Yale Environment 360 has damaged its credibility by publishing a piece by Fred Pearce claiming:
When Rachel Carson’s sound case against the mass application of DDT as an agricultural pesticide morphed into blanket opposition to much smaller indoor applications to fight malaria, it arguably resulted in millions of deaths as the diseases resurged.
But the public health use of DDT was not banned. Look at the graph below (from Nature Vol 294 26 November 1981 page 302) plotting DDT usage against malaria cases in India during the malaria resurgence in the 70s.
It is arguable whether the increased use of DDT caused a resurgence in malaria (by promoting DDT resistance in mosquitoes) or alternatively the resurgence caused an increase in DDT use in an attempt to get it under control, but it cannot be honestly argued that a blanket ban on DDT caused the resurgence.
Shame on you, Yale Environment 360.