I would think it relevant that the result of Rachel Carson's two generation old efforts have saved untold lives given the recently uncovered link between DDT and breast cancer, to say nothing of the studies that have indicated prenatal exposure to DDT cause significant decreases in mental and physical functioning among young children, with the problems becoming more severe when the exposure is more serious (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/10/955, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/1/233). Maybe protecting the environment pays off in terms of human well being afterall? But apparently inane rhetorical parlor games and smearing Al Gore by innuendo, not results, are what's at issue here.

I'll get back to Al Gore in a second, but first I should say I find the picking on Rachel Carson interesting, given that she is the most well established bogeywoman of the well-greased right. Incidentally and contrary to the mythical narrative of mass slaughter in the third world propagated by the crazy-as-a-fox right, the DDT ban inacted in part due to her activism resulted only in the pesticide's not being used in US agriculture, not on its ban in cases of public health risk domestically or for any reason internationally.

But why the dated reference in a political environment currently saturated with environmental issues? Why more than four decades after its initial publishing we are still routinely hearing about 'Silent Spring'? The answer in turns out appears in a document Big Tobacco was forced to divulge as part of its 1998 class action settlement (durn trial lawyers). The document outlines a pitch made by a economist by the name of Roger Bate to Phillip Morris for funding for his proposed 'Africa Fighting Malaria' lobby group:

The environmental movement has been successful in most of its campaigns as it has been 'politically correct', if not always ethical... Similarly, fighting against culling elephants is a simple case to make in the media - defenceless animals being shot by callous poachers. It is, superficially at least, surprising that this is an issue that the greens have lost (for the moment). However, they lost because black southern Africans with emotional appeals of eco-imperial-induced poverty, backed by sensible intellectual arguments, overturned a ban on ivory trading in the face of opposition by nearly every western politician and all environmental groups. In short they had the correct blend of political correctness (they were oppressed blacks) and arguments (eco-imperialism was undermining their future and their right to self-determination)"

Hence, DDT- the perfect blunt instrument with which to bludgeon the enviro-Nazis. But why would Phillip Morris be at all interested in discrediting environmentalists? The ban on DDT's use in agriculture in the US was irrelevant to their profitability. The answer resides in this class action settlement documented sequence of events:

In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, senior vice-president for corporate affairs for Philip Morris, sent a letter to William I Campbell, its chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report [indicating second hand smoke was a public health problem] ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

The public relations company she hired for the task, called APCO, informed her that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

Hence, the crusade against a non-existent ban on DDT in Africa fit nicely into what Phillip Morris and Big Tobacco were trying to do for their own ends, in particular to support tobacco consumption. Of course, many of these same grassroots organizations set up by Big Tobacco in the early 90s are also closely associated with Exxon. No shocker, Bate is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a huge Exxon benefactor and well known for its shameless lack of credibility in its attacks on the science of global warming. Does that bring us back to Al Gore yet?

Indeed, I'm sure the author's intent here is to point up only the logical flaws in the rhetorical underpinnings of environmentalism. It's only a coincidence that theirs is of a piece with the anti-science propaganda on which vast corporate profits depend. Thanks Salon for lending your podium to these interests.

Premature, as ever.

Is proof that there is some decency left in the Republican party however marginal and marginalized. Premature sh**ter on the other hand is convincing evidence against the existence of a benevolent God.