“Where are you from?” I was often asked that question while growing up in Southern Indiana in the 1970s. I didn’t look like anyone else in my white hometown and people had a hard time believing I belonged there. I hated the question, but for them it was a polite way of dealing with their confusion over how the hell a biracial Asian girl ended up in their community.
“Where are you from?” is the question I thought people were thinking when I sat through a Western Climate Initiative stakeholder meeting last spring, once again in a place where I didn’t look or sound like everyone else. Sitting next to me was a white guy in a starched, button-down shirt representing the petroleum industry. Then there were other corporate types right out of central casting vying for their stakeholder interests. And finally a small cadre of passionate environmentalists who spoke in terms I didn’t yet understand, like “greenhouse-gas emissions,” “carbon offsets,” and “cap and trade.”
I had spent most of my career fighting for economic justice, working with people of color and those with lower incomes. Their struggle is to keep food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and access to social services, while clawing at their chance for the American Dream. Back in the mid-1990s, I founded what became Washington state’s largest anti-poverty organization. We mobilized thousands of people with low incomes to raise their voices for change and won significant victories.
So why was I in this room discussing carbon emissions? Because climate change is an economic-justice issue. Regardless of how our government ultimately decides to handle climate change policy, poor people will be affected. They can be included in the new clean energy economy or they can be further pushed out in the cold.
What do I mean by that? Doing nothing on climate will only make things worse for the poor and people of color in this country. The result of decades of inaction on this issue has already dramatically affected the lives of people: from more intense hurricanes that disproportionately hit people who cannot escape the rising tide, to the higher cost of food in a fossil fuel–driven economy, to heat waves that often trap the elderly in stifling apartments.
Even doing something, unless done right, can be harmful. Because climate legislation is intended to provide market signals to encourage energy efficiency and the development of clean alternatives to fossil fuels, any effective legislation will necessarily result in higher prices for fossil-fuel energy and energy-related goods. Those higher prices, if left unaddressed, would hit low- and moderate-income households hardest, because necessities like gasoline, food, and home-heating costs take a much bigger bite out of their pocketbooks than those of wealthy households. Low-income families are also less able to respond to higher energy prices by conserving energy because they do not have the capital to invest in more energy-efficient appliances and vehicles.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that without consumer relief, low-income households would see their costs increase by an average of $425 per year as a result of climate legislation. This is money that families earning $16,000 a year simply can’t spare. Unless these costs are offset, the purchasing power and living standards of these lower-income consumers could fall significantly over time.
Fortunately, the opportunities for people living in poverty are abundant if we design an effective and equitable climate policy. Doing so will improve the lives of many in the U.S. and will better position the Obama administration to be a leader as our nation engages in an international discussion on addressing global warming in Copenhagen this December.
The House of Representatives has already taken the lead by designing climate policy that would not drive low-income households further into poverty. The bill that passed in the House established a key principle that low-income Americans as a group must be no worse off because of the higher prices associated with climate legislation. On top of the relief all households—regardless of income—would receive on their utility bills, the House bill includes a climate rebate for families and individuals in the lowest income quintile that would compensate for increases in energy costs as well as other necessities. These provisions send a strong message about the importance of protecting low-income households from the costs of climate legislation. The House bill takes an efficient and effective approach to making sure we reach the right people by using two existing systems:
- The electronic benefit transfer (EBT)—This system already delivers food stamps and other assistance to a broad range of low-income people, including those who are not part of the tax system, usually through a debit card.
- The Earned Income Tax Credit—This is a refundable energy tax credit for low- and moderate-income households that are already in the tax system, including low-income childless workers.
Neither approach on its own is sufficient; however, in combination, they reach the overwhelming majority of the lowest-income households. This direct relief must be in addition to any indirect compensation that may be provided through electric and gas utility companies. Because the majority of the additional cost for people with lower incomes would come from areas other than home utility bills, relief solely through utility companies is inadequate.
As the Senate begins to take action on climate, it is critically important that, at a minimum, it maintains the same commitment adopted by the House to fully protect the lowest-income people from net cost increases.
In addition to protecting low-income consumers, climate change policy also provides the opportunity to make investments that can move people out of poverty. Along this vein, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the term “green jobs” in the climate debate. And this is an exciting possibility for real change in our economy and for workers in the U.S. However, for green jobs to live up to expectations, the jobs created must be unionized and pay a living wage, with focus on training and employing people living in poverty and people of color.
Passing climate legislation this year is a necessary and crucial step in controlling greenhouse-gas emissions and encouraging the development of renewable-energy technologies that will create these green jobs. As people living in poverty in the U.S. and around the globe are increasingly and disproportionately harmed by global warming, the obligation is on the democratically elected representatives in our rich nation to act with courage.
As leaders from around the world gather in Copenhagen to tackle the challenge of reducing global-warming pollution, an important question they will want to ask each other is, “Where are you from?” And because of the shared risks of climate change, all the answers should be identical: “The same place as you: planet Earth.”
Learning how to count to 350
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Comments
View as Flat
mememine69 Posted 12:37 pm
18 Sep 2009
Sept.15/09
“Scientists pull a temporary about-face on global warming”
Prof. Mojib Latif is one of the leading climate modelers in the world and a lead author for the (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.
Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference, Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
-* It’s all over the news services so don’t blame Exxon for this one.*
Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.
"How much?" he said before the assembled delegates.
"The jury is still out."
This is the latest science, from the IPCC itself and from one of their leading scientist to boot.
The leftwing Vancouver Sun:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Scientis...
And now from the BBC, the home of globull warm mongering:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2...
And more Brits:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgem...
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 1:40 pm
18 Sep 2009
The long-term trend is clear and the risks are too great for us to do nothing about global warming.
The fact that climate destabilization will hurt the poor the most--and is already hurting them--makes addressing the issue even more morally compelling. Arguing to transfer wealth to poor is just throwing gasoline on the fire, politically. Everyone will have to bear some part of the costs of mitigation, and it helps the poor best if we get on with it, even though it will cost them something. It plays into the hands of the delayers and deniers to feed their fears of confiscatory taxation, and it gives them more excuses to drag their feet. Easing the plight of the poor is a good thing--but it is self-defeating to tangle it up with climate politics.
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 8:06 pm
18 Sep 2009
A straight carbon tax would be charged against all consumption, and would therefore be regressive in this way, but could not be offset by selling pollution credits like a cap-and-trade system would allow. Although, nonetheless, the rich would likely be able to more easily curtail that consumption and save the most on carbon taxes, while many of the things with high carbon costs typically are often the cheapest in our current system, effectively squeezing the poor out.
Anyway, my question is basically, along that vein, if anyone has any thoughts on how a policy to essentially tax carbon emissions could be made less regressive aside from the types of subsidies mentioned in Aiko's article (EBT and EITC)? Or, should we not worry about that and merely offset the costs with opportunities for green jobs? (I'm skeptical of the latter position.)
Permalink
iansully Posted 4:53 am
19 Sep 2009
I live in the UK and I think the Green movement here likes to see itself as on the side of social democratic politics. While I don't think this is always true - the taxes that they call for will undoubtedly affect the poorer people who will be priced out of things like travel while their middle class conuterparts will still be able to afford to go to Europe etc using trains as well as flying).
For me, this means that both the right and the left can still grasp the green mantle. I hope the progressives do it but they can't it as their rite.
In terms of the poorest countries in the world - who have done least to contribute to the changing climate - they don't have the resources to protect their people from the change to weather patterns and seasons. In many parts of the developing world climate instability means crops not growing and rivers drying up - quite simply this means many people will die.
If we are serious about sorting out the planet we must substantially cut our carbon emmissions and set up an international fund to help the poorest people to survive.
Permalink
davidtheprof Posted 12:16 pm
19 Sep 2009
UMass-Boston is particularly attuned to the racial and class aspects of social issues, and provides high quality, accessible, and cost effective education to a wide range of traditional and non-traditional students. The university has a strong commitment to diversity, and serving disadvantaged communities. Let's hope there are lots of initiatives like this around the world!
Permalink
madeline11 Posted 3:14 pm
19 Sep 2009
This bill stands to benefit low-income families greatly by funding efficiency upgrade projects, which save energy. Because, you know, using less energy costs less. Duh. Energy saved from caulking can be used to purchase insulation and energy saved from that can be used to purchase better appliances and energy saved from that can be used to buy new windows and so on.
This bill has lots of great benefits. I strongly urge Senator Cantwell to vote for it and promote a healthy, responsible, clean energy economy for Washington.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 8:54 pm
19 Sep 2009
Ian Sully is right to be concerned about the poorer countries of the world. But not only will a lot of people there die, the survivors will migrate north (they are already crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa and leaving Mexico for the U.S.) and will be here in unimaginable numbers sooner than we think.
And no one should presume that the temperatures in the north will comfortably increase by 1 degree and open up the Arctic. AGW will keep on increasing exponentially (just like population itself)and make life on Earth generally miserable. (In spite of deniers like Me Me Mine 69.)
Permalink
chasingcleanair Posted 11:40 pm
19 Sep 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 5:45 pm
20 Sep 2009
Permalink
Anon92107 Posted 10:50 am
20 Sep 2009
The poor have been constantly disenfranchised and screwed out of opportunities by corrupt politicians at the federal, state (definitely Sacramento) and local (definitely San Diego)levels since the beginning of government.
The historical fact is that all of our political, economic, academic and religious institutions have always screwed the poor, because the biggest fact of life in America today, as proven by continuous anti-Obama deranged rant rhetoric of hate we hear daily, is that GREED RULES! and humanity can go to hell if we dare to interfere with greed.
Permalink
mememine69 Posted 6:04 am
21 Sep 2009
I’m sorry but I can’t do this “end of the world” bit anymore without feeling like history is already laughing and cursing at me. Look your kids in the eyes please and you may rethink this environmental emergency and see this state of urgency and fear in true focus. I don’t think that supporting this CO2 theory is responsible anymore because I think don’t think that promising our kids a sick planet from CO2, for another quarter of a century is sustainable or morally accountable for another two and a half decades of predictions. And we all grapple with the confusing reality of colder temperatures yet more pictures of Polar Bears drowning and scientists saying that what we see is not what we really see.
Since precaution is the influencing force behind this 23 year old CO2 theory, I’m going to side with precaution and not let myself look anymore foolish than I feel right now as I’m telling our kids that we must save the planet for them. Simply put, I’ve waited long enough and a force strong enough to end “life as we know it-IPCC”, on the planet should have happened by now. Waiting any longer is as self fulfilling prophecy and I’m willing to bet against this theory officially as AL Gore and the political scientists and hysterical media fight it out in this media feeding frenzy. And who isn’t embarrassed by these silly headlines of global warming scientists saying CO2 will or may not be causing everything from racism to earthquakes.
Look at it this way, denying this CO2 business does not mean that you are now anti environment, it just means that we should do everything to preserve, protect and respect nature instead of trying to rescue planet Earth with needless fear from a CO2 mistake. Our air is in fact cleaner than the smoggy 70’s, a fact that all of the enviro groups admit. We just have to remove this failed CO2 threat. And at the same time we are being the NEW GREENS of environmentalism, we can still see the need for directing our energies to real issues like the carnage on our highways, poverty, recycling, energy alternatives and better health care, housing and financial opportunities for more people to achieve a higher living standard.
The NEW GREENS are not just deniers; we are the new leaders of Rachel Carson’s environmental movement who don’t want to be remembered for perpetrating this climate WMD scam concerning the obviously failed CO2 theory.
Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming. Preserve, protect and respect our worldly surroundings.
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 9:38 am
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
mememine69 Posted 9:49 am
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
mememine69 Posted 9:49 am
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 5:40 pm
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
Auden Schendler Posted 11:23 am
21 Sep 2009
Permalink
Matt Petryni Posted 6:25 pm
21 Sep 2009
This isn't to disregard your opinion or censor dissent, it's just not the appropriate venue is all. Continue to troll if you wish, but I'm open to hear out your denial and exhaustively debate the reality of climate change on another blog.
In the mean time, I am skeptical of being able to use environmentalism as a means to resolve the problems of poverty. By the same token, some relief of poverty is required to promote environmental responsibility, as it is less feasible to practice sustainability if you're just trying to survive.
Similarly, it's the poor who stand to be hit the hardest by the impact of environmental problems, only one of which is climate change. And as Madeline correctly pointed out, the current structure of energy use forces people into impoverishment.
I guess my point is that, in addition to the issue of CO2 regulations making things unaffordable to poor people, I would like to discuss the issue of how poverty is defined. Currently, we consider a person to be "living in poverty" if they must suffer a pre-Industrial level of consumption. But if we're talking about changing the way the world consumes, it may be necessary to think of poverty differently. For example, if you find you cannot afford to drive a Hummer but you can grow your own food but and can use public transit, you might not be in such a bad place, you know? Poverty thus would not be merely the inability to consume more, but the loss of economic choices or access to sustainable natural resources, perhaps?
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 7:55 pm
21 Sep 2009
Only when that climate change actually affects the population will anything concrete be done. The migration en masse from the desertification of the equatorial regions will be one of those global effects which gets the attention of governments. Unfortunately, the current idea which gets some popular attention is the Arctic warming and subsequent opening of the Northwest Passage, shortening shipping time to the Orient. Sounds financially good, but really isn't a sustainable economic reality.
Permalink
Live Climate Posted 9:07 pm
22 Sep 2009
Live Climate supports impoverished communities through innovative carbon reduction projects that alleviate poverty. LiveClimate.org offers donors quality offset projects that provide a unique focus on project co-benefits to communities. The projects featured on Live Climate are located in poorer countries and are using the power of carbon markets to reduce the carbon dioxide and improve local livelihoods.
Permalink
Blogger80525 Posted 6:48 pm
24 Sep 2009
I don't necessarily agree with this statement thoroughly because people of all socio-economic backgrounds have their problems with cutting back on their lifestyles and spending, assuming cost of living will be more expensive in the eco-friendly future.
The cost of adapting might be 400-500 dollars today but what will it be in the future? I believe it will be less expensive in the future. What is considered Green products today are more expensive because of how they are marketed. Any new and innovative will become less expensive as time goes on. We are already seeing this with natural and organic foods.
But at the same time I do agree with how much, or little for that matter, of this future eco-capital will be invested in more poverty stricken areas. Due to a lack of resources (money), technological advance develops slower in poverty stricken areas.
It is hard to speculate now about how the poor will be ostracized in the future due to inability to afford these new products and live green but hopefully in the future these new technologies/products will become cheaper as we understand more about them.
Permalink