Climate action must carry social cost

theage.com ^ | 03/26/07 | age

[Ellesu]

Climate response has barely scratched the surface on social inequity, according to James Norman.

THE new millennium has seen unprecedented shifts in world politics and economics, and increasingly climate change is taking centre stage. Yet there are many aspects of global warming that we have barely begun to understand — such as its potential to exacerbate already existing social inequity on both the local and international level.

The Equity in Response to Climate Change Roundtable has brought about a unique partnership between Australia's peak environment and welfare groups — the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Australian Conservation Foundation, National Welfare Rights Network and The Climate Institute — to put the spotlight on how low-income and disadvantaged people will be on the front line of climate change impacts.

In Australia, by factoring equity issues into our planning, we are at the very least able to enshrine mechanisms to ensure that our most disadvantaged citizens are protected from some of the most likely immediate impacts and not shut out of opportunities that will arise in the shift to a green economy. This will inevitably involve trade-offs between environmental concerns, business efficiency, social equity and macro-economic costs.

Not altogether surprisingly, with adequate planning, wealthy urbanised populations are better able to buffer themselves from ecological scarcity by their greater financial capacity to import ecological resources.

Environment groups have been keen to drive home the message that planning for the transition to a cleaner energy future must be driven by the principle of social equity. The social welfare sector will also point out that we won't be successful in tackling climate change unless we give the disadvantaged special assistance.

We have already seen evidence of this in the case of water shortages — people in the most affluent areas of Australia can afford to tap into bore water and keep a fertile garden while Australians doing it hard, particularly in rural areas, are left without enough water to adequately cope with their family's daily needs. Some aid agencies have already responded to this need by providing water tanks to disadvantaged people in rural areas.

While the economic disadvantage of Australia's indigenous communities is deeply entrenched and well documented, a recent CSIRO report Climate Change and Health: Impacts on Remote Indigenous Communities in Northern Australia, predicts that the economic and health status of remote indigenous communities is likely to worsen owing to climate change.

This reflects both the vulnerability of indigenous communities to environmental change and their reduced adaptive capacity. This situation presents a challenge to state, territory and local governments to provide adequate levels of advance planning, management and care to reduce climate-related risks, the report says.

Clearly one of the key issues we need to guard against is rising energy costs and carbon pricing hitting the disadvantaged the hardest. A new report from the Institute of Economics and Industry Research, tabled at the roundtable, points out that the need to offset the costs of carbon and to help disadvantaged people adjust to a lower carbon-intensive economy will be high on the political agenda in the run to the federal election.

On the global level, these impacts are even more pronounced. It was a message UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon drove home when he addressed environment ministers from around the world last month in Nairobi. "The degradation of the global environment continues unabated … and the effects of climate change are being felt across the globe," Ban said. "But it is the poor, in Africa and developing small island states and elsewhere, who will suffer the most, even though they are the least responsible for global warming."

A recent study by the World Health Organisation and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says global warming may already be responsible for more than 160,000 deaths a year from malaria and malnutrition. The authors estimate that this number could double by 2020.

Often lacking the infrastructure to even tackle day-to-day issues of social deprivation, health and hunger, the developing world has few resources left to pro-actively respond to environmental circumstances in a way that might mitigate long-term impacts. Countries with poor democratic structures, weak borders and high incidence of corruption are most vulnerable to the potential for climate change triggering large-scale humanitarian crisis.

This has serious long-term implications, not only for the people affected in these regions, but also for more affluent Western countries in terms of preparedness to direct aid dollars to those areas worst affected. Africa is the lowest emitter of the greenhouse gases blamed for rising temperatures, but due to its poverty, underdevelopment and geography, has the most to lose under dire predictions of dramatic changes in weather patterns.

Australia will likely have a key role down the track helping our Asia-Pacific neighbours, but we must also keep our eyes on the ball to ensure climate change doesn't further exacerbate social inequity on our own doorstep.

[Wuli]

A bunch of poppy cock.

Where "poverty" is greatest and "social" services the least, the "poor" remain because they are survivors.

I will put the "poor" of Africa, Indonesia and southern India far ahead of the pampered "poor" in places in the "developed" world like a New Orleans.

The liberal plantation society does not breed survivors.

[A message]

The liberal plantation society does not breed survivors.

Thanks for the new tag line.

[JohnD9207]

Environment groups have been keen to drive home the message that planning for the transition to a cleaner energy future must be driven by the principle of social equity. The social welfare sector will also point out that we won't be successful in tackling climate change unless we give the disadvantaged special assistance.

______________________________________________

HUH????? What?????? Oh horsecrap!

[Old Professer]

There is a world of difference between survivors in self sustaining poverty and their modern counterpart of subsidized "survivors."

[Old Professer]

Social engineering has more in common with animal husbandry than it does opportunity and market access.

[Kryn-Man]

"A recent study by the World Health Organisation and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says global warming may already be responsible for more than 160,000 deaths a year from malaria and malnutrition. The authors estimate that this number could double by 2020."
________________________________________________________


Be wary and resist of anything presented by the WHO. They are trying to brainwash the children and ruin our culture in the interest of globalization.

[BenLurkin]

In Australia, by factoring equity issues into our planning, we are at the very least able to enshrine mechanisms to ensure that our most disadvantaged citizens are protected from some of the most likely immediate impacts and not shut out of opportunities that will arise in the shift to a green economy. This will inevitably involve trade-offs between environmental concerns, business efficiency, social equity and macro-economic costs.

Where do people who talk this pompous way come from?

Can we put them on an island someplace where they can talk to each other all day and leave the rest of us alone?

Countries with poor democratic structures, weak borders and high incidence of corruption are most vulnerable to the potential for climate change triggering large-scale humanitarian crisis. Countries with poor democratic structures, weak borders and high incidence of corruption are most vulnerable to the potential for climate change triggering large-scale humanitarian crisis. This has serious long-term implications, not only for the people affected in these regions, but also for more affluent Western countries in terms of preparedness to direct aid dollars to those areas worst affected.

Why would anyone send money to save corrupt dictators governing masses of stupid, lazy and ignorant people?

This global warming nonsense is just a back door argument for world socialism.

And the answer is still "No!"

[RC2]

Weather patterns are going to change over time no matter what we, as humans, decide to do. In just about every statement, money comes into play. We will always have the poor, not matter what we do or how much money we give them. It's always been this way and will remain this way. Africa has been a starving area of the world for over 100 years and it's because they won't, or can't, do anything to change it.

[ClaireSolt]

The best thing we could do is find a way to get all the social activists to get a real job and free up the money for the poor whose misfortune they exploit for their own benefit.

[rogue yam]

This global warming nonsense is just a back door argument for world socialism.

What you say has been true all along, but this article makes the case for world socialism far more explicitly than I've ever seen in the MSM. For some reason the socialists are feeling emboldened.

[RightWhale]

What a bunch of hooey! This is right out of the nineteenth century.

[Fiddlstix]

A recent study by the World Health Organisation and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says global warming Rachel Carson may already be responsible for more than 160,000 deaths a year from malaria and malnutrition. The authors estimate that this number could double by 2020.

There! Fixed it!
Let's give credit where credit is due.

Good 'ol Rachel

[The Great RJ]

To have a more or less neutral carbon foot print would mean going back to life in about 1900 where few had cars and most people walked or took bicycles or public street cars, electric lights and appliances were rare and running water and flush toilets were luxuries.

[Dallas59]

There you have it.....

[dfwgator]

going back to life in about 1900 where few had cars and most people walked or took bicycles or public street cars, electric lights and appliances were rare and running water and flush toilets were luxuries.

And horse poop was all over the place.

[calex59]

going back to life in about 1900 where few had cars and most people walked or took bicycles or public street cars, electric lights and appliances were rare and running water and flush toilets were luxuries.

And horse poop was all over the place.

You forgot to mention life expectancy was about 40 years of age. The greenies always forget to mention that simple fact. If life now is so bad for us why do we continue to live longer than our ancestors? Even 50 years ago life expectancy was shorter than today.

[Sherman Logan]

To have a more or less neutral carbon foot print would mean going back to life in about 1900 where few had cars and most people walked or took bicycles or public street cars, electric lights and appliances were rare and running water and flush toilets were luxuries.

Except that the rich will continue to have access to modern technology because they will be able to purchase "carbon offsets," today's indulgences for sins. Most warmists think that they will be in this group, or will be given other special exemption because their "work is so important for the environment."

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Puh-lease!! Always remember to attach "BARF ALERT" to socialist, anti-capitalism drivel.

[Tailgunner Joe]

A recent study by the World Health Organisation and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine says global warming may already be responsible for more than 160,000 deaths a year from malaria and malnutrition.

You know what's good for malaria? DDT, but you stupid enviro-freaks banned it to save the baby birds!