Category Archives: Environmental politics

Rachel Carson, DDT and the global malaria epidemic

carsonEnvironmental politics is often symbolic, so its  no surprise that the symbolic legacy of most power figure in environmental history — Rachel Carson — has become highly contested.

She is, for some, the woman who turned a sleepy conservation movement into a green typhoon.  For a few people, however, she is the symbol of environmentalism gone horribly wrong, a nightmarish figment of their fertile imaginations.  And the most persistently contested areas of  Carson’s symbolic afterlife involves a controversy over one pesticide ( DDT ) and one disease (malaria).

In the pugnacious facts-be-damned style of American extremists, Carson’s legacy is the nightmare of a worldwide ban on DDT that has (supposedly)  killed Continue reading

The Iron Lady’s strong stance on climate

By Douglass Fischer
The Daily Climate

Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” of British politics who died Monday at the age of 87, is being lionized as the woman who tilted British domestic and economic policy to the right.

Less noted is how seriously she viewed the threat of climate change.

In a 1990 speech at the second World Climate Conference, in Geneva, Thatcher compared the threat of global warming to the Gulf War, which was then just escalating following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Thatcher, who spent 11 years as the United Kingdom’s prime minister, spent almost a quarter of her 2,500-word speech touting the importance of climate science and the UN body tasked with assessing that science. She called the work of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “remarkable” and “very careful.” Continue reading

“Are chemicals killing us?”

Well? Are chemicals killing us? That’s the title of study concerning news media coverage of chemical risks, and it concludes that the media over-reacts to chemical risks.

According to the press release:  “Majorities of toxicologists rate most government agencies as accurately portraying chemical risks, but they rate leading environmental activist groups as overstating risks, according to the survey by George Mason University researchers.”

The study also says that industry gets it right most of the time. And, the study says that Wikipedia is more accurate than the New York Times on issues of risk analysis and communication.

The study was performed by the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University.

So how was this study done, and why did it reach such negative conclusions about the media? Continue reading