Between the ozone layer, deforestation, and global warming, it’s clear that the planet is having trouble. So, with effort, determination, and lots of money, we started doing what we do best: We started making it worse.
Source: Cristian Baitg/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images
By Marc Russel
5. Ethanol Fuel
Source: Paul Eekhoff/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images
Why it’s "Good" for the World:
It produces less CO2 than gasoline and helps stop global warming.
Why it Really Isn’t:
It's true that Ethanol, in and of itself, produces less emissions than gasoline when burned. Unfortunately, people forget where ethanol comes from. Most ethyl-alcohol is distilled from sugarcane, corn, or grain. In a world with six billion mouths to feed, we don't have much food to spare, and turning an important resource that's already in short supply into fuel for your Pinto is what economists refer to as "f***ing retarded." You see, the amount of grain needed to fill up an SUV with ethanol could feed one person for about a year. Since grain is used to make just about anything with bread, and corn is mostly used to feed livestock, the increased demand for grain, corn, and sugar would cause the prices of bread, meat, dairy, and candy to go through the roof (these of course being the four essential food groups).
In order to cope with the demand, whole sections of rainforests get burned down to pave the way for fields of sugarcane. Not clear-cut. Physically burned to the ground. At least clear-cutting got you some goddamn lumber. All you get out of this is enormous amounts of smoke, which on its own is probably worse than if you had just stuck with gasoline.
4. The Ban on DDT
Source: Ben Mills
Why it’s "Good" for the World:
DDT causes cancer and kills birds. They’ve done studies, you know? It’s science!
Why it Really Isn’t:
It's true, there were several studies that concluded that DDT is a carcinogen, and does cause thinning in bird's eggshells. Unfortunately the actual science itself was about as solid as a dollop of Miracle Whip on the surface of the Sun. The study that showed DDT was a carcinogen found that a group of mice exposed to DDT had a higher rate of leukemia, but that turned out to be a result of the test group being fed moldy bread that contained a fungus known to cause cancer.
There were a number of studies that attempted to demonstrate DDT as causing thinning of birds' eggshells, but virtually all of them were cavalier with the scientific method, at best. The most often quoted one is where they took a bunch of birds, fed them DDT-laced food, then compared their eggshell thickness with those of wild birds. This is already scientifically iffy, since it wasn't double-blind and didn't even have a control group. On top of that, their captured birds were being fed calcium-deficient diets, and it turns out that calcium is kind of important for making eggshells.
We aren't necessarily saying that DDT doesn't cause environmental issues. We're just saying there isn't really any solid evidence that it does. Of course, you may argue that even the possibility of harming the environment necessitates a ban on the substance, but then you should consider the millions of people who die every year from malaria. Within five years of the ban on DDT, Malaria cases went from 17 deaths a year to 2.5 million! Permitting 2.5 million deaths a year based on what amounts to the suspicion of the existence of a problem we don't even understand the workings of is at least unreasonable, if not completely f***ing insane.
3. Organic Food
Source: Dougal Waters/Stone/Getty Images
Why it’s "Good" for the World:
Not using pesticides is healthier and better for the soil.
Why it Really Isn’t:
First off, it isn't healthier. A Swiss study by the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture found the nutrients "in the organic systems to be 34 to 51% lower than in conventional systems." Organic methods also aren't better for the soil. Using organic fertilizer (cow crap) is great for replacing the nitrates in the soil, but does nothing to replace things like phosphorus and potassium. Without artificial versions to replace them, the levels of these nutrients drop over time, making organic growth even less efficient than it already is and making the soil increasingly barren.
We will give you one thing--they don't contain pesticides. But that's not really a good thing. On average, the crop yield with organic farming methods is about 20% less than with conventional farming methods, since a good fifth of your crop has to be thrown out after it gets infested with creepy crawlies. As previously pointed out, there are six billion people on the planet, with a good portion of them already starving, so having to throw out 20% of your crops might not be very good for us.
