|
|
 |
Who Will Be Hit Hardest by Climate Change?
Minority communities will be the first casualties of global warming,
according to a new study.
By Julie Johnson, New America Media
July 19, 2006 - Five years ago, Adrián López left his job on a
Central Valley farm for better pay and working conditions as a house
detailer for a construction company. A farm worker for some 13 years,
López says changes in the weather made the job unbearable.
"In the last years, I've noticed that it's became hotter here," says
López. "Also, the rain arrived later and it rained longer."
As reports of climate change predict its likely effects on business and
nature -- from California's wine industry to the Siberian permafrost --
what's missing in the discussion is who bears the brunt of the negative
impact of global warming.
Ethnic and low-income communities will be hit hardest by the economic
costs of climate changes, reports the nonprofit research group
Redefining Progress, unless energy policies take into account the impact
on those in the lowest income brackets.
López moved to the city of Madera in California's Central Valley from
Oaxaca, México about 18 years ago. He lives in an apartment with his
wife and four kids, and their utility bill is about $80 per month.
That's $20-$30 more than it was a few years ago, he says.
High gas prices have caused López and his family to significantly change
their habits.
"I try to control the usage of electricity, otherwise we'll have
problems paying the bill," he says. "Now, if I have to go shopping for a
few things, I use the bike."
Minorities represent 85 percent of the agriculture work force, and of
that, 77 percent are Latino. J. Andrew Hoerner, Redefining Progress
research director, says a last-hire, first-fire dynamic means small
changes in the employment market have greater impact on ethnic
communities.
"It’s kind of like the canary in the coal mine," Hoerner says. "The
positive or negative effects are amplified on the African-American and
also Hispanic communities."
Climate extremes have already created problems for field workers, as
crops have been lost and people couldn't work. The construction business
has been affected as well, Lopez says.
"Those working outside, such as roof builders, had to change their
working schedule," says López. "They start earlier in the morning so
they can stop when the heat is at its peak.”
Temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100,
according to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Temperatures on Earth. California, the largest agricultural
producer in the country, is already seeing changes.
Higher temperatures in the Central Valley, where 40 percent of the
state's grapes are grown, are expected to affect grape quality as early
as 2020. California produces 16 percent of the total value of U.S.
agricultural exports and nearly half of that is wine, according to the
USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service.
Water shortages could cause annual losses to California agriculture as
high as $1 billion.
Last year, an unprecedented spate of heat-related deaths in California's
Central Valley caused workers' rights groups to pressure the state for
emergency regulation.
"We've been after such a regulation since 1990," says Marc Grossman,
spokesman for the United Farm Workers. "Growers and labor contractors
were pushing their employees to work harder and faster in triple digit
temperatures."
It took those deaths to push lawmakers to act, and in August 2005, Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an emergency regulation on heat-related
working conditions, the first of its kind. Permanent regulation to set
standards for the provision of shade, water, acclimatization and
training is awaiting final approval.
The tourism industry in California could see revenue losses. The study
estimates, for example, that the ski industry could lose $205-430
million a year due to shortening ski seasons.
Travel spending is among the top generators of new jobs in the state,
according to a state report, and this spending directly supported
892,600 jobs in 2004. Representing 50 percent to 75 percent of tourism
employees, minorities employed by these economies could face significant
job instability.
Rising energy and water costs pose a greater problem for low-income and
ethnic households, says the Redefining Progress report. These households
pay a greater percentage of their income on utilities. That's almost
double the proportion of the highest income families, though ethnic
groups use less energy than non-Latino whites.
 |
The study concludes that policies focused on energy efficiency would
not only benefit the environment, but also have positive effects on
inflation and unemployment.
"The best policies look at the energy use of individual groups and craft
programs targeting those patterns."
As a whole, African-Americans produce 20 percent less greenhouse gases;
Latinos produce 40 percent less per capita than any other group. But
comparing the same income brackets shows African-American and Latino
households consume more energy and in different ways.
Latinos spend more energy on gas than the non-Latino white population,
which may be due to the types of jobs and commutes people have in these
communities.
The structures African-Americans live in consume more energy, mainly for
heating and cooling. This trend may be because a greater proportion of
blacks are renters. The U.S. Census shows 54 percent of
African-Americans are renters, versus 32 percent of the population as a
whole.
Policies should target specific needs, says Hoerner, such as programs
that help low-income people move toward energy-efficient cars or give
incentives for landlords to exchange old appliances for energy-efficient
ones.
Groups representing oil, manufacturing and other industries argue that
energy efficiency policies would depress employment. These groups
support policies that create incentives for manufacturers to invest in
new technologies.
In response to a bill in California legislature (AB32) that would put a
cap on the state's greenhouse gas emissions, the California
Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) warns that such caps
would put "the burden squarely on the backs of California workers and
the California economy."
"We shouldn't be surprised when developers of new energy technologies
and other advanced manufacturers choose to build their plants and hire
employees outside California," says CMTA president Jack Stewart.
Michel Gelobter, Redefining Progress director, says the only effective
policies make polluters pay for their pollution.
"It doesn't work to pay the pusher for the cure," Gelobter says. "We
could save $2.5 billion a year with climate policies that put a price on
emissions."
Also of Interest
Julie Johnson is a writer for New America Media.
NAM Central Valley correspondent Eduardo Stanley contributed to this
report. |
