> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:32 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation > > In a warmer world, however, with changes in arable > landmass/location, and expansion of 'tropical' > diseases to the former temperate zones, with large > refugee populations on the move with the attendant > epidemics -- I'd predict many millions in the span of > a generation or two. It'd be horrible.
I don't see any real evidence for that. The global warming will just continue...allowing for mass migrations to take place over decades instead of months. There will be suffering and death in these, but it pales in comparison to that presently occurring as a result of a lack of clean water supplies. This is killing millions/year, but isn't newsworthy because it doesn't make a good story with villains and heroes, etc. Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its elimination of malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, there was an extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to the DDT use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. A simple spraying of houses would be cheap (well within what is presently donated for malaria prevention) and effective. The impact on the environment would be far lower than the massive use in the US....which had minimal effect on people. It should be a no-brainer. Instead, I find my Zambian daughter, who has had malaria twice, having been convinced that the risk from DDT was higher...due to the ubiquitous nature of the false information. Isn't dying one way just as bad as the other? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
