Going Green hurts the poor…wait, what?

For one reason or another, I keep seeing the following iterations of an argument against environmental action:

“environmental policy adversely impacts poor people”

“Poor people cannot afford to become sustainable”

“Sustainability adversely impacts 3^rd world nations”

“Only wealthy elite intellectuals can afford the minimalism of environmentalism (oxymoron?)”

The basic idea is that if we move forward with environmental ideas, people without money will suffer.  Ironically, environmental ideas originate from left thinking (to dichotomize the political system) individuals and these arguments tend to come from the right.  This is perplexing as typically the left is overly concerned about the poor and the right are overly concerned about preservation of the rich.   So, for whatever reason, the spokesmen of the poor have flip-flopped.

I, however, speculate that it is simply a ruse to delay the progress of sustainable ideas since I find it hard to believe that those who reject welfare, public assistance, foreign aid and other “giving” type practices would also seem to care substantially about the poor.  Well, in any event, I am going to talk about how the poor not only are far from adverse impact, but stand to benefit.

Poor people are set to benefit from pollution remediation

The simple reason is this: Who lives closer to a coal power plant?  Brad Pitt or Joe Nobody?

NIMBY is a force that tends to locate people away from things that are dirty or unpleasant (or prevent the location in the event that people are already there).  It’s a simple market factor; I will pay more to live far away from industry.  That is, of course, if you can afford to locate yourself away from those things.  Poor people live closer to power plants, industrial manufacturing, freeways, and other unsightly, unhealthy and dangerous things.  Rich people live at the beach, in lush valleys or in happy urban sprawl, miles away from nasty things.  Living closer to the aforementioned dirty things exposes people to air pollution, carcinogens and other pathogens in higher frequency and abundance.

Poor people also work crappier jobs in places like coal mines, factories, construction, general labor or in other industrial settings where pollution is closer on a daily cycle.  Working in an office is not terribly hazardous to your health (from a pollution perspective) as compared to working a coal mine.

The world research institute reports that this is not just unsightly and annoying, but deadly (http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8463).   Aren’t we all concerned about the cost of health care?  Last I heard, prevention was the best (and cheapest) medicine.

Poor Countries benefit immensely from the advancement of Green Tech

One of the oft cited reasons why it would be so hard to change the current energy structure is that we have literally invested trillions into its current state.  It would take years and billions more to adapt to new energy.  Well, be that as it may, Africa, India, Brazil and others do not have this problem.  Our current system is the product of 150 years of dependence on fossil fuels…would you impose that same time frame and cost to Africa when we could effectively subsidize (with advancement for ourselves) technology that would allow Africa to leapfrog into the 21^st century?  Think about it, is it easier to set up an energy grid, erect coal plants, mine coal, ship coal and so on or just plop down localized solar grids with storage capacity?  In India, right now, there are communities such as these developing for the first time that are logging on to the internet, getting degrees and completing professional level jobs from the remotest of villages.  The following link shows an example of how this is done (in part) (http://www.watblog.com/2009/07/10/internet-messiah-for-rural-india-how-internet-is-being-used-in-rural-india/).

Poor people cannot afford to be green

This is the craziest of them all, because it implies that one has to go out and buy a prius to be green.  That is ridiculous and untrue.  The average American spends $1,810 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/summary/pdf/tableus15.pdf)  on their annual energy bill.  By installing some simple (and cheap) insulation, caulk, lowering the thermostat in the winter (wearing a sweater) and lowering the temperature of your water heater (believe me, you don’t take a 150 degree shower) and other quick fixes, one could save a bundle just in the factors of heating and cooling your air and water.  If you’re poor, I would assume that would help.  As well, there is a concept that things have to be bought at all!  If one drove their car the speed limit, kept their tires properly filled and so on (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml) you could save more money.  Wait…why aren’t we all doing this?  Must be too rich to care…

As gas and energy climbs again, I am sure that poor people will stand to lose greatly if they go green.  Wait, no one has to lose (dang, and I am all about ensuring some people lose).

Disclaimers

Sure, poor people cannot afford to buy Priuses and solar panels, but by that note, most middle class people would scoff at the cost of such an upgrade.  I am not sitting here trying to tell you that EVERY green solution or idea benefits poor people.  I AM trying to tell you that there are MANY things that one can do and MANY reasons that going green HELPS, not hurts, the poor.  By the way, even if you are not poor, you can do these things and save money…its freakin awesome.

Please post your additional myths and I will work towards a solution while improving the basis of those already mentioned.

Tags: africa, climate, conservation, energy, green, india, money, mpg, poor, progress, saving, solar, sustainability