False environmental concerns have consequences

The media often publishes theories based on ideology or “scientific consensus” instead of truth and science.

Once this information is published, it is very difficult to convince people that these theories had no basis. While the mass media is quick to alarm people about dangers to the environment, very little is printed about “non politically correct” truths.

People tend to blindly believe, for example, that overpopulation will cause food shortages, that DDT is harmful to people, that people cause “global warming”, or that using ethanol reduces.

All of these ideas have a common basis: They prioritize the “environment” over humanity. As a result, they have a common consequence: They create serious problems for people.

It is true that chemical pesticides may be harmful. Rachel Carson, among others, raised the awareness to this problem in 1962. However, the resulting total ban on DDT was more based on emotion than science.

The total ban on DDT continues to have serious consequences in third world countries, where malaria, once under control though DDT, is today killing hundreds of thousands of people.

The ban on DDT is affecting us in Ontario as well. For example, DDT could be effective against occurrences of the deadly “bird flu”.

Centralization-obsessed socialists believe that the government can control almost everything, including nature. In some cases, interventionist governments take “positive steps” to affect the environment. These steps, as communist countries proved over and over, may cause more damage than doing nothing at all.

The current problem

This spring the cities of Burlington and Hamilton, and the Halton Region are planning an aerial spraying, for killing of the Gypsy moth in designated areas. This moth eats the leaves of trees causing the trees to be more vulnerable to disease and attack from other insects.

This aerial spraying will release bacterial spores into the air; the bacteria is known as B.t.k. B.t.k. is approved by Health Canada for use in urban areas. Government data shows that the health risk for humans is minimal, though residents would be advised to stay inside during the spraying. There is however enough information about B.t.k. from other sources to raise human health concerns.

Since the Gypsy moth does not pose a direct threat to human health, but the “remedy” against it may, are we really spending our money wisely?

Since the moth cannot be eliminated, is this spraying going to become another annual expense adding to our tax burden?

All considered, it would be prudent and less costly to stop government widespread use of B.t.k. and let landowners use any means available, to control the problem within their property.