull protestors from Ontario not welcome

Kudos to Cranbrook council for rejecting the squeaky wheel aka, Invermere Deer Protection Society (IDPS). The recent decision to approve the cull is a bitter pill to the sometimes violent and vocal animal rights activists that have been drawn to this issue.  The IDPS campaign has morphed from wanting to be involved in local discussions two years ago to the animal rights world bearing down on the Kootenays. Animal Alliance of Canada (AAC) staged a protest on the highway in Cranbrook on Feb 17 2013 waving placards decrying the city’s decision to proceed with a deer cull.  Liz White, a full-time staff member of the Toronto based AAC, was front and center along with Devin Kazakoff president of the IDPS. Ironic that the IDPS has to bring in the AAC to  advocate for the deer that are a threat  to pets and people.  On the AAC webpage she tweets on Feb 17 2013 “Animal_Alliance @Animal_Alliance Landed in Cranbrook on a tiny plane. Out now looking for deer traps pic.twitter.com/IDyseTcK.  What reason would they have to look for traps other than to tamper or interfere with the lawfully set traps? For all their pontificating, posturing and thinly veiled threats only five people, two of which don’t live in Cranbrook, showed up to protest; they have no support.

 

What galls most people, myself included, is that these activists will not accept that domesticated deer present a clear and present danger to people and pets. My experience as a Conservation Officer in the Kootenays, until I retired recently, gives me the background to weigh in on the dangers of domesticated deer. I attended numerous deer/ human/ dog interactions in Kimberley and Cranbrook.  I have seen the cuts and bruises done to dog owners as they tried break up a fight between their dog and a deer.  I have witnessed the desperation in the dog owners eyes as they watched the last bit of life eke out of their pet after a deer stomped it into the ground. I intervened in a deer bearing down on a young girl with her dog on a leash. If I hadn’t drove over the curb and cut the deer off there would have been serious injuries to the dog and likely to the girl. When you add in the damage to landscapes and gardens the situation is compounded by the financial loss to homeowners. The IDPS solution is to chase them out of town with dogs or just leave them alone.  Deer should not be herded with dogs; it’s like pushing water uphill.  Deer will usually bolt right into oncoming traffic resulting in more damage and the death of the deer.

 

This started back in January 2012 when Colleen Bailey appeared before Kimberley and Invermere councils as the spokesperson for the newly formed group Humane Treatment of Urban Wildlife Committee (HTUW).  Apparently the HTUW had been asleep at the wheel for over a year and a half when councils throughout the region were debating the urban deer issue. At the eleventh hour Colleen wanted all culls delayed so the HTUW can study the issue.  Invermere went ahead with the cull, HTUW stomped their feet and cried foul. Devin Kazakoff president of the IDPS couldn’t get any local lawyers to plead their case in court until he found Rebecca Breder. When you go shopping for an animal rights lawyer Breder  is the gold standard.  It’s ironic that in Ms. Breder’s own words “ animals are neither property nor chattel – as existing law defines them – but sentient beings with the right to life, liberty and well-being”. I would appear that she uses selective passion; ignoring the physical and emotional trauma those owners and their dogs have experienced!

 

The Invermere Deer Protection Organization was able to convince Shane Suman to launch a Supreme Court injunction on Feb 9 2012 with Rebecca Breder acting as counsel.  Suman is an interesting choice as a petitioner; he has own court troubles with both US and Canada.  The District of Invermere became the lightning rod for animal activists from across North America that view wildlife thru a different lens than most of the residents in the Kootenays. Fast forward to Feb 2013 and the domesticated deer are still a threat both in the spring and fall regardless of where you find them.  The threat is elevated in town where deer have been protected by the bambi syndrome. “We invaded their home” “they were here first” is an escape from reality. Big Game, aka deer, moose elk and predators, do not belong in the city; they never did and never should.  Wildlife in town attract predators, I know I’ve chased many cougars and bears out of schoolyards and back alleys of towns in the Kootenays. 

 

If you don’t like the cull, hunting, trapping, resource extraction and all other things that are not on your ethical list move from the Kootenays and find like-minded people that protest the things that make your life better. If you choose to stay in the Kootenays and want to live in harmony with nature, that’s quite all right but don’t force your ideology on the rest of us.  To the people that don’t live in these communities, let alone this province or country, fix your own problems before coming to our rescue, we honestly don’t need your input.  To the protestors, petitioners and dozen or so members of the IDPS get over it, move on and ThinkTwice before waving signs and stomping your feet. That only makes you a far greater nuisance than the deer.

 

Paul Visentin

Kootenay ThinkTwice

 

 

 

 

 

Real sustainability versus activist sustainability

Activist sustainability concepts don’t meet environmental, humanitarian or sustainability tests

Paul Driessen  January 31, 2013

Companies everywhere extol their sustainable development programs and goals. Sustainability drives UN programs like Agenda 21, EU and US green energy initiatives, and myriad manufacturing, agricultural, forestry and other efforts. But what is sustainability? What is – or isn’t – sustainable?

Former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland said sustainability means we may develop … and meet the needs of current generations … only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

At first blush, that sounds logical, perhaps even ethical. But on closer examination, it is neither. It’s right out of Alice’s encounter with an anthropomorphic egg in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” Humpty Dumpty replied, “who is to be master. That’s all.”

Obama presidential science advisor John Holdren has said we cannot talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power and control. That troubling reality is at the core of growing debates about Washington, DC central power versus state federalism, individual rights and liberties, United Nations and European Union attempts to make decisions for sovereign nations, and the growing power and influence of activist nongovernmental organizations on energy, environmental, economic and other matters.

Because those who define the terms of debate increasingly determine public policies, they also determine who is to be master: those who must live with the consequences of their personal choices, or unaccountable mandarins who impose policies, regulations, decisions and consequences on others. Putting that vital discussion aside for another day, one can discern three kinds of sustainability.

The public relations variety promotes corporate images and inspires flattering ads and press releases, but is largely devoid of real substance. A favorite example is a consulting company’s annual sustainability report, which boasted of having reduced the number of – paper cuts among employees.

Real sustainability seeks constantly improving technologies and practices: conserve energy, be more efficient, cut costs, to keep companies profitable and employees employed; tune up cars, keep tires inflated, and improve traffic light sequencing, to move traffic along, increase gas mileage and reduce pollution; use high yield farming to get the most crops per acre, reduce water use and improve nutrition.

This is tikun olam (repair of the world); the precept that you are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it; the Boy Scout prescription that we must leave our world better than we found it; the Judeo-Christian principle of stewardship of creation: or Robert Kennedy’s declaration: I dream things that never were and say, Why not?

This brings us back to sustainability á la Gro Brundtland, the UN, Rio+20 and environmental activists: We may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” The concept it inherently unworkable and inequitable.

No one predicted, certainly not years in advance, that the Hearthstone House in Appleton, Wisconsin would suddenly be lit with hydroelectric power, or that electricity would safeguard and enhance our lives and economy in the numerous ways it does today. No one foresaw widespread natural gas use for electricity generation and home heating, ubiquitous laptop computers, flash drives, fiber optic cables replacing copper, or little mobile phones with far more power than a 1990 desktop computer.  

Today, the pace of technological change has become mind-numbing. And yet, under sustainability dogma, we are supposed to predict future technologies – and ensure that today’s development activities will somehow not compromise those technologies’ unpredictable energy and raw material requirements.

Sustainability dogma also demands that we base policy decisions on knowing how many years energy, metal or other resource deposits will last, and to determine whether developing and using them will be sustainable. But what if new technologies let us find and develop new deposits, or make existing deposits last decades or centuries longer: 3-D and HD seismic, deepwater drilling and production, instant metallic mineral analysis gear in a backpack, or horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, for instance? How long must those expanded reserves last, before using them won’t be sustainable? And who decides?

How can politicians, regulators and environmental activists decree that oil and gas are not sustainable – even as seismic, fracking, drilling and other technologies unlock a century of new deposits? And then insist that corn ethanol is sustainable, even though this year’s US ethanol quota requires 40% of our corn crop, on an area the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, huge quantities of hydrocarbon-based pesticides, fertilizers and tractor fuel, vast amounts of natural gas to run the distilleries, and perpetual subsidies … to produce a fuel that drives up food prices and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline?

How can they decree that wind energy is sustainable, despite killing millions of birds and bats every year?

How is it sustainable, ethical or “environmental justice” for the United States to use so many of the world’s oil, gas, rare earth, platinum, gold and other resources – because we refuse to allow exploration and development of our own vast energy, metallic and other deposits right here in the United States?

How is it ethical to safeguard the needs of future generations, even if it means ignoring or compromising the needs of current generations – including the needs, aspirations, health and welfare of the most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished, politically powerless people on Earth? How much longer must 700 million Africans, 400 million Indians and another 300 million people in other countries continue to live without electricity and all its countless blessings, because eco-activists obsess about global warming, insist on wind and solar, and oppose coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants?

How long must billions of people remain destitute, diseased and malnourished, because environmental activists and UN bureaucrats don’t like economic development, insecticides or biotechnology, either?

Does anyone suppose human ingenuity, creativity and innovation (what Julian Simon called our ultimate resource) will suddenly stop functioning? Assuming there is no government restriction on or confiscation of our God-given rights to innovate, create, invest and build – will human beings ever stop doing so?  

The fundamental problem with UN/activist/EPA “sustainability” is that it is infinitely elastic and malleable. No one can really know what it means, and it’s the perfect weapon in the hands of anti-hydrocarbon, anti-development activists. Whatever they support is sustainable. Whatever they oppose is unsustainable.

To the extent that their agendas foster “social justice” and “poverty eradication,” they will do so only in the context of climate protection, biodiversity, green growth, renewable energy, and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption and production” – as defined, evaluated and implemented by UN or EPA-approved scientists, regulators and activists, assisted largely by assumption-laden, agenda-driven computer models.

Worst of all, this UN/activist/EPA version of sustainable development gives unelected regulators increasing control over energy use, economic growth, wealth redistribution, and people’s lives, living standards, health and well-being. And they acquire control without the essential safeguards, checks and balances of robust science, independent courts, democracy, transparency, honesty and accountability.

We should strive to conserve energy, water and other resources, when it makes economic, technological, ecological and ethical sense to do so. We should reduce air and water pollutants that actually endanger human health and welfare. But we cannot afford to let “sustainable development” become yet another justification for ceding still more power to unelected, non-transparent, unaccountable overseers.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Suzuki - CBC prophet taken down a notch

David Suzuki and Ezra Levant are at it again with some great video clips by Ezra Levant. These videos bring up some important questions. Just why did David Suzuki have those odd requests about female escorts? Did he have the same request last year in Invermere? Suzuki has not responded nor will he likely any time soon but you can follow the videos and Ezra Levant at The Sun News network just in case Suzuki comes clean.

Enjoy Paul Visentin

ThinkTwice group

Rachel Carson - manipulator or messiah?

The definitive start to the environmental movement goes back to 1962 when  Rachael Carson published Silent Spring. Prior to the book being published, and to this day, experts in various disciplines have pointed out the shortcomings of her writings. Faced with compelling facts to the contrary people still blindly follow her writings.  One of her unintended legacy’s  is giving the environmental movement a blueprint on how to effectively use misinformation and half-truths. People like David Suzuki, Chief Theresa Spence, Al Gore and others are masters of manipulation distorting facts on virtually every media campaign. Rachael Carson taught them how to cherry pick data to prove a point and ignore any data to the contrary. It matters little if they are right or wrong just that they are heard.  Please take a moment to read the article below and ThinkTwice next time you hear her name mentioned.

Paul Visentin

ThinkTwice group

Silent spring at 50:Reflections on an environmental classic

Fifty years after the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring‚ the book’s legacy is mixed. It helped raise awareness about the costs of mass spraying operations‚ but it also provided justification for campaigns against the use of DDT in malaria control programs‚ which contributed to the deaths of millions in Africa and Asia.

 

Despite blunders in Silent Spring‚ the book is often cited with reverence. An example is Discover magazine ranking it one of the 25 greatest science books ever written‚ noting that “[h]er chilling vision of a birdless America is still haunting” (Discover 2006). This accolade for an advocacy book aimed at a mass audience typifies how Silent Spring is treated. As Wallace Kaufman notes‚ except for Henry David Thoreau‚ Carson has been cited more than any other environmental writer (Meiners‚ Desrochers‚ and Morriss 2012‚ Ch. 2).

 

Carson’s earlier publications on the oceans and marine life were fine works of nature writing that helped build her reputation. In Silent Spring‚ she shifted from documenting nature’s beauty to advocating positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking: neo-Malthusian population control and anti-technology efforts. She drew on her reputation as a nature writer to give these ideas a more acceptable face. Canonizing Silent Spring helped build those darker themes into mainstream environmentalism today. For those of us who believe‚ as did the late Julian Simon‚ that humanity is the “ultimate resource” (Simon 1998)‚ that was a tragic wrong turn.

 

Carson’s prose is powerful‚ but the substance of the book is not what one would expect from a leading “science” book. Silent Spring presented an emotional argument against chemical pesticides. It left key data and issues out of the picture. Her outrage was prompted in part by government spray programs that blanketed cropland and forests with heavy doses of pesticides in efforts to eradicate pests. Such programs often ran roughshod over landowners’ wishes. But it was not only the overuse that agitated Carson. She was highly critical of chemical pest control in general. She proposed mass introduction of alien species as a means of “biological” control of pests‚ a problematic alternative. Above all‚ Silent Spring is a work of advocacy‚ weaving anecdotes and carefully selected bits of science into a compelling brief against uses of chemicals that had already saved millions of lives at the time Carson wrote.

 

This PERC Policy Series draws on a larger work by a group of scholars assembled to examine Silent Spring in the context of the time in which Carson was writing. As is appropriate for a work intended to influence public policy‚ Silent Spring deserves critical analysis. The complete analysis will be published in 2012 by the Cato Institute as Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of RachelCarson (readers who would like more detailed documentation for the abbreviated discussion here will find it in the book).

 

Historical Background 

 

Today‚ there is a vague perception that the 1950s were a time of reckless chemical usage. Although innovations in chemistry were hailed—the inventor of DDT was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering it‚ and U.S. servicemen in World War II praised it for preventing insect-borne diseases—there were concerns about DDT from its earliest use. As World War II drew to a close‚ Carson’s employer‚ the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)‚ worried that organochlorides such as DDT damaged wildlife. The U.S. Department of Agrigulture (USDA)‚ a larger and more powerful agency than the FWS‚ won the initial skirmish‚ but the claims and the clashes between agricultural interests and wildlife advocates were present from the start. FWS gained an ally when the FDA entered the debate as the agency sought authority to regulate residues in food.

 

Responding to concerns about chemical exposure‚ the House of Representatives passed a resolution in 1950 calling for an investigation into chemicals in food products. Rep. James J. Delaney of New York was named as chair of the House Select Committee to investigate the “Use of Chemicals in Food Products” (Meiners et al. 2012‚ Ch. 9). To be the committee’s chief counsel‚ Delaney chose Vincent A. Kleinfeld‚ the FDA’s general counsel. Kleinfeld ran masterful hearings for the Select Committee‚ carefully building a case for more authority. Although agricultural interests were represented on the committee and were powerful in Congress‚ Kleinfeld outmaneuvered them by using USDA and agricultural witnesses’ testimony to paint the USDA as a biased agency beholden to special interests. His questioning of witnesses created the impression that the USDA was ignorant of the harms that were being inflicted on the public by the use of toxic chemicals that tainted food. The hearings attracted considerable attention‚ drawing major media coverage as they were held around the country.

click here to continue reading........