A common target for the anti-environmentalists is the alleged ban on DDT and the supposed deaths of millions of people from malaria as a result, usually throwing in hysterical refeences to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring and a sprinking of 'environazis'. Tim Lambert has done a good demolition job on this garbage [via Crooked Timber].
(The graph on the left) shows that malaria did skyrocket in India in the 70s. But not because they cut back on DDT spraying because of pressure from environmentalists. The graph shows that they didn’t cut back on DDT, but dramatically increased its use. So how come malaria increased? Well, the increase in DDT use was in agriculture. This caused the insects to become resistant, so they had to use more DDT to get the same effect. This caused more resistance, so even more DDT was used and so on. The end result was that in the areas where DDT was used in agriculture, the mosquitoes became completely resistant and DDT no longer stopped them from spreading malaria, with the disastrous results shown in the graph.
Was this catastrophe predictable? Well, yes. In fact, Rachel Carson warned about it in Silent Spring. If India had followed the example of the United States and banned the agricultural use of DDT and reserved it for public health many millions of cases of malaria would have been prevented. However, India probably could not have afforded the more expensive alternative insecticides to DDT, so this may not have been feasible. But there were other alternatives that would have greatly reduced pesticide use and slowed the development of resistance.
He incidently also does a good job on those rootin' tootin' libertarians who want to turn the world into a series of armed camps because that will reduce crime. (It doesn't, as the his archive clearly shows.)
This is supported by the findings of a recent study of murder rates in the UK by Shaw, Tunstall and Dorling. Despite the apparent rise in murder rates since 1981, for every social group bar one the rate actually fell:
This study analyses demographic and spatial factors that underlie the rise in murder rates seen in Britain between 1981 and 2000 and considers the possible contribution of a public health approach to the understanding of murder. Comparison of murder rates by age group and sex finds that increases occurred only among males aged 5–59 years, and were greatest among males aged 20–24 years. Analysis of the relationship with poverty at the area level, using the Breadline Britain index and deciles based on wards, demonstrates that increases in murder rates were concentrated in the poorest areas. Rates of murder have risen in the same population groups and areas that have experienced increases in suicide and may be associated with worsening social and spatial inequality. (from the abstract)
In other words addressing inequality has real practical, social and economic benefits.
For the time being, you can listen to one of the authors here.
