The struggle against global warming is really war on the poor

June 20, 1:39 PMEnvironmental Policy ExaminerThomas Fuller

Previous Next

17 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The fight against global warming is framed in newspapers as a citizen-led struggle against the titans of industry, with the clear goal of saving the planet for all of us. But in fact, the titans of industry have already surrendered, and support cap and trade and other legislation designed to reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption.

I submit the reason we're all still fighting about this is because that never was the real struggle and the real parties to the fight haven't been clearly identified. The real struggle is about keeping resources and spending locked in the developed world as opposed to releasing them to the emerging world. Forcing expensive changes on Western energy producers and consumers keeps money flowing to the largest companies, from Archer Daniels Midland, busy producing ineffective biofuels while fixing prices and being the 10th largest polluter in the US, to General Electric, happy to join Big Oil as Big Windmill--sorry, Ecomagination.

Everybody wins if we focus attention, resources and money on changing the infrastructure and behaviour of the Western world. If we spend money, time and resources on helping the lot of the 2 billion poorest on the planet, who really benefits? Besides the poor, that is... So we have a conflict between the rich and the poor, wouldn't you say?

What is [Edit: the fight against] global warming supposed to solve? Two of the problems pointed at are rising sea levels and the increased spread of malaria. But both of these problems could be addressed directly by programs dedicated to the issues for a fraction of the cost of climate mitigation and adaptation schemes.

The amount of land threatened by global warming is actually pretty miniscule, according to IPCC projections. This may be why, as soon as this was pointed out, more alarming projections surfaced in the media. The IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise between 10 and 23 inches over the course of this century, in their absolute worst case scenario. More hysterical projections of 20 feet do nothing but play into the hands of the very biggest companies who will profit from large scale projects designed to stop this imaginary wall of water. 

There has been a lot of talk about the possible spread of malaria due to global warming. This ignores several inconvenient truths, such as the fact that malaria was much more widespread in 1900 than it is today, despite the fact that it has warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius since then. How can that be true? Malaria was a significant killer in the United States and even Siberia. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control were set up in 1946 in Atlanta, Georgia (closer to the mosquitos, you know) with the mission to 'fight malaria by killing mosquitos.' What drove malaria to the poorest ends of the planet was not weather--it was wealth. We could eradicate malaria for pennies compared to the cost of fighting global warming.

The same is true for all of the effects of global warming. We already have the tools to fix them, and the price would be much lower. But it wouldn't be a success story for any of the larger actors on the stage, from non-profits to politicians to large companies.

I am not suggesting any type of organised conspiracy to make all this happen. This is just about organisations focusing on what is good for them in the short term and not looking at the wider picture. It's just as true for Greenpeace and other non-profits as it is for Exxon and Shell. Panic makes the non-profits stronger, so panic is pushed at us. 'Solving' the global warming 'problem' involves big iron and taxpayer money, so large companies agree to more regulation in exchange for a chance at the big contracts coming down the pipeline.

So, you may ask, who is fighting the good fight for the poor? Why is there any struggle at all? Who could resist the combined might of the non-profits, industry giants, politicians and the media? Well, so far the answer is just scientific inquiry--the scientists who may or may not care at all about the poor, but just won't quit asking inconvenient questions, checking the math on the calculations, and raising their hands and saying the numbers just don't add up. They are reviled as pawns of Big Oil, equated with Holocaust Deniers, and are even insulted in their own home towns. They're not always right, but they just won't go away. They have my respect and admiration.

And while all this is playing out, two things continue--the horrible conditions of the poorest third of the planet (despite the fact that we could easily help them) and a flattening in global temperatures. (Obviously, a flattening in global temperatures does not mean that global warming doesn't exist--but it does mean we have time to think through our response.)

Future generations will judge us harshly.