For a number of years a good friend of mine and I have been sparring over climate change. We both believe that there is man-made climate change but what we don’t agree on is what to do about it.
While having dinner at a local eatery a couple of weeks ago, we started sparring about pesticides being sprayed on fruits and vegetables by farmers. According to my good friend, civilization is going to end because of Scott Pruitt, Trump’s new head of EPA, who is rescinding Obama’s ban of the pesticide chlorpyrifos.
Since 2000, chlorpyrifos has been banned from household use. But in California’s Central Valley, some 90 percent of almond orchards still use the pesticide and for half a century, the chemical has been used on dozens of crops including corn, strawberries and citrus — to battle those pesky small-farmers’ enemies called insects.
Studies have shown that household use of chlorpyrifos could interfere with children’s brain development. For instance, if a child’s IQ was 143 and when exposed to the pesticide, it might be lowered to 138. There has not been a study that shows that the pesticide has the same effect when a small amount is used on the outside of fruits and vegetables.
Pesticides cause cancer and should pesticides be banned to save lives? Certainly. But vegetables help prevent cancer and pesticides dramatically increase crop yields, lowering prices and making vegetables available to a wider audience. Yin and yang, anybody?
Neither my friend nor I know what we’re talking about. We haven’t spent the time and effort to research the problem. Both of us are victims of fake news. That’s not saying we only listen to fake news, but it is saying that fake news does sway our positions.
My argument has always been and will always be that the fate of human beings is what is important and I’m sure my good friend agrees with that. Eliminating particulates in the air that cause health problems in the environment is good. Helping to save lives by eliminating extreme poverty is also good.
It just makes good sense to me to use a cost-benefit approach when determining which is the right path to take. For instance, you might consider spending trillions of dollars on electric car development or spend trillions of dollars on feeding civilization. Which is right? Of course both paths are right but a determination needs to be made on how to accomplish them. A cost-benefit approach is the way to go.
Elon Musk and Al Gore have used $4.2 million in taxpayers money to line their pockets with silver and gold. Musk uses his money to develop electric cars and build an electric car manufacturing plant, a solar power plant and an electric battery plant in Nevada. Gore used his money to buy a huge home, large SUVs and the use of private planes.
Non-government organizations around the world have used their taxpayer money to teach people how to drill for water, be hygienic, learn how to grow more food and most importantly, provide healthcare for those in need.
In the July 10 edition of The New York Times, Bjorn Lomborg published a column titled “Heat-Death Hysteria: The Wrong Reason to Fight Climate Change.” He quotes CNN: “Deadly heat waves are becoming more common due to climate change. Extreme heat waves will increase in frequency and ferocity because of global warming.”
Lomborg says, “This isn’t fake news. In fact, it is perfectly true.” But then he continues, saying, “While deadly killer extreme heat waves gain a lot of coverage, the fact that global warming in winter has saved many more lives and does not get equal billing.”
So there you have it, and I sure hope my good friend reads this column and we can come together amicably.
“Global warming is real. It is man-made and is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.” — Bjorn Lomborg
Robert Pembroke is chairman of Pembroke’s Inc. and considers himself on permanent sabbatical. He can be reached at pembroke894@gmail.com.