Will Rational Climate Change Policies Exist?
May 29, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
A study from the University of California as being reported by the Scientific American, is making the case that the lowest income people among us will suffer the worse effects from climate change (here):
“Climate change does not affect everyone equally in the United States,” said Rachel Morello-Frosch, associate professor at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley and lead author of The Climate Gap. “People of color and the poor will be hurt the most – unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene.”
The report itself (here), has some extremely flawed logic. Here is the entire section the authors list as their methodology:
This report analyzes currently available data on the disparate impacts of climate change and climate change mitigation policies on low socioeconomic status (SES) groups in the United States that is relevant to the California context (Shonkoff, Morello-Frosch et al. 2009). We have also drawn information from climate change policy, human health, and environmental justice literature to provide background and context for these issues. Our goal was to address some of the prominent public health, equity, and regulatory issues that are pertinent to the policy deliberations surrounding the implementation of AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act as well as federal climate change policy.
The authors do discuss in further detail later that they are really basing their assertions on daily temperature levels from 9 counties in CA during the years between 1999-2003. They are only looking at mean differences in temperature of 10 degrees Fahrenheit and just to help prove their theory, they include additional data about a heatwave in 2006.
Using this data they extrapolate what has been known since the massive heatwaves of the 1990s that killed hundreds in the midwest. Those most at risk are the very young, the elderly, and the poor. Other than infants, this is due to both lower health standards & health insurance as well as lower income forcing some to not use air conditioning as much as they might otherwise.
None of this has anything to do with climate change specifically or in general. This is an issue that has existed for decades.
In 1988, in the USA, a massive heatwave in the midwest killed thousands. The full numbers are difficult to know, but some reports estimate 17,000 (here). In 2003 thousands (~35K) died in heatwaves all across Europe, but the cause for the heat was not global warming, but a specific and definable weather pattern known as an anti-cyclone.
Additionally, while they briefly mention things such as increased food costs that would hurt the poor if we move to bio-fuels, they mention nothing about the increase in energy costs that will happen under cap and trade, forced emissions reductions, and other governmental mandates – all of which will make energy more expensive, therefore more negatively impact these same groups of people they contend need our help.
I can’t help but think the whole report seems like a cheap attempt on the author’s part to get half-assed research published and what passes for a science magazine bought published it without question.
How do they ensure the paper is published & noticed?
Easy, rely on everyone’s fear about global warming climate change and then little details, like what the facts actually assert can be forgotten without worry.
The only good part about this for those watching, is it does help show that scientists are not above group think and moving with trends. They aren’t above this, because like the rest of us, they are humans (except those under dwellers coming out only briefly to read blogs like mine…).
There are good scientists out there who understand that what the real debate is about, or rather what the real debate should be about in reference to climate change. & That is the trade off between the costs of mitigating it (assuming we can) and the costs/benefits of allowing climate change to continue (assuming again, we can control it at all).
One of the most rational enviromentalists alive is Bjron Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus. For those truly interested in a rational and fully formed environmental policy, he is certainly someone worth listening to.
Categories: Politics, Science
|
Leave a reply
