To be fair, this should be entitled "Bad Science Kills" or "Poor Risk Analysis Kills", but since most such mistakes, at least in modern times, rest on the idiocies of the "green" movement, it seems easiest to simply blame the green movement.

This all came to me because my wife was prescribed an inhaler for some breathing troubles and the doctor, a remarkably honest man, mentioned the new inhalers take two puffs where one used to do, and cost twice as much, all because they replaced the CFCs in the device. Now, granted, for the wealthy environmental proponents, this is not an issue, but for those with lower incomes, or in poorer countries, it is an issue. Yet, despite their "caring" for others, the green movement is happy to deprive individuals of medicine in order to prevent a hypothetical (and basically disproved) ozone hole.  Then again, in "The Lie of Environmentalism" I hypothesize that the real environmentalist leaders hate man, but more of that later.

To be fair, it is not just the greens, the lawyers and the chicken littles who are afraid of every potential risk do this as well. For example, the fear over Thimerosal has led to the banning of that substance. As a result, multiuse vaccines are no longer available, as the preservative is what made them possible. For the well off, paying for a vial for each dose is no big deal. But for those vaccinating a large group of poor individuals, having to buy a vial for each, rather than one vial for 100 is a big cost increase. Yet, once again, the caring left doesn't care.

(Since some on the right seem to believe the Thimerosal panic, I would refer them to "Required Waste". Or, to make the question simple, the "explosion" of autism cases took place years after Thimerosal was discontinued. On the other hand, it does seem to coincide with both a loosening of the definition of "the spectrum of autistic disorders" as well as a government push to identify and diagnose autistic individuals. See also "Statistical Artifacts", "The Latest Public Health Push", "I Am Quite Dubious", "Revealing Too Much", "Allergies", "Shocking Numbers", "Disease Incidence", "An Interesting Article" and "Bad Economics Part 1". Which makes me think autism did not increase so much as the number of diagnoses increased while underlying conditions remained the same.)

Finally, let us look at the all time greatest number of deaths from eco-fashion. Granted, the loss of wealth, the increase of energy costs, the use of flammable and toxic refrigerants rather than CFCs, and many other factors have reduced lifespans and cost lives, but no single environmental action has killed more than banning DDT. ("Salt, Transfats, DDT, Bad Science and Even Worse Law", "Environmentalists Puzzle Me, And So Does CSPI") First of all, it was pointless. Even by 1970, when the EPA made its move to ban DDT, the science was turning toward the position that the scare over DDT was unfounded. Even the EPA chief responsible admitted later in life that he knew there was no conclusive proof, but he had to do it to show the new EPA had teeth. But, pointless as the DDT ban was, it cost millions of lives, and ten times that in illness and incapacity. Where DDT reduced yearly malaria cases from the millions to the hundreds or thousands, it went back tot he millions, and we now talk of fighting malaria with mosquito nets, rather than a perfectly functional solution.

Worse still, thanks to DDT, the EPA came to think that banning chemicals was its primary purpose and its main route to political influence. Thanks to the ban of DDT, we saw actions against other largely harmless chemicals such as Alar, as well as scares over trivial amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. For forty years we have been deluged with action against harmless, useful chemicals.

And that brings me back to a point I made earlier. The greens seem to be remarkably oblivious to the harm they do in their bans. In part I think this is simple obliviousness, ignoring the effect on the less affluent, as it does not truly touch them. On the other hand, I also think it may be part of their condescension toward the third world ("Eurocentrism? Racism? Liberal Traits All", "The Costs of Understanding", "It Is All In How You Say It", "The Racism of the Left", "The Condescention of "Understanding""), which leads them to be nearly dismissive of suffering, so long as it happens to poor benighted folk somewhere else.

But that is only half of the picture. Many of the rank and file, be they wealthy adults or trendy college students, are truly oblivious to the harm they do. Even if they concern themselves elsewhere with economic "justice", in this case they ignore their role in causing these problems, if they notice, blaming the "greedy" chemical companies or farmers. But above those in the rank and file, there are the thinkers behind the movement, and they seem to have a different agenda, much more concerned with placing "nature" above man, or, if we are completely honest, using nature as a pretext to destroy man. It may arise form some abstract love of "nature", or it may have some other less open motivation, but it is clear, as I described before, that they have little problem with proposals which would eliminate a huge number of human beings.

And that is the one thing we must emphasize when disputing the environmentalist arguments. We must not fight about the science ("Beware Alternate Explanations "), that concedes their arguments, and leaves us bickering over specifics. ("You Lose When You Think You Win", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "Of Wheat and Doctors", "Pyrrhic Victories") Instead, we must point out the foolishness and damage. We must point out the folly of creating some abstract "nature" and giving it infinite value ("Absolute Values", ""It's Our Top Priority!""), as well as the fact that such a position leads to reducing the value of man, often to a deadly degree. So long as we concentrate on the philosophy and stop debating the technical issues, we will get much farther. Sure, when they put forward some particularly bogus science, point it out, but at the same time, argue the beliefs as well. Do not let them turn this into a technical debate over how much we have warmed in the last century, that is the way we lose.