The BBC reports that climate change disproportionately hurts the world's poor. The report discusses a British report that found that, "the cost of rising greenhouse gas emissions will fall predominantly on the poorest people who will be unable to cope. Global warming, it forecasts, threatens to reduce India's farm output by as much as a quarter. And half of the $1bn (£0.58bn) in aid given by rich nations to Bangladesh is at risk as sea levels rise. In Africa, it says the number of people at risk from coastal flooding could rise from one million to 70 million by 2080. It points out that natural disasters already cost donors $6bn annually, says BBC environment correspondent Roger Harrabin, and as 73% are climate-related, this bill is set to soar."
Actually, poor people have very often born the brunt of bad environmental policies. From the poor workers crowded into sooty Victorian London, to poor communities forced to drink polluted water (Erin Brockovich, anyone?), to farm workers exposed to dangerous pesticides, the poor often get an even worse dose of pollution than the rest of us. The Envirnomental Justice movement exposed a number of such unfair situations. Somehow, toxic chemicals are seldom dumped in gated communities.
Can I also say that anything that reduces India's farm output by as much as one fourth is not a good idea politically? Starving farmers sometimes find alternative uses for their pitchforks. India, however, has a nuclear pitchfork. I'm just saying.
1 comment:
the pentagon did a study a few years back about potential conflict in the post-global warming world, and it found that most of europe, the us, australia and japan would emerge bloodied but salvageable. everyone else was pretty much screwed. i can't help but think more than a few people in the administration read that and figured, 'hell, we can work with that.'
Post a Comment