Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Thinking about Climate Equity

April 9th, 2009 · No Comments

Too rarely, it seems, is the discussion of tackling global warming strengthened by an understanding and discussion of climate equity issues. The new Climate Equity Alliance should help to shift that discussion.

Recently, an acquaintance sent me a set of questions.

I’m no expert on the issue and I’m wondering what are other examples outside of Katrina where the cost of inaction will disproportionally fall on the poor and people of color – in the U.S. and globally? If we don’t pass bold climate legislation to stop global warming, wont energy prices continue to rise regardless? And global warming will continue to lead to more heat-related illness and death for folks who can’t afford to cool their homes, etc? Katrina was such a unique situation, what are the other more daily things we can point to, where an average person can say yeah, that would be a terrible burden on poor, low-income and maybe even middle-income folks?

Join me after the fold for my faltering attempt (the email that I sent) to answer these.

These are great questions / issues and thank you because this is a prompt to write some posts to try to answer them.

Re “Costs”: Under “BAU” (business as usual), it is hard to see how energy prices fall going into the future. More people (globally) demanding more energy even as fossil fuels become increasingly expensive to extract. Increased demand and constrained supply drives higher prices. Thus, if we do nothing, the fiscal situation will worsen the most for those already most burdened by energy costs: the poor, low-income, and middle-income. Even on the fiscal front, we underestimate the very serious costs of ‘doing nothing’.

Diversifying supply and moving from capital intensive (fossil fuel extraction, burning) to a more labor intensive (energy efficiency (insulating buildings), wind turbines, solar panel installation) energy economy will

1. help stabilize prices (even of fossil fuels);
2. provide price certainty and stability (what value is there to know, with 99+% certainty, what one’s electricity will cost 10 years from now …) due to ‘fuel being free’ (sun, wind, waves, geothermal heat);
3. create more employment (again, insulating homes rather than burning more coal to heat poorly insulated structures) (and, as per Green for All/etc, Green Jobs are hard to outsource and many have to be within the local community);
4. Reduce ‘external’ costs of current energy system. (Asthma from particulates, cancer from fossil fuel emissions, mercury in fish from coal-fired electricity plants) which, writ large, fall more heavily the lower one goes on the economic ladder.

Re Impacts: Off the top of my head, re this issue arena, the “impacts” can be discussed in (at least) a four-part matrix:

  • International (global) / Domestic US
  • Climate Change specific / Environmental Justice

Some “impacts” examples:

International / Climate Change:

  • “Big” Example: Climate change stresses ‘failed’/’failing’ states through increased disease vectors, agricultural disruptions (droughts, floods, temperature shifts, flora/fauna stresses, etc), more severe weather events, etc … These hint everyone, but place greater stress on weaker societies (and weaker individuals)
  • Specific: With rising seas (even of a few inches), Bangladesh is seeing salt-water infiltration. Combined with globalization (which can foster vulnerabilities), increasing amounts of Bengali farms are being converted from growing crops to raising shrimp in the more brackish waters. Shrimp farming requires fewer workers/acre, thus the conversions put people out of work. (See http://getenergysmartnow.com/2007/05/09/global-warming-has-a-salty-taste/) And, those ‘out of work’ people can become global warming refugees.

  • Environmental Justice
    (domestic & International)

    Writ large, polluting industry / processes / environments end up where poorer people are (for a variety of reasons). Thus, whether an oil refinery, chemical plant, or major highway intersection, the poorer (and, sadly, the ‘more ethnic’/colored) you are, the more likely you are to be exposed to higher concentrations of pollutants that can cause a myriad of potential health problems (asthma, cancer, etc …). As we move to a cleaner energy environment, through energy efficiency / otherwise, those risks should fall. And, if done right, those risks (proportionately) fall faster among poorer people because these major pollutant sites will be being cleaned up.

    Global Warming “risks” can include:

    • Agricultural disruption putting ‘subsistence’ farmers at risk (potential for increased famines in face of droughts, floods, etc …)
    • Lower resiliency in face of various GW threats (disasters, diseases, etc …)
    • Increased cost of living due to, for example, the high potential for increased costs for food (due to increasing populations (currently about 6.5 billion, globally, heading toward topping off perhaps at about 9 billion mid-century) and disrupted agriculture)
    • Increased poverty in face of Global Warming’s economic impacts (Stern Report provides a ‘conservative’ estimate of 20 percent reduction in potential Global GDP by second half of this century … )
    • Increased insurance costs due to GW impacts
    • Type of example that you provided: increased cost / requirement for cooling (in more areas) in face of extreme heat situations, increased low-income deaths due to high heat
    • Increased smog & health threats (temperature increases worsen air pollution)
    • etc …

    Hopefully above makes sense. Again, these are great questions which merit addressing.

    Some GW & environmental justice sites / groups / resources:

    Tags: environmental · environmental justice