Malaria is transmitted by female mosquitos of the genus Anopholes — like the one seen here taking a blood meal. According to the Centers for Disease Control , these mosquitos are actually found on every continent except Antarctica. In fact, malaria has been known to cause significant illness and death even in frigid areas of the world such as Finland and Russia.
Everything sooner or later is linked to climate change. It is not an unexpected tactic when the goal is to raise public awareness or alarm — depending on you position.
The malaria climate connection however raises important ethical questions. Malaria is too often framed as a “climate disease” by NGOs, regulatory agencies, media and some scientists. (See here and here.) This carefully constructed message implies the control of malaria requires that we control carbon dioxide emissions. This message is untrue, unethical and immoral.
Malaria is a preventable and treatable disease that we allow, by our inaction, to kill one million people and infect another 250 million to 350 million each year. (See this report from the World Health Organization.) These are not modeled deaths. Nor are they possible deaths related to some future carbon scenario. These dead had names, were loved, and are mourned. And nearly 80% of these dead are African children under the age of five.
We could eradicate malaria worldwide in less than two decades and drastically cut malaria’s death toll in less than one. But first malaria must stop being used as a weapon by ideological combatants on all sides of the climate change wars, as well as the much older pesticide wars.
Malaria is not a tropical disease. Ague and marsh fever, malaria’s older names, ravaged England in the 16th to 19th centuries. North America was not spared the plight of malaria either. In fact, 30% of Al Gore’s home state of Tennessee was infected by the disease in 1933.
Greenpeace and others have implied the mosquito vector (Anopheles) for malaria requires a mean winter temperature above 60 degrees F to survive. In reality, 10 million Russians were reported in a New York Times dispatch to be debilitated by the disease in 1920.
Also consider that in the late 18th century, 5% of Finland’s population was infected by malaria, according to research by Lena Huldén at the University of Helsinki. Moreover, the coldest temperatures ever recorded in the northern hemisphere were in Yukutia Russia: -76.2C in 1926 and -67.7C in 1933. At that time, according to Huldén, malaria infected 4% of the population.
In reality, the Anopholes mosquito which carries malaria lives on every continent with the exception of Antarctica and its range extends to the polar regions, according to the CDC.
Malaria was not the only mosquito born illness feared by U.S. citizens. Yellow Fever, the other “tropical disease”, killed 5,000 of Philadelphia’s 45,000 inhabitants in 1793 and caused 17,000 survivors to evacuate the city.
I do not care what side journalists take with respect to climate change. I simply request that malaria be left out of it. I ask journalists to question and challenge EPA, IPCC, and any scientist who attempts to frame malaria as a climate disease. The response to any malaria infection model for some future warmer world is simple. Malaria should not exist in any future — warm or cold!
Malaria was not eliminated in the United States until 1949. Through the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control (ostensibly formed to combat malaria), breeding areas were drained, and the interiors of 4.5 million homes, neighborhoods and prime mosquito breeding grounds were sprayed with DDT. So successful was CDC’s malaria eradication effort that the dread of this disease was purged from our collective memories and DDT repackaged as man’s most evil chemical in less than two decades.
There are potential risks with DDT just as there are with every survival dilemma. DDT is no longer a magic bullet for malaria eradication (that time has passed). But it remains an essential tool within a larger toolbox. However the ability to use DDT where needed is often blocked or impeded by groups that oppose the use of DDT for any purpose. For example, that has been the case in Mozambique.
Peer reviewed science is used to show DDT may effect in-utero thyroid levels, or it may be associated with decreased attention levels in children or some statistical association with an increased possibility of developmental problems. But here’s what the World Health Organization found: “While a wide range of effects were reported in laboratory animals, epidemiological data did not support these findings in humans.”
Despite the failure to show “human findings” one may assume the precautionary principle should apply. However let’s reframe the risk. One out of four survivors of cerebral malaria are inflicted with long-term cognitive impairment. These are not theoretical or laboratory risks; these risks have names. Children don’t die theoretical malarial deaths.
There is no replacement for DDT in areas where mosquitoes have developed resistance to non-DDT alternatives. (It is correct that in some locations mosquitoes have acquired DDT resistance and not to other pesticides and why a toolbox approach is so important. There are also additional complicating issues that are beyond this post.) Bottom line: Western fears or bias should not trump Third World reality.
The World Health Organization’s 2007 Report, “The Use of DDT in Malaria Vector Control,” highlighted the dangers of eliminating DDT from its tool box: “For instance, in South Africa the switch from DDT to pyrethroids in 1997 soon resulted in the reappearance of Anopheles funestus, a major malaria vector, eliminated from the country for decades and found to be resistant to pyrethroids.” Severe malaria outbreaks followed, resulting in the reintroduction of DDT in 2000. The report further stated that “DDT is still needed today because investment to develop alternatives over the past 30 years has been grossly inadequate.”
The WHO report concluded:
“DDT is still needed and used for disease vector control simply because there is no alternative of both equivalent efficacy and operational feasibility, especially for high-transmission areas.”
If NGOs wish to ban the production and use of DDT then I challenge them to first buy mosquito nets for all the potential victims of this policy, insure sufficient monies are allocated to develop a replacement for DDT, and allow DDT to save lives until such time as a replacement is found. Basically, eradicate malaria and we can all agree no more DDT. Seems fair.
Total global spending over the last decade for malaria research, treatment and control has averaged little more than several hundred million dollars per year. (Recent funding initiatives outlined in the above WHO report give hope that this may be slowly changing)
One of the malaria control tools, insecticide treated nets (ITNs), has demonstrated the ability to reduce child mortality from all causes by 17%. For every 1,000 sleeping nets distributed and used, 6 children are given the gift of life. ITNs decrease malaria infection by 50%, reduce problematic low birth rate by 23%, and produce a 33% reduction in miscarriage, among other benefits. The cost?: $1.05 per person per year, according to the WHO.
Please promote “interim solutions,” such as ITNs, that can alleviate human suffering between now and some more perfect future.
Joseph Stalin would say malaria’s million dead each year are a statistic. I ask journalists to make it a tragedy.
Patrick Moffitt built a full service environmental company (CFM Inc) that provided engineering, laboratory and impact studies, and the contract operation of water and wastewater facilities. He later formed a joint venture named U.S. Water that was responsible for privatized North American water, wastewater and remediation projects. Since retirement, he has developed new fishing methods that reduce bycatch, including sea birds and sea turtles. “I take no money from any organization or group and have no clients,” he says. “I’m simply a person concerned that serious environmental issues have fallen through the cracks.
This thing has 15 Comments
This is very strange, Tom. I’ll pick out one of several critical errors:
“Greenpeace and others have implied the mosquito vector (Anopheles) for malaria requires a mean winter temperature above 60 degrees F to survive. In reality, 10 million Russians were reported in a New York Times dispatch to be debilitated by the disease in 1920.”
Patrick goes on to list other examples illustrating the former extent of malaria in cold climates. So those rotten environmentalists have been caught lieing again! Or have they?
What Patrick failed to discover in his research is that in cold climates malaria is easy to eradicate because during the winter the parasite can only exist in infected humans. This also means that once gone it will stay gone unless reintroduced from a a region where the disease is still active. In tropical climates, with a permanent reservoir in the mosquito population, the parasite lacks this vulnerability and so is much harder to get rid of.
Interestingly, some years ago the fossil fuel industry funded the establishment of a group called Africa Fighting Malaria, the purpose of which was to attack environmentalists for discouraging the use of DDT. Patrick seems to be largely repeating their talking points.
Just to add that as far as I’m aware all the relevant environmental organizations are fully behind the net program.
Steve- I’m sorry you missed my point. I don’t want to use malaria to further “talking points.” I’m not looking to show environmentalists as “liars” or anything else. I freely admit to wanting to rip Malaria eradication free of the climate and DDT fights. Malaria is at times used to sell climate change which I find distracts the public attention needed to eradicate this disease.
You claim malaria is easier to control in northern climes—I will admit that one of the many factors in malaria transmission rates are lower in northern climes. However I don’t think northern populations are relatively easier to control than southern populations. Malaria control in the subarctic or tropics follows the same generic response: drain breeding grounds, apply pesticides and treat the victims. The US rapidly eliminated the malaria threat in tropical Florida and from the much cooler State of Montana.
I said DDT is no longer a magic bullet– however it remains a critical tool to combat this debilitating and deadly disease in certain regions. And here I do have problems with environmental groups impeding the application of DDT where necessary. DDT- besides the resistance issues- also has several advantages compared the pyrethrins including being more persistent (a big plus in remote areas) and causes a higher aversion response from the adult mosquitoes. Plus in some areas ITNs are not enough and control requires indoor DDT spraying http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=41219
I’m not sure what your point was with Africa Fighting Malaria—that their goal was to eradicate malaria so they could embarrass environmentalists? (And no- I have no association with AFM) Malaria is life and death we should all check our baggage till this threat is gone.
“Greenpeace and others have implied…” followed by “In reality…” and a string of examples of past northern extent is an accusation of a lie, Pat. As you say, it’s neither here nor there with regard to the issue of current activity against warm-climate malaria, but then why was it there at all?
Then in your reply you say, with no relevant evidence supplied, “And here I do have problems with environmental groups impeding the application of DDT where necessary.” That’s pretty much the AFM party line.
Here’s another one: “However the ability to use DDT where needed is often blocked or impeded by groups that oppose the use of DDT for any purpose. For example, that has been the case in Mozambique.” Your source fails to support that accusation.
And oh yeah, the Stalin reference was cute. Your point?
Also, I think your assertion that temperate-climate populations aren’t relatively easier to control than more tropical populations is entirely wrong. Note that the massive amounts of DDT used in many areas before the mosquitoes got resistant failed to do the job.
Here’s some informative material for you to look over.
Malaria is a tropical disease. It used to found in temperate areas as well, but in those areas transmission is much less efficient and it is much easier to control.
Clarifying my last comment, in the first sentence I was referring to populations of mosquitoes, and in the second to past (unsuccessful) eradication efforts in tropical areas.
Steve—
I return to my basic point. Malaria kills. Malaria has nothing to do with climate. We know how to stop malaria but we haven’t.
The fact malaria and other “tropical diseases” were once epidemic in North America, Russia and Europe is critical to understanding that malaria can be controlled. Linking malaria to temperature undermines the necessary Public/Media focus required to eradicate malaria-NOW.
Here is the statement by Sierra Club link I cited:
“The incidence of infectious diseases is already on the rise in the United States and outbreaks are occurring in areas previously too cold for them to inhabit. In recent years cases of malaria have been reported as far north as Michigan, New Jersey and New York. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the proliferation of disease-carrying mosquitoes could increase the percentage of the world’s population at risk for malaria from 42 percent to 60 percent. Dutch researchers have reported that global warming could cause an additional million deaths per year from malaria in the next century.”
Sierra Club claims malaria is spreading north highlighting cases in New Jersey and Michigan. Yet malaria was endemic in these areas little more than fifty years ago. It also implies that the malaria mosquito could increase northward with climate change. This is also untrue as the range of the Anopholes mosquito ranges to the sub arctic. Why didn’t Sierra Club mention malaria once ravaged these areas when it was colder than it is now? The framing message being sold by the Sierra Club and others requires a Public that has forgotten malaria and yellow fever were once feared in the US. I can provide many more links that show similar framing.
So to answer your question as to why I wrote about malaria outbreaks near the arctic circle- To stop the type of message shown above by providing information.
You claim my source fails to show groups have prevented the use of DDT for malaria control. From my citation:
“It is possible that DDT will be used again in Mozambique. Its use there was stopped several decades ago, because 80%of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT.”
Here are some additional sources: http://www.panna.org/ddt
And http://www.fawco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1058:world-malaria-day-25th-april-ddt-is-not-the-answer-&catid=19&Itemid=174
The complexity of USAID funding is also relevant but beyond this post.
An issue for another time is how fear (DDT, vaccines etc) and disinformation prevents the implementation of public health issues. Polio immuniztion in Nigeria being a tragic example.
You have stated that all the environmental organizations are behind the ITNs (nets) but a net only strategy is not sufficient for the control of malaria.
Do I think that many organizations that claim to be fighting for Climate Justice in Africa should be spending a bit more of their resources on near term disease and water issues? Yes. I admit to a bias that selects for near term- intermediate answers while the long term issues are disputed. It prevents any issue from becoming hostage.
As I said before we all need to put away our baggage and get rid of this disease. It seems you read my post as an attack on the environmental groups- and in some part it is. Please understand that the climate malaria link is what started the conversation with Tom and how the post was framed. Do I think the environmental NGOs are the only group at fault for our collective failure to eradicate malaria? Absolutely not. Does it absolve them from some of their mistakes?- No. We learn- we correct- we hope-we move on.
And my Stalin reference? What struck me reading many malaria articles was how clinically the disease and the death toll was described – malaria as statistic. Which made me think of Stalin’s quote. It is hard to look at malaria the same way when the victim has a name or a face. I’m a scientist- not a writer. Tom asked me if I would share some of my thoughts – and one of the objectives for this post was an appeal to writers to put a face and a name to malaria in hopes it would spur Public action to demand the end of malaria now.
Tim Lambert
How can you say malaria is a tropical disease?
Pat, take a look at the name of this blog. Notice the “environmental” bit? That probably means that a majority of the people reading it have environmental leanings. Whatever your strong feelings against environmentalists, I would suggest to you that opening up with an attack on them is ineffective relative to your claimed purpose of activating people to work on malaria eradication. Even in a venue more sympathetic to your view of environmentalism such attacks would still be a distraction. Better luck next time.
Steve-
I’m at a loss as to why questioning or exposing an obvious error is anti- environment? One thing I learned in the environmental field is that if we allow a matter of science to be framed or bent to fit a particular issue or cause– it will prevent the correction of some future problem. The story we tell about the environment – what it is and how it works- what we know -what we don’t know- our certainty and uncertainties are critical to any long term environmental improvement.
If Tom allows I can show in some future post how the framing of acid rain used to push SO2 controls has now become a nightmare for Atlantic salmon restoration. You may be thinking I’m making a case against scrubbers- I’m not- I’m making a case about the consequences of “embellishing” for a good cause. Telling stories about malaria in the northern hemisphere to push climate change may cause problems that neither you nor I can predict. Its just safer to stick with the facts.
Do I have a problem with some of the larger NGOs -yes. I think they have played a part in our lurching from crisis to crisis rather than focusing on a long term integrated environmental plan. I think they have used direct mail marketing to set the environmental agenda rather than looking at a comprehensive integrated analysis. I think there has been too much reliance on protection and too little on enhancement and restoration. I think the problem is compounded by an increasingly incestuous relationship with EPA.
It is not just framing that has inhibited environmental improvement. We simply allowed some of the major problems to be ignored. Most of our water quality/habitat issues when I entered the field 40 years ago were the result of non-point sources. And 40 years later we have not even made a dent in this problem. Non point just did not fit the template for a successful direct mail marketing campaign. If you don’t believe direct marketing figured prominently in setting our environmental agenda- read Mark Dowie’s Losing Ground.
I am particularly enraged that NGOs are pushing bio-fuels. Have you actually looked at a life cycle mass balance for bio-fuels? How could anyone support this travesty? (I was in Asia when the food riots broke out last year- so there are human elements to this lunacy)
Why do I single out the NGOs? They control the message and I think their message is too much marketing- too much politics – too much press release and too little environment.
Perhaps what I like least about NGOs- if you don’t agree with them is you are no longer an environmentalist. Science and inquiry have suffered immensely from this threat.
So with all my admissions to bias out of the way- back to malaria. Was malaria endemic to the arctic in the northern hemisphere? And is this information important or relevant?
Steve,
Here is an issue you can watch develop. I have argued for years the restoration of the oyster populations -a keystone species-should be among our highest priority with respect to restoring East Coast and Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Their populations have crashed as a result of past harvest practices and perhaps most importantly diseases like Dermo and MSX. This critical oyster issue has received little media or NGO attention and as a result little funding or regulatory attention. Trust me on this- these estuaries cannot be returned to a more “natural state” without oyster restoration. We have known this reality for decades and done next to nothing.
Congress has recently authorized a new ocean acidification program in part because of its threat to shellfish. Lets leave aside why a potential CO2 acidification risk to shellfish galvanizes Congressional, NGO and regulatory attention while the known destruction caused by Dermo and MSX did not. The unfortunate truth is that all shellfish problems will now follow the acidification message and funding. Acidification is now the most important shellfish issue. Unfortunately CO2 control will not fix the oyster decline just like it won’t “fix” malaria. And every once in a while being an environmentalist requires one to say so.
Steve-
In a further attempt at clarification. Claims that DDT would have eliminated malaria from all of Africa are exaggerated if not wrong. The claims that DDT is no longer needed are equally wrong. The malaria eradication effort in Africa came too long after the first introduction of DDT. The pesticide had been used for agricultural purposes allowing for the development of resistant mosquito populations before the full scale push against malaria was made. (My understanding) The eradication of malaria is also dependent on a public health care infrastructure that was and often is lacking in Africa. It is also dependent on funding and a government committed to the eradication effort—which have not always been adequate to the job. It requires countries not be in a state of war or civil unrest. The levels of poverty, remoteness, housing conditions (screening, individuals per household etc) and transmission rates are also contributing factors. It requires an infected population that was not taught to fear the cure more than the disease.
Those that sell a story line that all we need to do to prevent malaria is use DDT put people at risk and cost lives. Those that fight against a cautious use of DDT have and continue to put people at risk and cost lives. We need a better story.
My story -malaria is a tragedy we should no longer allow. It can be eradicated if we make a commitment to do so. It will be hard, we will make mistakes, it will require all the tools we have, and perhaps some we don’t yet have (vaccine). It requires focus, funding, attention to detail, adapting, questioning and learning. None of this will happen if malaria is allowed to become a weapon wielded by ideological warriors.
Once we allow a problem to enter the ideological arena- the goal becomes winning. Unfortunately, the first casualty is any hope we had of fixing the problem. I have friends who hold polar political views from my own however we have no disagreement as to what it will take to rid the world of malaria and other treatable/curable diseases. We argue politics over beers- not over innocents.
Tom – Thanks for putting this guest post up and thanks to Pat for sharing his knowledge and views. IMO this is a key issue “Once we allow a problem to enter the ideological arena – the goal becomes winning.” We all need to guard against our own ideological and confirmation bias for proper critical evaluation to take place. I agree with Pat that the inappropriate association of environmental (and other) issues to “climate change” is counter productive to tackling them on their own merits.
Po raz kolejny, dziecko wydaje się być jedynym ocalałym z katastrofy samolotu przerażające. To już trzeci w http://www.tvdrawing.com ciągu ostatnich 12 miesięcy. zbieg okoliczności? Myślę, że nie. Po jego nieszczęście, dwa razy mogą być uznane za przypadkowe, trzy razy … wynagrodzenia kiddies uwagę, duch stara się nauczyć nas czegoś.
Hej, były to prawe skrzydło geniuszy próbuje za to winić Obowma lub guvmint? Witam, są faceci snu późno? kretyni.
This thing has 2 Trackbacks
[...] « Ski Constraints Sickle Cell Mos-keeters April 28, 2010 Reposting this guest-commentary by Patrick Moffitt from the Center for Environmental Journalism. As someone who has lived through two Russian summers, and thus witnessed the aggressive onslaught [...]
[...] like to claim that malaria is a global warming disease. It’s not, and the only reason that so many die from it is because the greens hate DDT. And African [...]