Privilege vs. Poverty in the Ongoing Climate Debate

From an early age, I was taught the importance of conserving water by taking shorter showers, saving electricity by switching off lights, purchasing recycled products, using reusable water bottles, composting, utilizing public transport, and supporting local organic farmers. The mere thought of someone neglecting their recycling duties seems shocking to me.

This individualistic approach to sustainability gave me a sense of accomplishment for years, as I believed I was contributing positively to the planet. This perspective has been around since the hippie movements of the 1970s, often linked with organic farming, zero-waste lifestyles, and policies aimed at reducing carbon footprints. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the narratives associated with sustainability often reflect a privileged, predominantly white perspective that can be financially inaccessible to many.

I was never made aware that these eco-friendly actions were primarily available to those who could afford them. While I have the security of government support and inherited fertile land with essential water rights, countless individuals in countries facing impending uninhabitability due to climate change are struggling. Severe weather events, rising sea levels, and persistent drought disproportionately impact those who lack the resources to cope with these challenges.

What is the Core Issue?

Reflecting on the recent climate discussions in Poland and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, I am compelled to consider who will be most affected by these looming changes. The 2018 UN Climate Talks ended in controversy, with critics arguing that the resolutions fail to address how to limit global warming to 1.5ºC, as suggested by the IPCC report. "Currently, our world is 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels... At the current rate, a 2°C increase could occur within a generation" (SDSN). The consensus is clear: we are not acting swiftly enough, and significant policy changes must originate from individual leaders to adequately tackle this escalating crisis.

A significant point highlighted in the report is the intrinsic link between sustainability and poverty, emphasizing that addressing both issues is essential for progress.

> "Ethical considerations, especially the principle of equity, are central to this report, recognizing that many impacts of warming beyond 1.5°C, as well as some mitigation actions needed to limit warming, disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable." — IPCC

It’s no surprise that those with means are unlikely to face shortages of clean water, food scarcity, or displacement from their homes. The individuals who have lived in the same areas their whole lives, striving to adapt to their environments, will bear the brunt of these changes.

According to Mercy Corps, “Three out of four people living in poverty depend on agriculture and natural resources for survival. For these individuals, the ramifications of climate change — reduced water and food availability, along with increased competition — pose dire threats to their existence.”

In 2015, Time Magazine's Per Liljas reported that residents of Kiribati, a Pacific island nation, were already encountering seawater flooding every few months. During these events, drinking water becomes scarce, animals are trapped in trees, and sewage flows into homes. Estimates suggest that the entire island may be submerged within fifty years, displacing over 100,000 people due to climate change within our lifetimes.

The United Nations Environment Programme warns that the African continent is particularly vulnerable due to its geographical location and widespread poverty. "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people in Africa are projected to experience increased water stress due to climate change... (and) global warming of 2°C could put over 50 percent of the continent's population at risk of undernourishment" (UNEP).

Currently, there is no established precedent for granting asylum to climate refugees.

Emerging green technologies and associated policies have a poor history of benefitting the wealthy while penalizing the impoverished. Without solutions that consider the needs of the most vulnerable, we cannot hope to ensure a sustainable environment for future generations. A genuine effort to equalize societal disparities is now essential.

The Disproportionate Impact of Climate Change

Three primary areas where climate change significantly affects vulnerable communities are:

1. Agriculture: This encompasses food production, farming practices, and resource distribution.
2. Technology: This includes advancements in solar, wind, and biofuel technologies, as well as systems for sustainable living.
3. Policy: This pertains to subsidies for sustainable technology, supportive relationships with vulnerable nations, emission limits, land re-designation, and the need for a separation between legislative interests and industry executives.

Agriculture

The IPCC report estimates that approximately 10 million square kilometers (2.5 billion acres) of land will need to be reforested or converted to food crops to meet the 1.5ºC warming target. This is particularly crucial for nations reliant on agricultural exports for their economies.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) states, "An estimated 18 million acres of forest, roughly the size of Panama, are lost each year." Deforestation for livestock grazing or energy crops like palm oil not only damages the land but also negatively impacts local communities. Clear-cutting leads to increased flooding risk, soil degradation, displacement of indigenous populations, carbon release, biodiversity loss, and threats to local water resources.

We are jeopardizing lives by putting those who rely on our current food systems at risk, all to benefit a select few who profit from the existing framework.

> "Globally, there is enough cropland to feed 9 billion people in 2050 if the 40 percent of all crops produced today for animal feed were redirected for human consumption." (FAO). Our current food systems favor industrial agriculture, prioritizing feed crops over food crops. The meat and dairy industries, especially in the U.S., are highly profitable, with annual meat sales worth $186 billion in 2011, plus an additional $38 billion in government subsidies. Imagine the agricultural landscape if that funding were redirected towards smaller-scale organic farms.

In the U.S., "about 39 percent of the nation's 2.1 million farms receive subsidies, primarily benefiting the largest producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice." (EWG). These subsidies are designed to maintain low-cost feed and fuel sources, but they destabilize our food system by fostering monopolization. The more streamlined our ecosystems become, the more vulnerable they are to the effects of climate change, including the spread of pests, soil erosion, overuse of pesticides, and declines in nutritional value.

Industrial farms often operate in rural, lower-income areas that lack the resources to resist corporate control. The waste generated by thousands of animals treated with antibiotics poses severe health risks to surrounding communities. Runoff from these farms creates toxic conditions for wildlife and contributes to harmful algae blooms in local water bodies, depleting oxygen in the ecosystems.

> "In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control linked high nitrate levels in drinking water near Indiana agricultural feedlots to spontaneous abortions." (Yurcaba).

Additionally, these operations monopolize local job opportunities, despite their negative reputations. Workers and nearby residents are exposed to high levels of hazardous gases, leading to a range of health issues, including respiratory diseases and antibiotic-resistant infections (Yurcaba).

In this manner, we gamble with lives, placing those who rely on a stable food system in jeopardy for the benefit of a few.

Technology & Policy

> "Poverty-environment initiatives often lead to numerous isolated micro-projects rather than comprehensive changes to existing systems and policies." — UNDP

The interplay between "green technology" and policy is complex, especially regarding government subsidies, carbon emission caps, and funding for new technologies. California serves as a prime example of effective policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable technologies. Their cap-and-trade program, EV tax credit, and recent push for emerging energy solutions illustrate current approaches.

In 2012, California initiated a cap-and-trade program designed to deter corporations from fossil fuel usage and promote cleaner alternatives. Companies must buy permits, known as "carbon allowances," to legally emit carbon, with an annual cap on the total number of permits. The aim was to reinvest the proceeds into statewide climate initiatives. Unfortunately, results have been mixed.

According to the California Air Resources Board, greenhouse gas emissions in the state fell by 2.7% in 2016, bringing levels below those of 1990. However, heavily regulated facilities are often located in areas with higher populations of people of color, lower income, and limited education (PLOS Medicine). Furthermore, this legislation imposes a tax burden on residents, exacerbating gas prices. Wealthy companies continue to purchase permits without reducing emissions, and incentives have yet to reach critical levels. Some are even allowed to offset their emissions by investing in environmental projects like forestry stewardship (Kasler).

For instance, consider the electric vehicle market. "Currently, over 99 percent of subsidies for electric vehicles go to households with incomes of $50,000 or higher, and nearly three-quarters benefit those earning $100,000 or more." (Loris). The EV Tax Credit, introduced during the Obama administration in 2009, aimed to incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles and encourage manufacturers to increase production. However, electric cars remain unaffordable for many Americans, with their 20-year ownership costs running significantly higher than those of gas-powered vehicles, even with government subsidies.

In terms of renewable energy investments, a similar pattern emerges. The green technology sector witnessed a surge in government subsidies for solar and wind power in 2009. Although solar panels are commonly used, their benefits are largely limited to wealthier homeowners. "In New York, one of the top solar-producing states, less than 4 percent of installations in 2014 benefited households earning below $40,000." (Calma). The initial installation of solar panels can cost between $10,000 and $20,000, making them inaccessible for the 97% of Americans who rent their homes (Szekely).

With governmental support, solar and wind projects pose little risk for investors and guarantee returns for years. "Similar subsidy packages have been awarded to 15 other solar and wind plants since 2009," according to the New York Times. The necessity of these projects for government funding remains debatable, as they are primarily financed by taxpayer dollars, with major investments coming from large corporations such as Goldman Sachs, Google, and General Electric (Lipton).

> "So here’s my question: Do the benefits of these measures outweigh the initial cost to taxpayers or smaller corporations? Is this all worth it for the long-term game we’re playing? Or will these trickle-down policies ultimately harm us?"

The answer is complex.

Some Technologies ARE Worth It

Having analyzed the ineffective solutions, let's explore some that show promise. Here are three ideas deserving our attention and investment.

Community Solar Initiatives: Consider OnForce Solar, a New York-based company that implements "community solar." This model allows residents to invest in energy produced by a nearby solar farm without needing to install their own panels. Subscribers receive credits from their utility providers based on the farm's output. Despite challenges, such as high membership costs and difficulties in attracting low-income residents, the concept holds potential. Currently, 42 out of 50 U.S. states have at least one community solar project, with 19 promoting shared renewable development (Calma).

Lab-Grown Meat: Sustainable livestock production is becoming increasingly unfeasible due to land limitations. Animal agriculture accounts for 14.5% to 18% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. However, lab-grown meat, cultivated from the stem cells of living animals, could reduce emissions from conventionally produced meat by up to 96% and decrease land use for meat production by 99% (Davis). Recent investments from Tyson Foods into Memphis Meats signal that this product may soon appear in grocery stores and restaurants, offering a solution to food security amidst climate change.

Advancements in GMO Research: Instead of continuing to fund meat and dairy industries, why not invest in developing more resilient crops? Researchers have identified genetic mechanisms that enhance water efficiency in plants (Gabbatiss). A team at The Land Institute in Kansas is working on a perennial wheat variety called “Kernza,” which is drought-resistant, disease-resistant, and has a deeper root system that promotes soil health and carbon capture. Kernza is on track to outperform annual varieties in terms of yield and grain size within the next decade (DeHaan).

There are dedicated individuals working locally to create inclusive systems. We simply need to broaden their models and direct appropriate funding toward these initiatives.

We Need to Support and Implement These Ideas

If executed effectively, the upcoming years could present a substantial opportunity for progress rather than stagnation.

At its core, climate change is an economic issue. The costs associated with its consequences are projected to rise dramatically in the coming years, encompassing humanitarian aid, emergency services, infrastructure repair, and healthcare expenses, with estimates reaching hundreds of billions globally. Local governments must prioritize their investments, subsidies, tax credits, and other incentives towards industries that foster jobs and enhance local environments.

Sectors such as green building, water safety engineering, renewable energy research, and environmental science are experiencing growth in profitability and demand for workers (Cook). Future initiatives should concentrate on mitigating climate change's effects on the most vulnerable populations, necessitating that I, along with countless others, examine my privilege and make necessary sacrifices.

This individualistic sustainability mindset has proven detrimental. I urge you and your loved ones to engage with local housing projects, participate in marches, vote, and advocate alongside your neighbors. Contribute your time and resources to organizations fighting for global change. Support sustainable technologies that aid those in need, inquire about the origins of your food, subscribe to local produce delivery services, and advocate for composting initiatives in your community. Write to your elected representatives with your proposals, attend town hall meetings, or join community organizations with shared goals. Educate yourself and share your knowledge with your neighbors.

Above all, be prepared to stand up for your beliefs.

This is a global challenge demanding a global response. While it may start with individuals, it must escalate substantially over the next decade — the timeframe we have to initiate meaningful change. We need not undertake this transition alone; indeed, collaborating will make it more manageable and secure for everyone involved.

If you have additional ideas for supporting your local communities or know of organizations that inspire you, please share them with us!