No, it is symbolic of a failed local and state government.
Posted on 04/06/2007 11:20:29 AM PDT by dead
Australia's political leaders, fresh from their tours of uranium mines and coalmines, should put their feet up and review the footage of Hurricane Katrina. It is essential viewing for any politician scrabbling to tack together a policy on climate change.
Hurricane Katrina is the one that nearly wiped New Orleans off the map. It graphically demonstrated that even in developed countries it is the poor who are in the eye of the storm. The US is an outlier on inequality. Even so, the scene of thousands of poor black Americans huddled in the Superdome while the affluent fled in their cars is symbolic: climate change is not an equal-opportunity event.
It is clear that poor Pacific and African nations may suffer most. But in affluent countries such as Australia, the people with the fewest resources may also be the hardest hit - not just by rising seas, more intense cyclones and flooding, but by more immediate government policies to counter climate change.
The effects of climate change will not be felt equally. Poorer Australians will struggle to adapt, to relocate and to absorb the inevitable rise in the cost of electricity, petrol and insurance. They will struggle to retro fit their houses, install solar panels, water tanks and insulation to combat escalating power and water bills. They will be hard-pressed to afford to buy new energy-efficient appliances, and if they live in a public transport wasteland, to cut their car use.
Climate change raises profound questions about equity between generations, between countries and between the rich and poor within a country. Australia has ignored the issue. The country's 6.5 million social security recipients have been sidelined. In Britain and Europe, equity is a serious concern. For a start, policies are being put in place to help the poor heat their homes as fuel prices rise.
In Australia we are still playing catch-up. The Federal Government refused to take climate change seriously for most of the decade. Having so belatedly accepted that human activity contributes to the production of greenhouse gases, it is not surprising, if damning, that the complex issue of equity is still off the radar.
The Prime Minister's Task Group on Emissions Trading makes no mention of social justice issues; of the 130 submissions received by the state and territory governments inquiry into an emissions trading scheme, not one was from a social welfare group.
The nation's welfare groups almost missed the boat on climate change. To their credit, they have embarked on rapid self-education. A recent roundtable meeting brought together the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the National Welfare Rights Network, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Institute. The aim is to forge an agenda that ensures climate change and the measures to combat it do not worsen social inequality.
A paper by Alan Tate and Justin Sherrard, of the consultancy Cambiar, makes the point that our response to climate change should not make life more difficult for people who are already struggling.
It pulls no punches. "In all parts of Australia," it says, "temperatures will rise, rainfall will change, sea level will rise and extreme events will become more frequent and intense … In all of these cases the most disadvantaged people in society may struggle to adapt to the changes or to relocate to reduce their exposure to the changes in climate."
In the past six to 12 months, business and economic concerns have mainly driven the Government's response. Yet climate change will affect everyday life, with some better able than others to adapt or move. The frequency of storm damage, for example, may lead to insurance becoming prohibitively expensive or unavailable. And if cyclones move south, as predicted, poorer quality housing and caravans will not be able to withstand the impact.
It is now very likely Australia will get an emissions trading scheme that, by putting a price on carbon, will inevitably increase the cost of electricity and petrol. Some will respond by installing more efficient lighting and heating systems, improving the design of their houses, cutting car use and upgrading to "energy-efficient" living. But there has been no serious consideration as to how the disadvantaged will cope.
They might need extra help to meet the costs - and to take advantage of the opportunities.
Tate suggests pushing for free solar panels and water tanks to mitigate the burden on the poor. And if emissions permits are auctioned, rather than being given free to big companies, the revenue raised could be used to invest in energy efficiency programs for the disadvantaged.
In Britain, the Government has made grants to 1.3 million poor households to improve their heating systems and insulation. As well, the Government compels gas and electricity companies to achieve energy savings through their household customers by subsidising insulation and low-energy light bulbs. Importantly, it stipulates low-income families get half the funds. Dr Gill Owen, from the Warwick Business School in Britain, told the roundtable that schemes to promote energy efficiency should not become dominated by the well-off.
The race is on to develop a viable climate change policy. The most disadvantaged Australians should not be left behind.
The whole point of the global warming propaganda campaign is to turn us all into the slaves of our socialist overlords, those who know better than we do, such as Algore and his ilk. They won’t be happy until we are as miserable here as people in the Third World, but they, themselves, will maintain their living standards and lifestyles, because they know better than we do, the same way the Soviet communists enjoyed a comfortable standard of living while most Russians lived miserable lives. What I don’t understand is why so many people have fallen for it.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.'
Ironically, Schneider was also a lead fear-monger of the 1970's global cooling scare. Hmmmm...
International communism has been active for many years, always in secret, trying to further its goals. In GW it sees a tremendous opportunity to take some money from those who have some and give it to those who don’t have as much.
I believe that’s the reason for the recent hysterical frenzied push about GW. They feel that victory is in sight.
The race is on to develop a viable climate change policy. The most disadvantaged Australians should not be left behind.
|
Anyone who wonders what the UN/IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming hype is actually about need only look no further than Europe to note the real agenda behind the AGW push, and it ain't science:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/04/news/climate.php
France and 45 other countries call for world environmental monitor
International Herald Tribune: Europe
The Associated Press Published: February 4, 2007
- PARIS: Forty-five nations joined France in calling for a new environmental body to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators.
- "It is our responsibility," Chirac said. "The future of humanity demands it."
- "Without naming the United States, the producer of about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, Chirac expressed frustration that "some large, rich countries still must be convinced" and were "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts."
- "So far, it is mostly European nations that have agreed to pursue plans for the new organization and hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring."
- "We are at a tipping point," Gore said to the conference by videophone. "We must act, and act swiftly." He added: "Such action requires international cooperation."
- "It is time now to hear from the world's policy makers," Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, said Friday. "The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over."
- "The United Nations also is considering a summit meeting of world leaders to tackle global warming, and de Boer said he would expect the United States to send high-ranking officials to to participate."
"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
-- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration."
-- James Hansen, stated in presentation to Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2003
"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
--Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.
No, it is symbolic of a failed local and state government.
Even so, the scene of thousands of poor black Americans huddled in the Superdome while the affluent fled in their cars....
There were some who took measures into their own hands and used the resources available.
What ever happened to the kid who ‘commandeered’ the school bus?
Do you have a source for that?!!
I’d like to use it in other discussions.
I disagree. International Socialism cares little about income redistribution. It only cares about destroying its great adversary, the US Economy. Take that out and you destroy our military advantages.
Pull the US down into the muck most of the world's economies wallow in and the great power of the East takes a commanding lead.
And the Chicoms don't like to share.
This man is NOT a scientist, I don’t care who he gave a BJ to in order to get a degree.
He’s probably working a real job and building a new life away from the ghetto.
Since the author mentioned Katrins, I suggest that evacuating poor from substandard housing and relocating them is probably a good idea. Then tear down those old places instead of subsicizing the heating oil at the price of $10b/yr.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.