Rss Feed
Linkedin button

How the Environmental Movement is Killing Innovation and Destroying Our Environment

How the Environmental Movement is Killing Innovation and Destroying Our Environment

Environmentalists are often portrayed by the Media as lovable, good natured people; people  who only want to save some adorable furry creature.  Environmentalist groups target new technologies claiming that they are dangerous or unproven.  The policies they advocate are anti-innovation and have destroyed advances in medicine, food production, power generation, vaccines, and more.  These policies have resulted in the deaths of more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Moa combined.  These deaths are not the result of good intentioned policies gone wrong;  these policies are the purposeful goal of environmental groups.  Environmentalists have consistently proven that they are willing to lie in order to achieve their objectives.  Being “Green” is worse than being a Nazi, worse than being a Marxist;  but  these policies do work hand in hand with these statists philosophies.

I will briefly outline three environmentalist policy areas where environmentalists have lied about science. and  even more important than lying, these policies have killed millions of people.


Silent Spring by Rachel Carson resulted in the banning of DDT.

Deaths Caused by DDT Ban

In 1970, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimated that DDT saved more than 500 million lives during the time it was widely used.   Banning DDT has resulted in about 100 million deaths, many of whom were pregnant women and children.  By comparison: Hitler killed about 6-7 million, Stalin killed around 10-14million, and Mao killed between 60-68 million.

FYI: The ban on DDT is why the US is currently having infestations of bed bugs; most people born after 1940 thought these were eradicated like polio.

Lies about DDT

Carson claimed DDT thinned the eggshells of birds.  This was based on 1956 study by Dr. James DeWitt, published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry.  However, DeWitt’s study actually showed that 50 percent more eggs hatched alive from the birds subjected to DDT than the non-DDT group.  Other claims suggested that raptor populations declined because of the use of DDT; however, raptor populations were failing before the introduction of DDT.   In fact, the Audubon’s Eagle counts from 1941 to 1961 actually increased when DDT was mostly widely used.  All the latest evidence shows,  Carson’s claims were nothing but outrageous lies.

Goal of Banning DDT was to Kill People

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

 Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”


Nuclear Power

Anti-Nuclear power activists claimed that nuclear power generation would result in the deaths of thousands of people.  This movement was able to kill off the nuclear power industry in the United States after the Three Mile Island accident in which no one was killed and the average person within ten miles of the accident received the equivalent on one chest xray of radiation.

Deaths Caused by Nuclear Power Ban

The main alternative to nuclear power plants in the World ,to date ,have been coal fired plants.  For each person killed by nuclear power generation (including deaths due to Chernoybal), 4,000 die from coal. The previous data is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.   The number of people killed per year in the US because of this change is at least 10,000.  These deaths are mainly due to particulate pollution(nuclear power has no particulate pollution). This figure also includes an increase in the number of mining deaths, and increases in the number of deaths due to the extra transportation required to move coal compared to transporting uranium.  In the United States alone: this  environmental program has resulted in at least 300,000 deaths.  Why has this not made headlines??! While the rest of the world has not followed the U.S.’s lead completely, the anti-nuclear movement has definitely retarded the development of nuclear power plants around the world.  As a result, a reasonable estimate of the deaths worldwide because of the environmental policies is at least 600,000.

Nuclear power plants represent a huge reduction in air and water pollution.  Real reductions in pollution are the result of advancing technologies, not regulator schemes such as the EPA has adopted.  In fact, regulatory agencies can be credited with increasing pollution levels compared to what it would be without their influence.

The largest one time event fatality toll from energy production was in 1975.  30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding.  An estimated 230,000 people died. The fatalities and property destruction from this single event in hydropower far exceeds the number of deaths from all other energy sources.   Of course, hydroelectric power is one of the environmentalists’ favorite source of power.

Lies about Nuclear Power

The number one lie is about nuclear power is that an accident could result in the death of thousands of people.  Another boogey man of the environmentalists is that the half lives of byproducts from nuclear power lasts tens of thousands of years.  What if the half life were infinite?  Wouldn’t that be worse?  If the half life were infinite,  the element would be stable.  Longer half lives mean that there is less radiation.  Nuclear power plants accelerate the natural radioactive decay of uranium, so leftover fuel rods are less radioactive than the mined material.

Nuclear power plants are too expensive to make economic sense.  This is another lie perpetuated by environmental groups.

Nuclear power is not intrinsically expensive. What drove nuclear plant costs up were environmentalist delays (caused by anti-nuclear “interveners” and the high interest financing rates—both perpetrated by those who wanted to kill nuclear power, and who now complain that nuclear costs too much. Shown here, in dollars per kilowatt are the rising costs of financing, environmentalist delays, and construction materials increases for nuclear (N) and the rising costs for comparable coal-fired plants (C) with sulfur removal.

Source: Electric Power Research Institute

Goal of Banning Nuclear power was to Kill People?

There does not appear to be any environmental wacko comments to this effect;  certainly  it hasbeen the result and since the environmentalism movement believes there are too many people-well,  it seems this was likely part of their goal in killing off nuclear power.

Global Warming

Man made global warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the latest hoax being thrust upon us by Environmentalists, who I have already shown,have a very poor track record.

Deaths Caused by Global Warming Hoax

The United States is spending about $10 billion a year on Global Warming research.   I think it is safe to say that at least $100 billion has been spent worldwide on Global Warming over the last decade.  It costs about $20 to provide infrastructure for clean water for one person.  According to WHO, 30,000 deaths occur every week from unsafe water and unhygienic living conditions.  Most of these deaths are children under five years old.  That is over 600,000 deaths per year because of poor water infrastructure.  If the $10 billion being wasted on Global Warming research were instead applied to water infrastructure, this could save 50 million lives.  Why can’t we say that the Global Warming Hoax has cost the lives of at 6 million people.?

How AGW Advocates Have Lied

“The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.”

It is well known that the main driver of the temperature on Earth are the variations in the amount of solar energy the Earth receives.  “Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.”

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor – over 95%, but you never hear about this from AGW advocates.

Natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.”

Below, IPCC Experts comment on the IPCC, which is the group at the UN that has been saying a consensus of scientist s “believe” in Global Warming.

Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Goal of AGW

The goal of AGW is to kill capitalism and as a result kill millions of people.  Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace explained.

 (Environmentalism today is) more about globalism and anti-capitalism than it is about science or ecology….

The Environmental Movement is Anti-Human – Pure Evil

 “Ultimately, no problem may be more threatening to the Earth’s environment than the proliferation of the human species.”

Anastasia Toufexis, “Overpopulation: Too Many Mouths,” article in Time’s special “Planet of the Year” edition, January 2, 1989.

“Today, life on Earth is disappearing faster than the days when dinosaurs breathed their last, but for a very different reason….Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years as natural paradises, until we came along, paved paradise, and put up a parking lot. Our assault on nature is killing off the very things we depend on for our own lives….The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us, and we consume way too much, especially here at home….It will take a massive global effort to make things right, but the solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption, develop green technologies.”

— NBC’s Matt Lauer hosting Countdown to Doomsday, a two-hour June 14, 2006 Sci-Fi Channel special. 


Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a biographical essay in 1990:

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

 Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, is reported to have said,

“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this (referring to malaria deaths) is as good a way as any.”


  1. Another thing you could of added is that presently the communists and the green parties have paired up across Europe to advance their agendas. Example is the CDU in Portugal (a copy of their logo can be seen here Although though not all communists are environmentalists it is long been true nearly all Greens are radical socialists. Having went to college with many of them and spent time in Europe I have found on both sides of the Atlantic the trend is the same. (Van Jones is a good example of the amalgamation of the movements in the U.S.)

  2. Excellent points Luke

  3. This piece truly exposes you as the ideological fanatic that you are. The only lies are the ones you present here, and most grade school students understand these risks far better than you do.

    Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, from near-extinction in the contiguous US. (Stokstad E, June 2007, “Species conservation. Can the bald eagle still soar after it is delisted?”. Science 316 (5832): 1689–90. DOI:10.1126/science).

    As early as the 1940s, scientists in the U.S. had begun expressing concern over possible hazards associated with DDT, and in the 1950s the government began tightening some of the regulations governing its use. But it was not until 1957, when the New York Times reported an unsuccessful struggle to restrict DDT use in Nassau County, New York, that the issue came to the attention of the popular naturalist-author, Rachel Carson. William Shawn, editor of The New Yorker, urged her to write a piece on the subject, which developed into her famous book Silent Spring, published in 1962. The book argued that pesticides, including DDT, were poisoning both wildlife and the environment and were also endangering human health.

    The year after it appeared, President Kennedy ordered his Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson’s claims. The report the committee issued “add[ed] up to a fairly thorough-going vindication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring thesis,” in the words of the journal Science, and recommended a phaseout of “persistent toxic pesticides”.

    Dr. Charles Wurster, whose study you claim demonstrated the opposite, was one of the founders of the Ernvironmental Defense Fund which was organized to outlaw DDT because of it environmental and human dangers. Soon after the US ban, DDT was subsequently banned for agricultural use worldwide under the Stockholm Convention, with limited use in disease vector control.

    Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences, was the 1982 report of the a worst-case nuclear power plant accident performed by Sandia National Laboratories for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Indian Point Energy Center (near NYC) was calculated to have the largest possible consequences for a release, with estimated maximum casualty numbers of around 50,000 deaths, 150,000 injuries, and property damage of $274 Billion to $314 Billion (based on 1982 values). The NRC, under industry pressure, has since distanced itself from their own report, saying its “overly conservative”.

    An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

    The authors note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one.

    Lies: “Longer half lives mean that there is less radiation. Nuclear power plants accelerate the natural radioactive decay of uranium, so leftover fuel rods are less radioactive than the mined material.”

    The half-life of an isotope is merely a probabilistic measure of the time required for its radiation emissions to reduce by 50%. It says nothing about the amount of radiation exposure, which is solely dependent on the type of isotope, the concentration and the total volume.

    Uranium ores in the United States typically range from about 0.05 to 0.3% uranium oxide, whereas spent nuclear fuel is 96% uranium and are so highly radioactive they must be isolated from the human environment for tens of thousands of years. So far, no safe storage method has been found.

    Truth: “Nuclear power plants are too expensive to make economic sense.”

    That has been true from the start, if normal liability is taken into account, and for that reason no utility would consider building a nuclear power plant until Congress passed the Price-Anderson liability limit which would shift ultimate accident costs to the taxpayers. Though it was broad grass-roots protest, public education and the Three Mile Island meltdown (not the first in the US) which led to the cancellation of all future construction plans, it has been primarily the false economics of nuclear power which has prevented their continued construction.

    I won’t even go into climate change, since it is the largest consensus in the history of science and nobody but the fossil fuel industry and flat-earthers even question its validity and reality in our lives. Even the Pentagon sees it as the next major threat to global stability, and Exxon-Mobil now recognizes it.

  4. You clearly are not interested in the truth. The DDT ban had nothing to do with the comeback of Bald Eagle – this is a lie propagated by environmentalist. Every credible scientific study has shown that DDT had no ill effects on the Bald Eagle.

    As a typical environmentalist your response to killing over 100 million people is to suggest that the bald eagle was saved. Your values are clearly not human centered

    Nuclear Power: I was talking about actual facts not speculative papers. And the facts are that the switch to other energy sources instead of Nuclear Power has resulted in millions of deaths.

    Your ignorance of Physics is astronomical. The total radiation after the Uranium has been used to fuel a nuclear power plant is less than the mined Uranium – otherwise there would be no net energy produced.

    Nuclear power is only expensive because of people like you who do not understand physics. You burden the industry with regulations that have no basis in science or fact and then claim it is too expensive.

    You have proven that you have no interest in science. Environmentalism is a religion and like all forms of statism result in untold human death and misery. So far exceeding the deaths caused by Stalin, Moa, and Hitler combined. Environmentalist are evil on a scale that boggles the mind.

  5. When I stumbled upon your misnamed “Science of Economic Growth”, I suspected you mere merely another common ideologue, cherry-picking the literature in a semi-intelligent manner, to support your bias.

    But now that you have so kindly led me to this diatribe, it is patently evident that you are a complete ignoramus entirely divorced from any semblance of reality, and that you must have had a ghost-writer for the former essay since this abomination and your replies to me display a level of dissociative mental incapacity that is rare even among the most zealous fundamentalists.

  6. You have yet to make a coherent argument. Unless you are going to point to real facts and provide real arguments I will remove all future comments.

  7. It’s your blog and you can delete whatever contradicts your wild ignorance-based statements. But it is you how fear the truth. There’s not one in a million who believes the nonsense you post here, as it ignores and contradicts everything that has been established by the scientific community.

  8. According to Mr. Riversong’s background is:

    Robert Riversong is a designer and builder of super-insulated passive solar homes, an instructor in sustainable design, an experiential wilderness guide, rites-of-passage facilitator, and midwife for a new world struggling to be born.

  9. I’m also a mechanic, machinist, welder, engineer, computer programmer (since 1968), research assistant and data analyst, instructor in Hygro-Thermal and Structural Engineering (providing continuing ed credits for graduate architects and engineers), published author, social critic, peace and justice activist who began his polymath studies at Harvard, Stanford, Amherst College (A+ in Logic), University of Michigan (and several other schools) and continued his studies of all fields of science for the 35 subsequent years.

  10. Sure – being a rites-of-passage facilator certainly appears to make you qualified to comment on everything.

  11. I should have added that I’m also a respected Building Scientist, specializing in mass and energy flows, with clients all over North America.

    But your cherry-picking one minor element of my resume in order to generalize a fallacious argument is emblematic of the way you cherry-pick facts and fundamental principles to argue for a pre-conceived and ideologically-biased conclusion.

  12. Mr. Riversong is an ANTI-HUMAN radical environmentalist as his comment on Enviro Groups Fear “Dangerously Misguided” Plan to Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes reproduced below proves.

    “Maybe the “off-target effects” will include a dramatic reduction in human over-population and thereby save the earth? This could be a good thing”

Leave a Reply

Subscriber Count


Advertise Here

Your Ad

could be right


find out how


Coming Soon