Continuing the theme that there is no such thing as the "common good," let us look again at the organizations that claim to embody the common good, in this case, the selfless environmentalist groups. If our analysis is correct, these organizations will defend their positions, even when those positions clearly hurt large numbers of innocent people without providing any environmental benefit. Stategy teaches that when a group wins a victory, it is likely to selfishly defend the position it has won until it advances to a new, better position. Because they are self-centered, organization can only abandon a position, even a bad one, when they win new victories that allow them to move on.
Perhaps there is no more tragic example of the long defense of a destructive position than the environmental movementâ€™s battle to continue of the ban on DDT. Only the movementâ€™s recent victories on the â€œglobal warmingâ€ front have allowed it to abandon its stubborn defense of this deadly ban. The ban has killed tens millions of innocent people, mostly children, mostly in Africa. By defending it, the environmental movement gave up many of its pretenses of defending human life. It would have continued defending the continued slaughter of innocents if the movement wasn't now focused on consolidating its power through its new "global warming" agenda. (If you want to know why I put "global warming" in quotes, read this post
). So, in a very backward sense, you can say that the fight against "global warming" is already saving lives by redirecting the efforts of environmentalists to where they are doing less immediate damage.
For decades, largest environmentalist organization, (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.) successfully fought tooth and nail to maintain the ban on DDT. The original science behind the claims made against DDT was virtually non-existent. In the subsequent decades, no new scientific evidence of the dangers of DDT has emerged. However, it wasnâ€™t until last month that the World Heath Organization (WHO) could finally lift the ban. Why? Not because of new science, but because these organizations have won bigger and more lucrative victories in feeding the new media hysteria for â€œglobal warming."
This article by John Stossel
quotes Mike Malloy, an adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
"There are no new facts on DDT -- all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s," Milloy says.
Milloy adds: "It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple 'never mind,' except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF [World Wildlife Fund], Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT."
Milloy reminds us that the same people who spread DDT hysteria are now pushing the global-warming scare. "If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now?"
Why indeed? Perhaps there is no better evidence that these organizations are not fighting for the â€œcommon goodâ€ as they are their own survival and self-justification. The only question is who will their new victims be and how many more must die in their defense of this new position?
The free market system is not perfect. Products like cigarettes cause needless millions of deaths. The difference is freedom of choice. It is sad when someone dies because they chose to smoke. It is tragic when a child dies because Greenpeace chooses to use the power of government to protect the mosquito.
The real crimes of history are the millions who have been put to death through no choice of their own. History's real killers require government control and coercion. From Fascism to Communism to environmentalism to Islamicism, the philosophy is the same. Those who use deadly coercion are justified in taking away your freedom and your life because their elites know what is best for everyone.
Update: For anyone doubting that the current environmental movement has moved beyond protecting the environment to a program of political power via the tool of "global warming," please read this from the US Senate committee on the environment.