http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...-accounted-91-percent-deaths-article-1.991359 So now the 655K that survive Maleria will just mean they will die of hunger or other diseases when the region they live cannot sustain so many people to begin with.
Why not just distribute the pesticide DDT - the science used to ban the substance was flawed and cooked, and quite frankly the rates of bug carried diseases have grown exponentially since it was banned.
Mosquitoes had already showed signs of developing resistance to DDT 40 years ago. That was the impetus for the (partial) switch to Malathion. Meantime, in most of the malaria-susceptible world, DDT has been used for insect control all along. This is not a battle that can be won with insecticides.
I absolutely guarantee that once those taxes are imposed then even if malaria is wiped off the face of the Earth the taxes will never be rescinded.
Why not just do a 98% wealth tax on G7 citizens and corporations, then give it to the 3rd world. Inequality would be reduced, lifespan would increase, and they could then do a lot better than just reducing malaria deaths.
Do you think if rich liberals in manhattan and DC were dying from malaria by the thousands we would be using DDT? It's a lot easier to be socailly responsible when all it means is hundreds of thousands of poor africans dying.