Last month, several Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a resolution with a rather unique take on the environmental debate.  According to a report in The Hill, the resolution stated that climate change is hurting women more than men.

“Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health,” read the resolution.

And so we have the latest absurdity under the relatively new and ever broadening category of “climate justice.”

The radical environmental movement is in transition.

Chris Foreman, a progressive writing for The Breakthrough Institute, says the more leftist environmentalists have taken a cue from advocates of the social and economic justice movements.  This incarnation of environmentalism links the impacts of climate change with global poverty.

The theory goes that if the effects of global warming create an even greater hardship on the worlds’ poor, there is an even more critical moral imperative to replace carbon-based energy with green alternatives, while imposing a more even global economic playing field.

Foreman quotes Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo from South Africa as saying, “Look, 1.6 billion people have no access to energy and yet live in regions that are blessed with an abundant solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy.  If we can address that problem, we can alleviate poverty and create jobs and move into a green energy future.”

Foreman says the logic is dubious. “Demands for climate justice too often ignore basic practicalities of energy, poverty, and climate change,” he writes.

Foreman isn’t alone.  Two more progressives at The Breakthrough Institute, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, say the climate justice movement disregards history and the successes of carbon-fueled capitalism to bring people out of poverty.

“Hundreds of millions of desperately poor people went from burning dung and wood for fuel (whose smoke takes two million souls a year) to using electricity, allowing them to enjoy refrigerators, washing machines, and smoke-free stoves.”

In short, those who truly care about the impoverished of the world should be worried more about how to get cheap, reliable electricity to a remote village rather than using the plight of the poor to advance the nebulous notion of “climate justice.”

Don’t get Foreman, Shellenberger and Nordhaus wrong; they’re environmentalists, but they’re also realists who are interested in practical solutions to global poverty and climate change.  In doing so, they avoid the pie-eyed convenience of extremist groups who have co-oped the justice movements.

The great miscalculation of the climate justice movement is that it is rooted in reparations and redistribution, and based on the concept that the industrialized world has benefited at the expense of the rest of the planet, which still has to pay the environmental cost.

What they miss entirely–which Foreman, Shellenberger and Nordhaus get–is that what the world really needs is more development with the cheapest, best available fuel, to help elevate people out of poverty.

Now that would be justice.

 

 

 

bubble graphic

33

bubble graphic

Comments

  • george

    I gre up- poor but we never resorted to sex work or getting married early--these democrats never cease to amaze me with their thinking....... we just got a job and worked an honest living.

  • DonaldB

    It will take no more than 3 guest appearance by Howard Monroe on Hoppy’s show to get Hop fully onboard with this theory—by the second show Hop will claim to Howard “well, we will just have to AGREE TO DISAGREE” and during Howards 3 guest appearance Hoppy will spout—“ Hmmm, I kinda see what you are saying, gives me something to consider”—and then BOOM!! He’s fully onboard with Howard….

  • DonaldB

    It will take no more than 3 guest appearance by Howard Monroe on Hoppy’s show to get Hop fully onboard with this theory—by the second show Hop will claim to Howard “well, we will just have to AGREE TO DISAGREE” and during Howards 3 guest appearance Hoppy will spout—“ Hmmm, I want a clean climate too, I kinda see what you are saying, gives me something to consider”—and then BOOM!! He’s fully onboard with Howard….

  • Chuck Anziulewicz

    Hoppy writes, "What the world really needs is more development with the cheapest, best available fuel, to help elevate people out of poverty."

    And of course that cheapest, best available fuel is FOSSIL fuel (i.e. coal, oil, and natural gas). It's unfortunate that all the resulting carbon emissions will continue to go straight into the atmosphere, though. The coal industry's old "clean, carbon-neutral" advertising campaign was just a pipedream.

    Yes, it will be nice if economic development driven by fossil fuels lives some people out of poverty in the short term. In the long term, of course, the environmental damage will be catastrophic ... but probably not until after YOU'RE dead, Hoppy. So why worry?

    • Chuck Anziulewicz

      Sorry, that sentence should read, "It will be nice if economic development driven by fossil fuels LIFTS some people out of poverty."

  • mntnman

    I'm keeping track of all this. In a couple decades, assuming I am still alive, we shall see who was correct. I do know one thing -- it is hotter now than when I was a kid. Not scientific to be certain, but an observation.

    Perhaps we will have a new ice age, and that will offset global warming and everything will stay the same. Just a thought.

  • FungoJoe

    Where are all the liberal progressive Obama apologists today?? Must be an Occupy Wall Street-sponsored riot against the police somewhere today.

    • CaptainQ

      Got to admit, that's a good question, Fungo.

      Many of this MB's Democrat/liberal regulars seem to be AOL today.

      Perhaps even they are shocked at this action by those of the environmentalist wing of the DNC? Oh well. Can't defend an undefendable position, right?

      • mntnman

        Not sure what you mean by indefensible. Hoppy points out one obvious example of poor policy, and you seem to think that proves that environmentalism is wrong in all things. They are right in many things.

        For example, destroying our fresh water would be bad. So we need to protect it. Even if it costs us more in the long run. Because the rest of the world is seeing fresh water shortages already. So, we can do something to protect water, or have trouble in a few years.

        Global warming is more complex, but the world is getting warmer -- there is NO doubt about it. I don't know why precisely, but I imagine that humans are at the very least contributing somewhat with greenhouse gases. So why shouldn't we do something to prevent a disaster for coming generations.

        The debate, it seems is not as one-sided as some pretend. On either side.

        • wirerowe

          Mntnman I agree that Global warming is complex and that the climatic computer models that have so far been way off target may one day become reality . If global temperatures data are a reflection of the world getting warmer, then there is great doubt , that the world is getting warmer. There has been no discernible increase in global temperatures over the last 16 years. The world is not getting warmer.

        • dolphin3111

          mntnman - "but the world is getting warmer".

          I'm sorry mntnman, but you are absolutely wrong about that.

          • Mtnman

            Bury your head in the sand. The world is warmer than it was 50 years ago. Science is indisputable. Ignore it if you want, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

          • CaptainQ

            Actually Mtnman, the "Global Warming experts" have been the ones 'making up their own facts' from the beginning I know you'd rather IGNORE all those uncovered incriminating e-mails that PROVED the Climate Change people have been using fabricated data to 'cook their books,' but it's a fact, not fiction, like Global Warming/Climate Change is.

          • mntnman

            Actually Capt, the facts are that the world is warmer than it has been since we've been keeping records. FACT. The carbon dioxide levels in parts per million are higher than we've ever measured. FACT.

            I'm disappointed that you have come under the spell of conspiracy theorists that think its all made up by scientists. I had thought from reading your comments that you were smarter than that.

            As I have said before, many times. I do not know why the world is warmer. Maybe its carbon, maybe its cyclical, maybe its both. We do have science that suggests that carbon can increase temperatures in closed systems. So, I am left wondering myself why we're getting warmer. But our world is undoubtedly warmer. Just look at the demise of natural ice at high altitude, the demise of ice at the poles, etc. Ice melts when it gets warmer.

            I just don't understand why people deny the obvious.

          • CaptainQ

            The world's getting warmer? Really? That's ALL you got?

            Gee, here's a FACT for you. In MY area of WV, the NWS has declared a FREEZE WARNING for Sunday and Monday night... It's MAY and it's FREEZING here! And last winter, I had to shovel a LOT of white fluffy 'global warming' out of my driveway!

            So the world's getting warmer? Not MY part of the world! LOL

    • GregG

      Sorry Man of Many Names, I have spent the morning helping with a school activity. But if it helps to ease your mind, I was not brainwashing the small children with my "liberal progressive" views. Although I did point out to several of them that they should not leave trash and drink bottles laying on the ground, that they should always pick up their trash and put it in the trash can. I guess in your world I should have told them just to throw it down anywhere because it would create a low paying job for someone to come along behind them and clean up their mess.

      • Wowbagger

        GregG,

        Teach them to recycle, if possible. I know this is not always possible in West Virginia.

        Since Morgantown started their new multi-stream recycling program (that costs me more, by the way) my wife and I throw away a 13 gallon white kitchen bag of garbage or less weekly and a huge bin of recycling.

  • WVU 74

    Hoppy,

    Climate justice ignores the obvious. The economies in Europe and in most of the Third World, are struggling and a few have made it to Depression. Only in the United States is the price of oil and gasoline remaining high

    Government subsidies and private investment for alternative fuels and other forms of energy are drying up. Ironically, it will be the lack of capital coupled with the falling value of the US dollar that will make oil, gas and alternative energy imports prohibitive.

    The world consumes a lot of coal, right now. The demand for coal is steady in much of Europe, India and Asia. US coal is relatively cheap for these countries to purchase because the dollar is down in comparison to other world currencies.

    Haven't figured out how anyone can redistribute
    Supply and Demand. Do they teach Redistribution at WVU, now ?

  • Wowbagger

    Alright here's the story. The climate change fanatics eliminated at least one very big line of evidence in an attempt to make their case - geology.

    1) The amount of carbon on (AND IN) the earth is pretty much fixed. No molecules containing carbon can reach escape velocity and leave the atmosphere (only hydrogen gas H2 can). There is a very small inflow from meteorites, but it is insignificant. In most of the Precambrian (before significant life on earth) most carbon was present in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere and was much greater than it is now. As carbon based life developed on earth this atmospheric CO2 became tied up in plants and animals and a significant amount was buried as a small portion of their remains is preserved during burial forming coal, oil and gas, and just disseminated carbonaceous materials commonly preserved in sedimentary rocks (including some fossils). Spend time studying Precambrian sedimentary and meta sedimentary rocks initially deposited before life began and this mechanism becomes quite obvious as there is little or no carbonaceous material. The development of life was very significant in the evolution of the planet earth. In general the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has dropped significantly over geologic time as it is slowly removed from the atmosphere by carbon fixing plants and animals. This carbon is incorporated into the earth's sedimentary rocks and some is temporarily removed from the system as it is dragged into subduction zones on the floor of the oceans.

    2) There is abundant evidence of several periods of global glaciation (cooler than today) and warm periods (warmer than today) throughout geologic time from the Precambrian to the Pleistocene without regard to the gradually declining amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 has little or no relationship to global temperature.

    Oh, the violent weather offered as evidence of global warming is also characteristic of times when the earth is cooling into another glacial period and so indicates nothing. Before the current madness began many considered that we live in an interglacial period that started about 10,000 years ago and is possibly coming to an end.

    There are credible astrophysical mechanisms that relate climate change to solar activity that are far more likely than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and have NOTHING to do with human activity.

    • dolphin3111

      Very well stated and analytical, wowbagger.

      I have done engineering thermodynamic calculations that demonstrate that it is impossible for CO2, in it's present concentration, to have any effect on warming.

      Latest satellite measurements compiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville confirm NO warming since 1997. In fact, the latest data just out also confirms the start of a cooling trend during the last two years.

      I would hate to see us plunge into a mini-glacial period. Warm = good. Cold = die.

  • FungoJoe

    The enviro-nazis at work again. I heard on the news just this morning that the number of tornadoes so far this year is way down. There hasn't been this few at this time of the year since the early 50's. And just a few short months ago, the hoaxsters were saying what a terrible year it was going to be for tornadoes BECAUSE of global warming. What a hoax that has been perpetrated upon us all. And many of these same global warming hoaxsters also told us that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was the result of an anti-muslim video. And we now know that was one BIG lie piled upon other BIG lies. Hey progressive nazis, we are not buying the BS you are selling anymore, period !!!!!!

    • bulldog95

      Climate change causes tornadoes, or a lack of them. Places that normally get snow and dont, its climate change. Places that dont get snow and do, its climate change. To few or to many hurricances, its climate change. It cherry picking climate change, plain and simple.

  • Buddy Boy

    Simple question- Why is Greenland called "Green"land? Could it be that the earth goes through cycles based on the sun and that man's contribution is nil compared to the power of the sun. I suggest evevryone read Michael Crichton's " State of Fear".

    • Pioneer

      Great point buddy

    • thornton

      Some think it was a form of marketing akin to selling Time-shares....same for Iceland.
      Never believe a salesman.

  • thornton

    Next will be a major motion picture featuring the Climate Justice League righting imagined wrongs and balancing the coffers...of others.

    Lead will be played by the team of Bono and Penn, clad in green leotards and carrying yellow push brooms.

    Ticket price: leave $10.00 and your commonsense upon entry.

  • CaptainQ

    Climate Justice? THIS is the latest idea the radical environmentalists have come up with? Really? This concept is so laughably crazy that it requires no further belittlement!

    What's even funnier is that some of our elected leaders in Washington are buying into this junk! And y'all wonder why we think they're all a bunch if idiots! WOW!

    Any lawmaker of EITHER party who falls of this silliness needs to purchase some of the oceanfront prpoerty I'm selling in Parsons.

    Climate Justice? How about 'wishful thinking'? What will these overeducated lunkheads come up with next?

    • bulldog95

      The people in DC are buying into this because they can write the laws and then have friends start up companies around those laws. Perhaps the companies are already set and laws are written around the companies. The green energy or carbon trading gets started and half of DC has millons of shares of stock in those companies, forcing this on the American people. Half of DC become filthy rich overnight. Its a scam, simple as that.

  • wirerowe

    Hoppy those that would like to transfer money from big carbon footprint countries to low carbon footprint countries or impose a carbon tax in our country are a little ahead of themselves..The scientific reality of hard data in contrast to scientific theories of computer models of global warming is that the earth's temperature has nor appreciably changed over the last 15 years when carbon dioxide emissions were at high levels. Jim Hansen erstwhile NASA scientist acknowledges this and says this is because the heat went into the oceans. But the oceans haven't heated up. So global warming deniers say it is all a hoax. Not at all. The heat escaped through the Bermuda Triangle.It is science.

    • wirerowe

      Between 2005 and 20012 US CO2 emissions were down 10% and the per capita emissions were down 16 % and in 2012 were at a 20 year low. in 2000 the Us accounted for 24% of the CO2 emissions for the world and China accounted for 11%. In 2011 the US accounted for 16% of the world's CO2 emissions and China accounted for 29%. In 2011 alone CO2 emissions were down 3% in the US and up 9% in China.

  • Luke

    I believe it was the philosopher Bobcat Golthwaite who once observed "We have deserts in America, we just don't live there."

    • Pioneer

      That was the great philosopher Sam Kennison

    • mntnman

      Ever been to Las Vegas? Most of Southern California? We do live in deserts at a very high cost!!