The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace, two of the groups responsible for significantly limiting the use of DDT worldwide, shockingly now concede DDT should be used to save lives, especially in third world countries. For over four decades these very groups worked worldwide to get DDT banned, placing environmental worries over human heath. But a spokesperson for WWF recently acknowledged to a New York Times columnist what many have known for decades. “South Africa was right to use DDT,” he said. “If the alternatives to DDT aren’t working, as they weren’t in South Africa, geez, you’ve got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives.” Rick Hind of Greenpeace also conceded that DDT may in fact be good: “If there’s nothing else and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.” FACT: DDT is the best and most effective means of eradicating malaria worldwide. Now, after forty years, WWF and Greenpeace - groups with staunch anti-chemical industry and anti-population agendas - grudgingly concede that DDT is indeed needed to help save millions of lives. The World Health Organization estimates that each year 300-500 million cases of malaria occur, resulting in over one million deaths annually. According to the CDC, malaria is a leading cause of death and disease worldwide, especially in developing countries. Most deaths occur in young children. For example, in Africa, a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. Tragically, however, these deaths could have been prevented. The benefits of DDT were recognized over forty years ago following WWII when malaria was eradicated from industrialized nations. But the numbers tell a much different story in developing nations, where the use of DDT remains severely limited because of successful efforts by environmental groups. DDT is a tragic example of how politically motivated environmental groups let their own agenda get in the way of critical medical progress. Sadly, in this case the effect has been the needless loss of millions of lives.

On Earth Day, it’s really no surprise that Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, is talking more about campaign finance law than environmental progress. In his blog yesterday, Pope wrote, “In both the House and Senate, the leadership is pushing hard for bills that, when combined, would change American democracy even more dramatically than shutting off the filibuster. The House bill would undo the limitations on soft money contributions to politicians and parties that were crafted in the McCain-Feingold Act, while the Senate bill, being portrayed as ‘campaign reform,’ would actually prohibit most organizations from criticizing candidates for public office -- sort of a Common Cause version of the Alien and Sedition Acts (the Federalists' efforts in 1798 to quell political opposition). It does this by defining most such criticism as campaign expenditure and by prohibiting any organization except a political campaign committee from making such expenditures.” FACT: During the 2004 Presidential campaign when George Soros, who called the election “a matter of life and death,” was looking for a place to invest 5 million dollars, he invited Pope and fellow Democrat operatives like Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta to his house. Soros was looking for groups to give his money to in an effort to defeat President Bush. According to a Washington Post article, “Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated ‘soft money’ contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization.” Interestingly, environmental groups are all tax-exempt IRS registered 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, meaning that contributions to these groups are tax –deductible. These groups profess to be the greatest stewards of the environment and solicit contributions from a variety of sources under that premise. But they demonstrate more interest in hyping apocalyptic environmental scenarios to raise money for raw political purposes rather than working together to improve our environment for the benefit of all Americans. All of these non-profit groups are also closely associated and fund their affiliated 501(c)(4) lobbying organizations and 527 political organizations. The Washington Post published an article demonstrating that IRS 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 527 organizations were all engaged in political activity during the 2004 election cycle with expenditures designed to circumvent the prohibitions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. The article quoted a former Federal Election Commission official stating, “In the wake of the ban on party-raised soft money, evidence is mounting that money is slithering through on other routes as organizations maintain various accounts, tripping over each other, shifting money between 501(c)(3)'s, (c)(4)'s, and 527's.... It’s big money” The Sierra Club describes itself as “America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization.” Sierra Club is also an IRS registered tax-exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) foundation. The Sierra Club Foundation is closely affiliated with its Sierra Club 501(c)(4) and section 527 political organization. In fact the Washington Post detailed the interconnected organizations of the Sierra Club in an article during the 2004 election: “Perhaps no one better illustrates the host of interlocking roles than Carl Pope, one of the most influential operatives on the Democratic side in the 2004 election. As executive director of the Sierra Club, a major 501c (4) environmental lobby, Pope also controls the Sierra Club Voter Education Fund, a 527. The Voter Education Fund 527 has raised $3.4 million this election cycle, with $2.4 million of that amount coming from the Sierra Club. A third group, the Sierra Club PAC, has since 1980 given $3.9 million to Democratic candidates and $173,602 to GOP candidates.”

As debate intensifies over the science of global warming, Senator McCain and Governor Romney now say they favor legislation regardless if there is actual global warming or not. McCain states, “For argument's sake, let's say that the science that we are relying on is wrong - yet we enact legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, what harm will that action cause?” Romney agrees saying, “If climate change is happening, the actions we take will help, if climate change is largely caused by human actions, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn’t happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment.” FACT: The cost of passing climate change legislation would be enormous. The most widely cited and most definitive economic analysis of Kyoto came from Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, or WEFA. According to WEFA economists, Kyoto would cost 2.4 million US jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2%, or about $300 billion annually, an amount greater than the total expenditure on primary and secondary education. Because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher food, medical, and housing costs -- for food, an increase of 11%, medicine, an increase of 14%, and housing, an increase of 7%. At the same time an average household of four would see its real income drop by $2,700 in 2010, and each year thereafter. Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly double, and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents per gallon. Additionally, EIA estimated that limiting carbon dioxide emissions alone to 1990 levels by 2010 could cost the economy about $300 billion in 2010 alone, and the 7%-below-1990 target could cost an additional $100 billion. Finally, a study by Charles River Associates, a non-partisan economic forecasting firm, found that the impact of the Climate Stewardship Act, S.139 (McCain/Lieberman), would mean job losses of 39,000 to 250,000 in 2010 and 190,000 to 610,000 by 2020 and cost between $600 and $1,300 per family per year in 2010 rising to $1,000 to $2,300 by 2020.

Senate Democrats claim if only they had more information on Clear Skies legislation they might vote in favor of President Bush’s historic power plant emissions reductions legislation. In reality Democrats reach deep into their bag of tricks searching for an excuse to delay the bill. Beholden to liberal special interest groups who fear an environmental victory by President Bush, Democrats place politics above the environmental needs of the nation. FACT: History provides clear evidence of the weakness of the Democrat’s claims of needing more information on Clear Skies. Committee members today have more data on Clear Skies than the committee had when they passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 out of committee. Members have better quality data than the full Senate had when they passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. They have more data than President Bush had when he decided to go forward with Clear Skies. Finally, when Chairman Jeffords forced a vote on his Clean Power Act of 2002, the Committee had zero data and had only seen the bill for less than one week.