The Shriver Brief : Poverty Law Commentary & Insights : Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law : Affordable Housing, Healthcare Reform

The United States transformed itself into an industrialized nation through the use of cheap, convenient fossil fuels. Now nations like Brazil, China, and India are pulling their countries out of poverty and becoming industrialized in much the same way. Access to cheap energy is generally a good thing: it affords innovation in labor and development, clean water, warm homes, and stable infrastructure.

Furthermore, millions of people living in poverty rely on dangerous solid fuel alternatives when they do not have access to fossil fuels. One third of the global population burns wood, crop waste, and dung to meet their basic human needs. According to the World Health Organization, the use of solid fuel causes 1.6 million excess deaths each year, and is the fourth largest risk for death in developing countries after malnutrition, waterborne diseases, and unsafe sex. It is unconscionable that people have to resort to solid fuel to survive. Although fossil fuel has become the cheapest alternative, we know that unless, as a global community, we reduce our fossil fuel emissions the result will be catastrophic.

In the next forty years, the demand for energy will double as developing countries continue to build industrialized societies, but at the same time we must significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Richard Smalley, the 2005 Nobel Prize-winning physicist, called this the Terawatt Challenge: “Increasing global energy production from roughly 15 terawatts in 2005 to 60 terawatts annually by 2100 in a way that simultaneously confronts the challenges of global warming, poverty alleviation, and resource depletion.” (One terawatt is equal to one billion kilowatts). 

Ending global poverty is a moral imperative. But how do we tell our global neighbors that we want them to pull their citizens out of poverty without the use of fossil fuels? Particularly when we used fossil fuels to develop, and we continue to struggle to wean ourselves from them today. So what is the solution? The fastest way to solve this problem is to close the price gap between clean and dirty energy. Developing and deploying cheap clean energy has the potential to alleviate global poverty on a massive scale, while stabilizing the world’s climate. The real issue is how to catalyze this shift. 

The United States House passed landmark climate change legislation last year that uses a cap and trade model for reducing carbon emissions. The theory behind cap and trade is that as carbon becomes more expensive, certain industries will look for more cost effective alternatives. Thus, clean energy alternatives will naturally emerge as the price of carbon goes up. 

Others argue that in addition to a cap and trade system, the federal government must actively invest money in research and development of clean energy alternatives.  Some climate change experts argue that the revenue from selling carbon permits should be used to invest in clean energy alternatives, while others argue that those revenues should be used to subsidize energy bills for low-income citizens. Ultimately, for climate change legislation to turn the tide on climate change, in a fair way, it must do all three: reduce carbon emissions, encourage the development of new energy technology, and protect low-income families. 

This post was coauthored by Carrie Gilbert.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-authored by: Lissa Domoracki and Carrie Gilbert

[Part 4 in the Shriver Center’s series on Climate Change and Low-Income Communities.]

Climate change and policies to combat it are subjects that have yet to appear on the radar screens of low-income people and their advocates. It is essential that this hands-off attitude change quickly since Congress has already started to make momentous decisions that will dramatically affect low-income people and communities for decades to come. At the end of this article we will tell you how you can get involved.   

Climate change has a disproportionately negative impact on low-income communities. These populations bear the brunt of the physical changes, such as dangerously high temperatures, yet they lack the resources to combat them. Additionally, the transition to renewable energy sources will increase consumer costs, crippling the purchasing power of low-income people unless adequate and appropriately targeted consumer relief is provided. Climate change legislation must protect low-income families and individuals from these harmful effects. In addition, climate change legislation must guarantee that low-income people can access the jobs and economic opportunities created by the new green economy.

This past June the House of Representatives took a significant step by passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454). H.R. 2454 addresses key climate change issues by proposing the establishment of a cap and trade system for carbon emissions as well as the implementation of heightened emissions, efficiency, and renewable energy standards. It also provides adequate levels of consumer relief to protect low-income people from increased costs and provides the access to green jobs that is needed.  

Senator Kerry, the Senate’s leader on climate change issues, predicts spring passage of climate change legislation.  Currently, there are several proposals on the table in the Senate:

• The Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act, S. 1733, sponsored by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Boxer (D-CA), which has already emerged from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
• The Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal bill filed by Senators Cantwell (D-WA) and Collins (R-ME).
• The “tripartisan” “Framework for Climate Action and Energy Independence in the U.S. Senate” recently unveiled by Senators Kerry (D-MA), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I-CT), outlining their efforts to move forward in pursuit of climate change legislation. 
• The Clean Energy Act of 2009, sponsored by Senators Alexander (R-TN) and Webb (D-VA), which focuses primarily on the development of nuclear energy.
• A power-plant focused bill introduced by Senators Voinovich (R-OH) and Lugar (R-IN).

Days before the conference in Copenhagen, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared carbon and several other greenhouse gases health hazards under the Clean Air Act. With this declaration, the EPA signaled its intent to implement and enforce regulations on carbon emissions, if necessary. The EPA regulations would be much less flexible than the market-based solutions currently under debate in Congress, and are generally viewed as a “second-choice” plan to combat climate change if the effort to pass legislation fails.           

As negotiations continue, we all must do our part to ensure that the resulting climate bill reduces carbon emissions enough to reverse the effects of climate change while at the same time providing adequate consumer protection for low-income households and meaningful assurances that low-income and minority individuals will benefit from the job opportunities that emerge out of this country’s new green economy. 

Click here to see the letter the Shriver Center recently sent to Senator Durbin (D-IL) urging him to support sufficient reductions in carbon emissions, adequate consumer relief, and job opportunities for low-income and minority individuals in the ongoing negotiations. We sent a similar letter to Senator Burris (D-IL).

Over the crucial next few months, the Shriver Center will continue its efforts to ensure that comprehensive climate change legislation becomes law and that such legislation adequately addresses the needs and concerns of low-income people and communities. We invite you to join us in this effort. If you would like to be kept apprised of advocacy opportunities, including possible group sign-on letters, please contact Carrie Gilbert (CarrieGilbert@povertylaw.org) or Lissa Domoracki (LissaDomoracki@povertylaw.org). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 [Part 3 in the Shriver Center’s series on Climate Change and Low-Income Communities.]

After a chaotic two weeks, the 15th United Nations Climate Conference concluded on December 19th with a joint statement of intention that is not legally binding but nonetheless addresses the major global climate change issues and establishes a framework for future negotiations.   The agreement was negotiated by five key nations – the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa – and then approved by the vast majority of the 193 nations that participated in the conference. 

President Obama, who personally negotiated the terms of the final agreement, called it “an unprecedented breakthrough” while acknowledging that it is only a “modest step” in the right direction. 

The agreement sets up a flow of financing for poor countries to adapt to climate change, with the U.S. pledging to pay its share towards increasing this fund to $100 billion a year by 2020.  The agreement also provides a system for major carbon-emitting nations to monitor and report their progress towards meeting national pollution reduction goals, an issue that had been a major sticking point with China.

On the other hand, the agreement contains no firm medium or long term targets for each nation’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions.  Moreover, the overall goal of limiting global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which would require deep cuts in climate-altering emissions, would not, according to the nations most vulnerable to the physical effects of climate change, be sufficient to ensure their survival.  And, scientists warned that even if the nations of the world achieved this collective goal it would still not be enough to reliably avert the risks of disruptive changes in rainfall and drought, ecosystems and polar ice cover from global warming.

As for the future of global climate change negotiations and agreements, the next UN conference will take place in Mexico City in November 2010, approximately one year from now.  However, the joint statement of intention that concluded the Copenhagen conference did not include a commitment to reach a binding legal agreement by the Mexico City conference, as many had hoped it would.  There are also strong signs that given the unwieldy nature of trying to include 193 nations in the negotiations, future climate change agreements may be negotiated by the roughly 30 countries responsible for 90 percent of the world’s carbon emissions outside of the UN process.

Whether the commitments President Obama made in Copenhagen will be kept hinges on Congressional action later this spring.  As we have just seen with the national health care debate, if the Republicans in the Senate remain unified in opposition, and all signs are that they will, passing such legislation will be very difficult.  In addition, regulating carbon emissions has sharply different regional impacts, complicating the political process.  In spite of these obstacles, Sen. Kerry, the Senate’s leader on climate change issues, predicts spring passage of the necessary legislation, which has already passed in the House.  

Climate change and policies to combat it are subjects that have not yet appeared on the radar screens of low-income people and their advocates. It is essential that this hands-off attitude change very quickly since Congress has already started to make momentous decisions that will dramatically affect low-income people and communities for decades to come. Look for our upcoming blog regarding work at the Congressional level and how you can get more involved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-authored by Lissa Domoracki and Carrie Gilbert

[Part 2 in the Shriver Center’s series on Climate Change and Low-Income Communities]

The build-up of carbon and other green-house gas emissions in the atmosphere causes climate change. If this build-up continues, it is estimated that the average temperature in the United States could increase by as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. The negative effects of climate change are numerous: increased heat waves, increased incidence of heat-related disease and illness, increased risk of floods, droughts, and fires, rising sea levels, etc. With federal climate change legislation on the horizon, many people are talking about cap-and-trade and how it can reduce our carbon emissions. But, what exactly is cap-and-trade? 

Cap-and-trade is a simple story of supply and demand. As of now, there is no limit on carbon emissions. Power plants, refineries, and industrial plants may emit as much carbon as they want without cost. Cap-and-trade changes this, putting a price on the right to emit carbon. 

Under a cap-and-trade system, companies must turn in an allowance for every ton of carbon emitted the previous year. The number of allowances issued determines the level of or the “cap” on carbon emissions. Initially, some allowances are given to companies for free while others are auctioned off. If fewer allowances are issued, either for free or at auction, than tons of carbon currently emitted, companies subject to cap-and-trade will either have to reduce their carbon emissions or obtain more allowances.

Depending on a company’s circumstances, the company may find it more cost-effective either to reduce carbon emissions or to buy emissions allowances. Cap-and-trade systems create an open market where allowances may be bought and sold. For example, Company A may be able to very easily and cheaply reduce its carbon emissions beneath its allotted allowance level while it may be very difficult and expensive for Company B to reduce its carbon emissions at all. In this circumstance, Company A could reduce its carbon emissions enough to be able to sell its excess allowances to Company B on the open market. Regardless, carbon emissions are reduced sufficiently to meet the cap.

Over time, the number of allowances issued will decrease, lowering the cap on carbon emissions. As this happens, the purchase price of an allowance on the open market should increase. To illustrate, let’s go back to Company A and Company B. Both companies have fewer allowances allotted to them than at the onset of the cap-and-trade program, and Company A has already utilized the easy and cheap methods to reduce its carbon emissions. Therefore, if Company A is going to reduce its carbon emissions sufficiently to sell excess allowances, it must undergo more difficult and costly changes than before. In turn, Company A is only willing to sell its allowances at a higher price. Company B has made no changes, previously choosing to buy allowances on the open market.   At some point, the price of allowances on the open market will exceed Company B’s cost to reduce carbon emissions, and like Company A, Company B will make the changes necessary to reduce its carbon emissions.  

For some companies, this may mean closing a plant and shifting production to a plant that emits less carbon, constructing a new plant that emits less carbon, or ceasing operations altogether. Take, for example, the Fisk and Crawford coal-burning power plants located in the working-class Pilsen and Little Village neighborhoods of Chicago. Both of these plants, because of their age, are exempt from the Clean Air Act. As is often the case, low and moderate income people bear the brunt of the pollution from plants like Fisk and Crawford as they tend to be located in or near low and moderate income communities. According to a Harvard School of Public Health report, the air pollution from the Fisk and Crawford plants is linked to 40 deaths, 550 emergency room visits, and 2,800 asthma attacks annually. Under a cap-and-trade system, it will likely become prohibitively expensive to continue the operation of these heavy carbon-emitting plants, benefiting the low and moderate income communities situated near them.

Overall, a cap-and-trade system advances several climate change objectives. First, the cap allows for predetermined and definite carbon emission-level reductions through the issuance of a limited number of allowances.  Second, the trading of allowances provides for the reduction of carbon emissions in the most cost-effective manner by encouraging the implementation of quick and easy carbon emission reduction strategies early on. Third, cap-and-trade will make heavy polluting plants cost prohibitive to continue operating, yielding important health benefits to the low and moderate income people who tend to live near such plans. Fourth, cap-and-trade, properly structured, can accomplish yet another essential policy objective -- the protection of low and moderate income households from bearing the brunt of added consumer costs that will result from limiting carbon emissions through cap-and-trade. More on this subject in a future article in our series on Climate Change and Low-Income Communities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Co-authored by: Lissa Domoracki and Carrie Gilbert

 [This is the first in a series of articles about climate change and its impact on people and low-income communities. These articles reflect the Shriver Center’s initiative to raise awareness about these issues and to advocate on behalf of these communities in the current debates surrounding federal climate change legislation.]

The images of polar bears hungry and stranded on a lone block of ice made notorious by Al Gore are heart-wrenching, but the tragedies and injustices of climate change exist here at home also. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath put one facet of these inequalities on display and should serve as a wake-up call. Climate change affects us all, but there are several specific ways in which it will have an even greater impact on low-income communities than others:

(1)    Heat waves brought on by climate change hit low-income communities hardest. Studies show a positive correlation between the presence of heat-trapping surfaces, like black asphalt, and community poverty. These studies also show a negative correlation between tree cover and community poverty. Less tree cover combined with more heat-absorbing materials in low-income communities raise the temperature, actually making it hotter in these communities. This is known as the “heat island” effect. 
 

(2)    Low-income individuals are more likely to live in poorly insulated homes and less likely to have air conditioning or easy transportation to cooling centers to cope with these elevated temperatures.
 

(3)    Pollution is disproportionately concentrated in low-income neighborhoods and increased temperatures speed its transformation into harmful ambient ozone that aggravates respiratory conditions such as asthma. Additionally, low-income individuals are less likely to have health insurance or access to medical care, likely worsening the health problems associated with exposure to pollution.
 

(4)    Low-income communities are the most vulnerable to natural disasters. Because of climate change, these extreme weather events are expected to greatly increase in frequency and severity. Low-income people are much less likely to carry disaster insurance that would allow them to quickly rebound from the damages caused by such events. 

Climate change is a serious problem for everyone, but the consequences of climate change are even more severe for low-income populations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Green is the new black. Going green. Thinking green. In the past few years, everyone from politicians to celebrities to major corporations has decided to “go green.” President Obama has made the environment one of his main priorities. The United States is “going green.” 

But going green is not free. Adopting measures that will counteract the potentially lethal effect of carbon emissions on our planet will impose significant costs that anti-poverty advocates cannot afford to ignore. Indeed, we must all be asking, how will climate change policy affect low-income communities?  

The effects of climate change will hit low-income communities first and hardest. Extreme weather, pollution and toxins in the air are just a few of the effects of climate change that harm the health and safety of low-income individuals. Some are deeming the disparity in climate change effects on different communities “the climate gap.” Many fear that low-income communities will be unprepared for the changes brought about by climate change. 

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Waxman-Markey bill that regulates carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade program requiring businesses to purchase permits for their emissions. The U.S. Senate is taking up consideration of this measure now. Many hope that climate change policy will stimulate the economy and create green jobs. There is also much concern about how heavily the increased costs to businesses will fall on consumers, including low-income individuals. 

Something must be done to curb the effects of climate change. How can we control the effects of climate change while making the costs incurred by consumers manageable? How do we maximize the gain and minimize the pain of climate change policy for low-income people and communities? 

Join the Shriver Center on September 30 for “Climate Change Policy and Low-Income Communities: Maximizing the Gain and Minimizing the Pain,” a symposium in Chicago where you can learn more about the issues of climate change and climate change policy and their effects on low-income communities. Please register online at www.povertylaw.org/dialogue or call 312.368.1168. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks