Is the Climate Change Bill An Assault on the Poor?
In the opening remarks of his news conference on Tuesday, President Obama mentioned a climate change bill working its way through the House of Representatives, hailing it as "legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet." One component of the legislation, called the Waxman-Markey bill, requires large utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal power. The President says this will lead to the development of the much-touted green economy, creating millions of new jobs.
But another part of the bill has sparked concern that the government is fighting climate change at the expense of poor and minority communities.
The component in question is the "cap and trade" system, which is designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade requires industries to get permits from the government for their limited carbon emissions. Most of the permits would be given away for free, while 15 percent would have to be bought from the government.
A portion of the revenue from these permits would go toward reimbursing low- and moderate-income households for increased energy costs. But it is precisely this outcome--higher energy bills for consumers, especially when so many Americans are already struggling to make ends meet--that has critics calling foul.
I took these grievances to Norris McDonald, president of the African American Environmentalist Association, a public interest group dedicated to protecting the environment and increasing Black participation in the green movement. He supports the Waxman-Markey bill because he argues that fighting climate change is in our interest.
"Global warming is worse for African-American communities because we're already disproportionately impacted by too many polluting sites," he said, referring to the widespread practice of locating factories and other polluting industries in communities of color. "Hotter weather and smog is just one more stressor on top of this community."
McDonald continued that the bill needs an international component to be sufficiently effective, but that it's a good start and shows the rest of the world that the United States is serious. But what is fighting climate change going to cost Black communities financially?
McDonald points to recent figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which projects that cap and trade would cost the average American household $175 a year, or 48 cents a day, by 2020. "I don't believe that is overly burdensome on low-income people," he said. "Plus, there's a provision in the bill that provides payments to low-income people through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. If they're going to be impacted, there's a provision in there to protect them."
Despite the CBO estimates and relief provided to lower-income households in the Waxman-Markey bill, opponents maintain that raising fuel and utility bills at all is an assault on the poor. In a statement from the Congress of Racial Equality, Chairman Roy Innis said, "Americans don't want 'energy welfare' payments from the government to help ease the sting of these government-driven cost increases. They want continued affordable and reliable energy, which this bill will constrict."
Still, if all goes according to the Democrats' plan, the legislation will pass in the House on Friday. What do you think of the climate change bill?
Follow Cynthia Gordy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/essenceonline
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The same accusation can be made regarding *any* policy that harnesses market forces to create change, yet these are entirely commonplace. Every nation on earth has hundreds or thousands of such programs.
Check out Planet Green, the green channel on TV.
The revolution has begun. People are already moving ahead with green houses, cities and just about everything. The stimulus bill started this with a down payment and if we can pass this we will be on our way. The true American spirit and ingenuity will prevail now that the playing field is being leveled.
For those of you echoing the lobbyists position, the reason we don't already have a green economy is because of the oil and coal people. Now that there will be incentives, that is all going to change. it won't happen over night, but if everyone just does a few things to use less energy, we will be free from foreign oil and have a new sustainable, green economy.
Too bad if you cannot see the long term goals here. Everybody wins in the long run- including our planet. Grow up and get get going. You WILL be left behind if you don't.
I believe cap and trade breaks President Obama's pledge not to increase taxes on people making under $250,000 per year. Increased energy prices is a tax just under a different name.
I also don't understand why they are talking about what the cost will be in ten years. What will it cost everyone in all the years leading up to that?
This type of thinking is why America is in the messed up position we are in now . We never think about or plan for the future. We only worry about what is around the corner. It is idiotic to believe that a 35 percent increase in the most important greenhouse gas would not affect the temperature of the planet. We have to Sacrifice we cant just continue the way things are and got to sacrifice in ways thats most people do not like. That is what leadership is asking people to sacrifice. And for the people who says this will only affect climate change in very small terms. Your right. But look how hard it is to get this small change implemented. But i say to you naysayers just because a situation seems impossible it doesn't give us the right to give up on our children.
Can I assume you are not one of the people living pay check to paycheck, trying to keep your home, and get health care for you and your kids. The problem is that we do not live in the here and now. At the same time we are trying to get health care costs lowered, you want to increase energy costs (which btw, adds to everything we do, food, clothing etc.). Even you agree this legislation will not do much for the environment, so why put more strain on an already strained economy. Wake up and live in the real world, the here and now.
I am barely getting by and I would rather see this entire economy come crashing down than spend another second ruining our home world. All you people think about is money and that is NOT EVEN REAL!!!!! You think you a realist? Ecosystem real, money fiduciary. Survival of species real, survival of system unreal. You think this can all be fixed by markets? Go bring back all the trees that were chopped down. You people need a wake up call, but just like a black hole, it is already too late once you can see it.
Cap and Trade is just another bankster gamblers paradise.
Already companies have figured out how to make billions off of it.
Sorry, this bill sucks.
Just do a simple 1$ per ton carbon tax. It will cost the average person a few dollars, won't bankrupt any small businesses, and will suitably incentivize the large polluters.
I
Bingo! Once and done; but the GOP has so much invested in their "taxes = root of all evil", and the Dems are all such wimps, so we have this kluge.....
In a stronger climate bill (which this one is most certainly not), the poor might ultimately benefit in the long term. Consider that the middle and upper classes have a significantly higher carbon footprint and use disproportionately more energy than the lower classes, they have the greatest incentive to reduce carbon emissions. Failure to do so should ideally result in a penalty, whereby funds can be directed to the poor, who have very little incentive to reduce energy (given that they consume so little to begin with).
Utopian? Perhaps, but it is entirely possible. Unfortunately, this bill fails to address the needs of the neediest Americans, while only marginally impacting the affluent and middle classes.
I hate to say this, but the European model must be examined more closely. The ability of Nordic governments to compensate the poor for the rising cost of energy is truly the gold standard in social welfare systems. Meanwhile, they are the pioneers of the clean energy movement.
Looks like you're going to find out, Cynthia. Youcould have talked to someone without a vested interest: what did you think the president of an Envrionmental Association was going to tell you?
And what are you going to say to all those poor people who end up living in storage units because prices of everything went through the roof? "Sorry! But I talked to an environmentalist, and he said this would be good for you!"
The price of everything has gone through the roof!
Food costs went up almost 80% in the last 18 months.
What is your suggestion? Leave things as they are and hope for the best? Even if that kills us off?
The only reason to oppose to this type of anti-pollution legislation is that it will damage their bottom line in the short term!
It's just another tax program.
Yes, it is a massive energy tax on all of us, and will have the largest impact on the poor.
As written, it will have near zero effect on climate.
So much for only increasing taxes on the wealthiest 5%?
it has already been documented that the price of gas will rise 75% not 75 cents
Where?
Whocan, you often state these "Facts" yet never produce any documentation.
The cost is meaningless if you don't compare it to the cost of no action.
Quick, what is the quantitave relation between anthropogenic CO2 output and climate change?
If you can't answer that one question, you have no idea how to rationally compare the costs.
"Quick, what is the quantitave relation between anthropogenic CO2 output and climate change?"
Wrong question! The question is what will unchecked climate change cost.
Can someone tell me why energy cost would go up after we implement renewable sources to create the power. The sun or wind does not cost a dime. I do understand the plants have to built, so after the initial investment why the rise. It sounds like the health care industry. The people currently making the money are the ones making the rules. Don't leave out the loan sharks, I mean insurance companies.
"The sun or wind does not cost a dime. "
But the infrastructure does cost something, the raw materials have to be mined and extracted, the components manufactured, and the real estate to put it on has to be purchased (unless it is effectively stolen through abuse of emininent domain laws). In addition, the infrastructure has to be maintained.
The Coal, oil, natural gas infrastructure has already been developed, and those costs are sunk, but the conversion of this infrastructure will require an enormous outlay of capital to effect. In addition, may be stil be cheaper for most companies just to purchase the credits and continue to produce using fossil fuels than to make the capital outlays to "green" their facilities.
Somebody is going to pay these costs, and it won't be the companies; it will be the end consumer.
That is correct, us or government subsidies.
So why change it? The energy companies are making good profits, and the pollution won't be unbearable during our lives......
I am willing to pay a bit more in taxes to move this forward. Or we can do nothing and be at the mercy of OPEC and their American lackeys until the oil runs dry.
That is the day the energy industry will see this as a crisis.......
even the most optimistic estimates show us only getting 25% of our power from alternative sources by 2025. We will HAVE TO USE FOSSIL FUELS in the interim. Solar and wind are uneffective now, and it will take decades to get them to a point where they can be even close to reliable. The sun doesn't cost a dime, but solar panel manufacture is costly, and it takes thousands of acres of panels to replace one NG or coal fired power plant. Wind is free, but obtaining easements for windmills, and then building the transmission lines from the windmills to the end user is very expensive. Add in that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine so you have to keep a traditional power plant running all the time to handle the sudden power loss when a cloud passes over the sun.... The rise in costs will be immediate, because Nancy Pelosi can't wait to get her hands on the hundreds of billions this is going to generate. Only a pittance will be used in any ways that can be helpful. Just look at how the stimulus funds are being used.
Solar and wind are not ineffective. Columbia MO. is powered entirely by 4 wind turbines, they even sell their excess electricity back to the electric company!
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-16-092.asp
Photovoltaic cells are now very efficient, and they are becoming inexpensive enough to utilize on a large scale.
So while some of your premise is accurate, there will have to be cost outlays and a period of incorporation, the rest of your post is simply Energy lobby disinformation!
Climate change will affect all of us - humans and other forms of life; poor and rich humans; US residents and people who live everywhere else. The change in temperature and rainfall patterns will stress our agricultural systems, reducing productivity to the point that $.48 a day worth of increased prices (11 years from now) for various carbon intensive products and services will perhaps be made irrelevant.
That being said, it is important to understand that the "bad actors" in this scenario are us - it is our behaviors that need to change and changes in the prices of products and services will induce people to change behaviors in a way that will be broadly beneficial. Mechanisms like subsidies for the poor for increases in fuel costs, etc are rational ways to support these people and are in line with housing support and food stamps that are already in place.
If the bill passes, and all your idealistic nirvana wishes are crushed beneath the federal government's takeover of energy, will you come back here and admit that you were used?
If the air becomes toxic, or the ozone layer becomes ineffective, will you come back before you die and post that you were wrong?
I work with Utilities all over the country. They are all preparing rate cases for massive price increases will be required to meet these requirements.
Because the business model has become all profit, no investment!
These conglomerates will raise rates to keep their profits maximized, instead of operating at a slightly lower profit margin.
GREED! Trumps your health, trumps your life, trumps the planet.
It is an assault on the poor and middle class. In the end they will have increased food prices, increased gasoline costs, and 4X utility bills. Big deal if you toss them back a few bucks in exchange for giving up their freedoms.
The status quo is an assault on the poor! What middle class would that be?
The one the Republicans and the corporatist are systematically eliminating?
More than 11 million jobs have gone in 18 months, we are all getting poor.
What is your alternative?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
