16 NEWS Best of the American columnists
THE WEEK 17 August 2019Should weeliminatemosquitoes?Timothy C. WinegardThe New York TimesFor more than 100 million years, the mosquito has been “our apex predator, the deadliest hunter of
human beings on the planet”, says Timothy C. Winegard. About 100 trillion of these blood-sucking
insects patrol our world, transmitting diseases that kill 700,000 people every year. By infecting
humans with yellow fever, malaria andahost of other parasites, viruses and bacteria, mosquitoes
“may have killed nearly half of the 108 billion humans who have ever lived”. Now the “life-and-
death” battle between mosquitoes and people may be “coming toahead”. Scientists armed with a
gene-editing technology called Crispr-Cas9 have designed mosquitoes that produce infertile offspring.
If released en masse into the wild, these biologically altered bugs could render mosquitoes extinct.
Limited field experiments have demonstrated that this strategy actually works. There are concerns,
however, that eradicating mosquitoes could have unforeseen consequences, allowing some other
species to becomeathreat, or otherwise disturbing “Mother Nature’s equilibrium”. Still, with both
old and new pathogens like Zika spreading, it would beamistake to underestimate the deadly threat
mosquitoes pose to our species. At some point, it may come down toachoice between them and us.The realisticsolution toclimate changeBjorn LomborgNew York PostIf blood-curdling warnings were enough to solve the problem of global warming, we’d be making
solid progress by now, says Bjorn Lomborg. But, alas, they’re not, and we aren’t. Of the 195
signatories to the 2016 Paris Agreement, just 17 countries are meeting their modest, self-assigned
targets. The reason for this failure is simple: carbon-cutting policies are “incredibly expensive”.
The annual cost of promises in the Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal, for example, would total
about $2trn, or about $6,400 for every American. “A report commissioned by the New Zealand
government foundthatreachingnet zero by 2050 wouldcostthe countrymorethanits entire current
annual national budget every year.” Activists think the only way to sell these costs is “by scaring
people silly”–but that approach isn’t working. It’s turning climate change “unnecessarily into a
polarising” issue, and provoking resistance.Apoll earlier this year found that nearly seven out of ten
people oppose spending just $120 eachayear to combat climate change. Instead of scaring voters,
we should focus on bringing down the cost of green energy. When renewables become “cheaper than
coal and oil, everyone will switch”. It is innovation, not hysteria, that will win this battle.If US politics were not in enough ofamess already, says Brian Boyle, we now seem to havealiberal
version of Donald Trump on our hands. One of the breakout stars of the recent second round of
Democratic primary debates–judging by the volume of Google searches and chatter on Twitter
–was the celebrity self-help guru Marianne Williamson. She proved herself to be, like the president,
agifted communicator who is good at tapping into the ill-defined existential fears of her group,
and “presents herself and her own spiritual gut instinct as the sole path to salvation”. She drew
“thunderous applause” at one point, for instance, when she lamented that the “wonkiness”
(i.e. political savvy) of Democrat leaders was insufficient to deal with the “dark psychic force of
the collectivised hatred that this president is bringing up in this country”. Her success in the debate
is worrying. This isawoman, after all, with “a history of anti-science, anti-vaccination rhetoric”.
She believes Aids and cancer are the “physical manifestation ofapsychic scream”. Fear not, many
might say: she’s an entertaining celebrity kook with zero chance of winning the nomination. Well,
they said the same of Trump once, and look how that turned out.One Trump isquite enough,thank youBrian BoyleLos Angeles TimesMore than 20 years of federal
inaction on gun-control
measures “have conditioned
the public to expect little
from Congress after mass
shootings”, said Russell
Berman inThe Atlantic.
But the recent massacres in
El Paso, Texas, and Dayton,
Ohio, may yet deliver one
decent reform. Inastatement
after the tragedies, President Trump threw his support behind
the idea of “red-flag laws”. Already enacted in some form in
17 states, these laws allowajudge to order the seizure of
firearms from people whose mental state has led family or
police to fear they might be on the verge of harming themselves
or others. Obviously, “a single presidential statement does not
alaw make”, but this could lead to “the most significant action
Congress has taken on guns in years”.Red-flag laws are worth exploring as long as they are limited
to “temporary gun confiscation pendingatimely due-process
review”, said Alan Dershowitz inThe Wall Street Journal.But
we must tread carefully. History shows that the government is
not very good at predicting who will commit violent acts. Intro-
ducing this measure risks setting “a dangerous precedent. If the
government can take your guns based onaprediction today,what will stop it from taking
your liberty based onapredic-
tion tomorrow?” Red-flag laws
aren’t setting precedent, said
David French inNational
Review.They’refollowingthe
precedent of laws such as
restraining orders. “Too many
mass killers have exhibited
obvious warning signs” for us
not to make changes.Of course we need red-flag laws, said theLos Angeles Times.
It’s amazing that they aren’t already in place across the US,
along with other common-sense measures such as universal
background checks andafederal ban on high-capacity
magazines. In Dayton, the shooter useda100-round drum
that enabled him to fire 41 rounds in 30 seconds. There’s no
legitimate reason for civilians to have that sort of kit. For years,
Republicans have resisted sensible gun reforms, without ever
seeming to payapolitical price, said Ed Kilgore onNYmag.
com.But there are signs that things are changing and that in
the 2020 presidential election this issue could hit the party
hard in suburban areas, where voters are turning against
Trump.Agrowing number of Americans are frightened and
utterly disgusted by the gun carnage–and they’re no longer
prepared to settle for politicians’ “thoughts and prayers”.Gun violence: the case for red-flag lawsThe Dayton shooter’s weapon, with its 100-round magazine©PROVIDED BY DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT