Emetic Justice

Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry

Posted at 2:10 PM on 09 May 2008

If the U.S. Interior Department decides that polar bears are endangered, litigation will be immediate from a group arguing that bear protection will "result in higher energy prices across the board, which will disproportionately be borne by minorities." So says Roy Innis, chair of the Congress for Racial Equality -- a recipient of Exxon funding that has recently aligned itself with activists opposing the environmental movement. Industry groups will rely heavily on the CRE lawsuit to "give us a very high-visibility national media platform on day one," says Jim Sims of the Western Business Roundtable, who says the CRE can help fight and "quite possibly reverse" a protective ruling. Fox News' Sean Hannity has guaranteed prominent airtime to Innis, and a 15-city bus tour will promote the lawsuit. Says Sims, "We should be able to very quickly take over this issue from the radical enviro groups and place it squarely where it belongs: on the negative impacts this decision will have on the poor."

source: Mother Jones
see also, in Grist: Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (18 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Some didn't do his reasearch...

...under federal law, economic factors or consequences cannot be used to determine whether or not a species is listed as endangered (despite the fact that it has played a factor on a number of occassions).

It wouldn't hold up in court due to that.

by Tasermons Partner at 7:34 PM on 09 May 2008

Wah Wah Wah

Because the economics of this society are based on destroying the Earth, ANY positive ecological measures will hurt some economic group, and will almost always include the poor. Our hearts should be with the truly poor, the non-humans who get absolutely no benefit from human ecological destruction, yet are forced to suffer the worst consequences.

by Wolverine at 8:05 PM on 09 May 2008

Disgusting.

But the apparently embarrassing argument that it is unfair to underprivileged minorities, intended to make liberals short-circuit, can be used against any effort toward GW mitigation that involves restricting drilling for petroleum. So it is just as well that the environmentalist legal groups learn to deal with it.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 9:48 PM on 09 May 2008

Actually, in the long term...

...with the associated medical costs linked to emissions pollution, and it's disproportinate effect on the poor, increased reliance on fossil fuels will hurt poor people, not help 'em.

Plus, most people in lower income brackets take public transit anyway.

by Tasermons Partner at 10:04 PM on 09 May 2008

better earth for the good of the people

In the past, the interests of environmentalists have butted heads with the interests of people. We were focused on single issues, like "is it better to save a red-legged frog habitat or build inexpensive town-housing?" But our view has rapidly changed in the past couple years.

The average citizen is seeing that they no longer want to eat the sub-quality food that comes from industrial farming, or drink the water contaminated by run-off from that same industrial agriculture. Social justice critics are seeing that global warming will result in more land loss and hardtimes for impoverished coastal regions like Indonesia and Central America rather than in the places where one can find the sources of global warming, like China and the US. We are starting to look at the big picture, which is simply that we depend on the earth for everything, and when we don't care for it, humans suffer (the poor feel it first since they can't buy their way out of trouble, and then the middle class, and maybe finally the rich).

Myopic articles of limited scope and limited explanation, such as this one, may be really detrimental to our society's progress in the right direction. Environmental activists and social activists should be on the same team in the effort to care for the earth for the sake of all us people.

by jbosborn at 11:38 AM on 10 May 2008

correction

It is not this article, but the proposed actions by the CRE, which are detailed in this article, that are myopic, irresponsible, and motivated by self-interest.

by jbosborn at 11:53 AM on 10 May 2008
[ Parent ]

will ... will ... will

I never heard the words "will" and "would" used so much when it comes to policy and scientific understanding until "Global Warming" came along.

When has anything like these horror stories EVER happened?

The whole history of warming from 1820 on has been one of the successful rise and prospering of human civilization across the globe!

Anyone looking into it from the outside would deem AGWers as madmen!

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

by jabailo at 2:17 PM on 10 May 2008

Interesting

I just read an article in the June issue of Atlantic Magazine that a class-action suit is being brought against several major oil, coal and electric utility companies for using front groups to sew false doubt about the scientific consensus on global warming in order to slow preventive measures. The principal lawyers? The same ones who successfully sued the tobacco industry, joined by the lawyer from the tobacco side (who I suppose is trying to work off his bad karma).

Now every time you see a sock puppet for the oil industry post denier drivel on a site like Grist, smile and think about how their efforts WILL eventually bankrupt their paymasters.

by Robco1 at 7:09 PM on 10 May 2008

References?

I just read an article in the June issue of Atlantic Magazine...

I did a search here and couldn't find any article on that topic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

by jabailo at 1:03 PM on 11 May 2008
[ Parent ]

you are so right, jabailo!

It is going to be most excellent to be able to afford cheap Gulf Coast property in Memphis! Surf's up! WAY up!

by wendigo at 9:40 PM on 11 May 2008
[ Parent ]

oh my goodness

this is so sick and twisted its beyond my comprehension.

by wmonfalcone at 11:18 PM on 11 May 2008

Hopefully I am wrong..

Before it is all said and done, humans will (out of greediness or sheer desperation) mine EVERY SHRED OF FOSSIL FUEL they can find, no matter what species looses its habitat. Just because we are able (and maybe willing) to protect habitat does not mean it will remain protected. It is a temporary luxury we can only afford because those who make decisions about habitat protection have power, influence, and (generally speaking) all they need to live well on this planet.

While poor people pollute less, they also cannot afford to care about polar bears or other less cute (if viewed on photographs) wild animals.

Of course, maybe the rich and powerful can figure out that they (and that includes all who can read this) need to reduce their energy consumption. But I am afraid you have heard all this before and those who should read this - don't.

It is depressing. So little changes unless you change it for yourself.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

by PolluteLessDotCom at 9:13 AM on 12 May 2008

"depressing"

Right, Karsten. Your pessimistic outlook has reason, science and history on its side. The only thing that we animal-lovers can cling to is a slender irrational hope, based on rare memories of human beings being kind.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 10:40 AM on 12 May 2008

How Wrong Humans Have Gone

Protecting habitat is a "temporary luxury we can only afford because those who make decisions about habitat protection have power, influence, and (generally speaking) all they need to live well on this planet"? Because, "[w]hile poor people pollute less, they also cannot afford to care about polar bears or other less cute (if viewed on photographs) wild animals"?

By both a traditional indigenous and an ecological paradigm, this is ecopathic and psychotic, and it totally fails to recognize the real causes of these problems.

First and foremost, there are far too many people taking up far too much space on Earth. This means that the other species don't have enough room to live adequately.

Second, people who do not care about other forms of life are just as immoral as people who don't care about other people. (Actually, speaking for the non-humans, I'd say even more immoral!) Any starving animal is strictly focused on getting food, but aside from that level of poverty, there's no excuse for being so callous. What this really comes down to is a lack of empathy and spiritual understanding: we're all just part of the same thing, WE'RE ALL ONE. Not caring about bears or any other form of life means not caring about a part of oneself.

If there were an ecologically feasible number of humans on Earth living in an ecologically feasible manner, protecting habitat would not be an issue. It only is because humans are grossly overpopulated and insist on living in ecologically destructive ways. AND THIS INCLUDES POOR PEOPLE!

by Wolverine at 12:35 PM on 13 May 2008

June issue, not May.

They haven't put the June issue on-line yet.

by Robco1 at 12:58 PM on 13 May 2008
[ Parent ]

The problem is fundamental

I think that the fundamental problem here is social programing. Anti-environmentalists are conditioned to think of humankind as being separate from the natural world, not a part of it. They see nature as the enemy (the wilderness, wasteland, etc.) and humans as the rightful conquerors, or "tamers" of the wild. This "war upon the earth" mindset has informed the development of human civilization for thousands of years, and has only now reached its inevitable consequences. For this virulent idea is fundamentally at odds with the laws of the natural world.

This is the social programing that right-wing framers are tapping into when they pit protecting individual species against economic development. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has fallen into this framing trap all too often.

The truth is that we are only a small part of a larger system, that depends upon balancing forces and the redundancy provided by a diversity of living species to ensure the ultimate survival of all life on earth. This was never about just polar bears, any more than protecting the Pacific Northwest forests was about spotted owls. This is about protecting a critical ecosystem upon which we all depend. Polar bears control seal populations, which feed on fish. That we depend on for food, and that interact with many other living species that affect our ultimate well-being (photo and zooplankton, algee, etc.)

Can nature survive our disruptions? Sure. There have been dramatic disruptions of natural systems before, and life has found a way. But can we survive our own ignorance and bad ideas? That is an open question. If you ignore the laws of aerodynamics when building a flying machine, you die. If your civilizations ignores the laws of living systems in that civilization's structure, by promoting monoculture and changing the composition of the planet's atmosphere . . .

by Robco1 at 1:25 PM on 13 May 2008
[ Parent ]

"just as immoral"

I basically agree with Wolverine, but would not like to get caught up in quantitative comparisons. Our cultural and personal backgrounds count, with regard to where we are coming from whenever we make a moral decision; and since so many of our backgrounds are oriented anti-animal and pro-human, we should not be too harsh in condemning the anti-animal decisions of many of us.

That said, we generally acknowledge that we must always show compassion toward all who are capable of feeling pain, especially the innocent, the vulnerable and the helpless. And the beings who belong to that class most certainly include many animals, as well as people. Therefore it is an equivalent case of immorality, to be cruel to sentient animals, as it is to be cruel to people.

Thanks also to Robco1, who sees things much as I do, but is more optimistic than I.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 6:32 PM on 13 May 2008

Well-fed people missing the point

Of course there are too many people on this planet. Especially if they want to live like North Americans. That does not change the facts that habitat protection comes AFTER all other basic needs are satisfied. If you talk like Wolferine, you may already have everything to live well. Good for you, but MOST OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET have less than that and when fighting for your or your loved-one's survival you will not care about the environment of other species unless you are not really fighting for survival. Compassion is great and I am all for it. It is naive though to assume that compassion for other animals is an emotion that most people put before caring for other people. I am not saying that greediness is excusable. It is despicable and disgusting to enrich yourself beyond what you need and at the expense of other living beings. It would be dishonest though to say that even the best amongst us don't do this. Every person on this planet kills living beings EVERY DAY just by being alive. They may not be cute, but they are just as dead and while some may suffer more than others (who is the judge of that?), they all suffer. North American's habits have tremendous impact on the environment. Much more than most of the rest of humans here.

Without any doubt, humans are part of the natural world and cannot disconnect themselves without suffering dire consequences. I am rather pessimistic that most will discover this (or accept this) way too late. Certainly it is short-sighted to ignore environmental impacts of our actions. Nevertheless, if you family is dying of cold or hunger, you will burn whatever burns and eat whatever is edible WITHOUT CONSIDERING the long-term effects. Since so many people have so little, this is a problem that you cannot talk away no matter how immoral this is judged by you.

Overpopulation is not a problem in North America though, so some of you seem to be pointing fingers at other countries. Pretty slick: Blame the problem on over-population somewhere else while not acknowledging that those same places have poverty, peace, and injustice issues that prevent habitat protection from becoming relevant for those people.

Protecting the environment is important. It guides my daily thinking to a very large extend. It is something North Americans can do in North America and world-wide by changing our habits. We have what we need. Mostly because we take it from others.

Go tell the people who suffer from the effects of earth-quakes, cyclones, famines, civil wars, dictatorships, etc. that they should not infringe on the habitat of protected species. Go tell people whose welfare is linked to having many children when they are old to not have as many children. Get of your high moral horse. Enjoy that you still have a good life and can afford to think much further than just to the next meal and live with neighbors that can still think about habitat protection. Enjoy living in a society that has a system to take care of you when you are old but with few children (who grew up thinking that family is not what supports you at old age). Worry about what your fellow citizens in North America do (if they can choose differently) and prepare for the "good" times ahead when we run out of energy and (even you!) will rampage and plunder the neighbors property (human and non-human)and violate their rights to keep on living.

And tell me ONE GOOD (and moral) SOLUTION to fix the problem of human over-population that people will agree to.

by PolluteLessDotCom at 6:09 AM on 14 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?