Global Warming alarmists, especially on the Religious Left, love
to cite the purported impact of catastrophic climate change on
the poor. In the favored apocalyptic scenario, rabid heat waves
will scorch the crops, evaporate the water, and fan the diseases
prevalent among the Global South’s impoverished millions. Selfish
consumers in the industrialized West must drastically reduce
their consumption or, literally, millions will die.
Early in March, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and
Commerce convened hearings on “Consumer Protection Provisions in
Climate Legislation.” A spokesman for the National Council of
Churches tried to steer the committee away from the impact of
mandatory carbon reduction on consumers and instead on the
supposed “devastating impact of inaction.”
“Rising sea levels, more intense storms, floods, droughts, and
spreading disease vectors affect those living in poverty,
communities of color and other vulnerable communities first and
hardest,” warned John Hill of the United Methodist Board of
Church and Society. “The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2004
demonstrated all too painfully the devastating consequences that
occur when storms of nature interact with the storms of poverty
and racism that batter communities in the United States and
around the world.”
Hill cited the feared impact of “inaction” about Global Warming
on “brothers and sisters in Africa,” such as a Ugandan farmer
friend, who claimed to him that her growing seasons are shifting
because of climate change. “For most of us, if the rains fall a
few weeks late there is little impact on our lives,” Hill
bemoaned. “For Rosemary, that shift means crop failure and
famine.” He emphasized that the National Council of Churches
supports “mandatory emissions reduction targets in order to
prevent catastrophic impacts for the people and planet we are
called to serve.”
Unmentioned by Hill or most Global Warming activists who claim to
defend the Global South is the further impoverishing of already
poor nations if climate alarmism compels foreswearing economic
growth and its inevitable carbon emissions. Hill’s “brothers and
sisters” in Africa can have no hope of refrigeration,
electric lighting, air conditioning, or heat not generated by
burning wood or cow dung under the scenarios that Global Warming
activists insist are necessary to “save” the planet.
Hill eventually acknowledged the congressional hearing’s focus,
which was the impact of a potential federal emissions trade and
cap plan on American consumers. He suggested saving American
families from being pushed “deeper into poverty due to higher
energy-related costs” by offering an “electronic benefits
transfer card and an expanded earned income tax credit” to offset
increased energy prices that carbon caps would necessitate. He
emphasized government subsidies for low income consumers without
recognizing the economic impact of higher energy costs on middle
and high income Americans.
Apparently none of the listening congressmen had any questions
for Hill after his testimony. They were much more interested in
Steven Hayward from the American Enterprise Institute, who
pointed out that proposals to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by 80 percent by 2050 would involve returning to levels
of usage not seen since about 1875. He also noted that estimates
about the potential cost of emissions trading range from about
$600 to $1,500 per American household. Hayward warned that rebate
programs to compensate consumers for their increased energy costs
would lead to an “income transfer from high energy using states
to low energy using states, and especially from high carbon
energy states to low carbon energy states.”
States that already rely on hydro and nuclear power would
probably not suffer higher electricity costs under mandatory
emissions trading, Hayward pointed out. Meanwhile, states that
rely heavily on coal would pay much higher costs under a cap and
trade regime. A simple rebate scheme would result in massive
income transfers from high coal using states, like Indiana, Ohio
and Kentucky, to low coal using states like California, Oregon or
New Jersey. The low coal using states already tend to be higher
income states, who would potentially be further subsidized by
lower income states. Efforts to ameliorate these disparities will
result in additional bureaucracy and may ultimately stifle the
“capital formation necessary for technology upgrades,” Hayward
warned. “If our goal is to replace fossil fuel energy rapidly,”
he concluded, “emissions trading with equity protection may not
deliver satisfactory results.”
A representative from one of those coal reliant states was more
blunt. Michael Carey of the Ohio Coal Association told the
committee that coal fuels 50 percent of America’s electricity, 90
percent in Ohio. By 2025, America’s electricity needs will
increase by 40 percent. “Some climate change legislative
proposals would force us to limit the use of coal and yet, there
is no source of power that can replace coal at the same cost,”
Carey said. “The same groups who oppose the use of coal also
oppose the use of nuclear power.” Natural gas is three times as
expensive as coal. And renewable energy has “limited capability
and high costs.” He closed: “This is a human issue as well as an
environmental one.”
Despite ostensible concerns about the poor, Religious Left
protestations about Global Warming almost always prioritize
environmental concerns over human ones. Claims that human
activity will warm the planet to apocalyptic levels almost always
demand reductions in human consumption that would keep poor
people poor and reduce living standards for the non-poor. This
potential vast erasure of human wealth is itself a moral and
religious issue that groups like the National Council of Churches
and the United Methodist Board of Church and Society would prefer
not to address.
