Global Warming Climate Change and Low Income and Communities of Color

Global Warming Climate Change and Low Income and Communities of Color

There needs to be an environmental study of Low Income and Communities of Color across the United States and their contribution to Global warming. The EPA should have much of this information at hand since they are supposed to track toxics and environmental impact on these communities. Since most of the toxic locations about 90 percent are located in these low income and communities of color the cumulative impact and contribution to Global Warming should be quantified and made public. As an example the South East Community of San Francisco has been complaining about Environmental Injustice and the toxic impact on their health for many years, the information that we don’t have is the contribution by these toxic sites in the South East part of San Francisco to Global Warming and Climate Change. San Francisco as an example is one of the most environmentally progressive cities in the world to the problem of Global Warming and Climate Change. The model take the South East Sector of San Francisco multiplied thousand of times across the country in other low income and communities of color should reveal startling numbers on the contribution to the acceleration of Global Warming and Climate Change, if we further that equation across the world it would be in the hundreds of thousands of locations, if not millions of locations contributing to the Global Warming Climate Change Problem. We have heard the voices of the indigenous people complaining about exposure to toxics and the violation of their habitats for over decades now the problem is in our face on a global scale, threatening the ecological balance of the world, seems environmental racism has come full circle. There is always a cause and effect we need to listen to all voices especially the impacted because the problem will never stop at their borders, we need to look beyond short term profit and understand the true cost of ignoring voices of our low income and communities of color when they express concern over what is happening to them, Global Warming and Climate Change does not see color or financial status it does see an ecological balance. The resultant impact of Global Warming and Climate Change New Orleans is a clear example of that, and who will benefit after the disasters; we also have a clear picture of that. Let’s look at how the current Global Warming Climate Change impacts emerging nations from a non disaster financial impact. And yes we can all understand that Global Warming Climate Change disasters will have a tremendous impact on both developed and developing nations from a human, property, financial standpoint. The question is do we want to do something?


Published on Monday, October 24, 2005 by the Independent / UK
Climate Change 'Could Ruin Drive to Eradicate Poverty'
by Steve Connor


------------------------------------------------------------

Britain's most senior independent scientist has warned that global warming
threatens to ruin the international initiative to lift Africa out of poverty.

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, said the cost of dealing
with the adverse effects of climate change could soak up all the aid to African
countries.

In an open letter to G8 environment ministers who are to meet in London on 1
November, Lord May warns that the Gleneagles agreement on aid and debt relief
to Africa could amount to nothing.

"As long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, there is the very
real prospect that the increase in aid agreed at Gleneagles will be entirely
consumed by the mounting cost of dealing with the added burden of adverse
effects of climate change in Africa," Lord May said.

"In effect, the Gleneagles communiqué gave hope to Africa with one hand, through
a promise of more aid but took that hope away with the other hand through its
failure to address adequately the threat of climate change," he said.

At the Gleneagles summit in July, G8 leaders agreed on a package of measures to
help to lift Africa out of poverty but kept that separate from an action plan
on climate change.

"But the action plan on climate change fell far short of a strategy to stop the
rise in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere," he added.

At the Gleneagles summit, President George Bush, an arch-sceptic of global
warming, did not want climate change to be connected with aid to Africa and
managed to separate it from the joint communiqué.

However, Lord May, a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, warned
that there is mounting scientific evidence to show that global warming is the
biggest single threat to the world today - especially developing countries.

The latest study, published today ,reveals for instance that the rise in
man-made greenhouse gases may already be responsible for an increase in drought
conditions and risk of famine in eastern Africa.

Lord May cites the results of research by James Verdin of the US Geological
Survey who found that rainfall has decreased steadily since 1996 in Ethiopia
and neighbouring countries which coincides with a corresponding increase in
surface-water temperatures in the southern Indian Ocean.

"The researchers point out that this reduction in rainfall is adversely
affecting the growth of crops and increasing the number of people who require
food aid," Lord May said.

"This finding has particular resonance, coming as it does 20 years after a
severe famine in Ethiopia attracted worldwide attention through Live Aid and
other events that pricked the collective conscience of richer developed
countries," he added.

"In short, the scientific evidence now presents a more compelling case than ever
before for tackling the threat from climate change by stopping the rise of
greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere."

Richer countries have a responsibility to do something about climate change by
stabilising the rise in greenhouse gas emissions that they are primarily
responsible for, he said.

"Therefore, if the increase in aid and other measures outlined in the Gleneagles
action plan on Africa are to create the maximum benefit, they must be
accompanied by effective action on climate change by stopping the inexorable
rise in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere," Lord May said.

A major failing in the communiqué was that it did not acknowledge the importance
of securing an agreement on stabilising levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

Lord May warns G8 environment ministers that without a definition of target
concentrations of greenhouse gases, discussions about national emissions
targets are nothing more than an academic dispute.

© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.countercurrents.org/archive-climatechange2005.htm