Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Changing the Social Climate

By Catherine Lerza, Tides Foundation. Posted April 21, 2007.


Prominent African-American environmentalist Michael Gelobter discusses how global warming affects economic justice, the future of the progressive movement and whether your child walks to school.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The pressing need to do something about dramatic climate change has reached a critical mass across the globe and across the country. And it is an issue that has also reached into every aspect of our lives.

Global warming is not simply an environmental issue. It is an economic issue, a social justice issue, a lifestyle issue. It's about race, class and democratic participation. It's about globalization and global democracy. It's about national security and global security.

Catherine Lerza, a writer, editor and a senior philanthropic advisor at the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation interviewed Michael Gelobter, the executive director of Redefining Progress, about how we can effectively enact positive change around this growing crisis. Redefining Progress is one of the nation's leading policy institutes dedicated to developing solutions that help people, protect the environment and grow the economy.

What world do we want to live in?

Lerza: Why do you think it took so long for the U.S. public and mainstream politicians to acknowledge the reality of climate change? And moving ahead, what do you suggest as effective strategies to capture the public's imagination and mobilize them to support climate stabilization initiatives?

Gelobter: Well, to speak in broad terms, we tend to be complainers within the progressive community. We are good at saying what is wrong. But there is a positive story behind addressing the problem of global warming and moving towards climate stabilization. We really have to talk about the kind of world we will be living in when we start addressing climate change.

For example, "peak oil" was a hot topic for some time -- the idea that the worldwide rate of oil production will eventually begin a terminal decline. And that is a negative story, right? "We're going to run out of oil."

But that can be a positive story. Why can't we talk about the benefits of a world where we're not using oil? About spending less of our money on oil and more of our money on education, on our children, or on recreation? About safer vehicles and shorter commute times?

The leadership act for the movement is in projecting a positive future. It is about getting out of our silos and talking about the world we want to live in.

Lerza: So what other opportunities does this dilemma create?

Gelobter: Climate stabilization presents many positive opportunities. This is a technological opportunity to have a set of new products that are cleaner, safer and more efficient. This is a business opportunity as well, for clean technology and for the venture capital community.

The public wants to know "where is the light?" I can't stand it when people say, "Taking action on climate change is going to be extremely difficult." Wait a minute! My reply is, "There is nothing to not like about a world where we're using less fossil fuels. What is it about that world you don't like?"

Why are we spending $2 trillion on a war in Iraq when we could be having cleaner air, better education and better healthcare? Talk about the things that we want, not just those things we don't want. I think that's an act of leadership.

We have two worlds to choose from. There is the bright world, where we address these problems, where we're going to have a better economy through these new opportunities and new technologies. And that can also be a more just and secure world.

Or there is the alternative world: A 30- or 40-year-old war of terror and fear. And I don't think anybody in their right mind wants that second world, except those who benefit from it economically, from a power perspective.

The social climate

Lerza: The impacts of global warming highlight social and racial inequalities around the world. It certainly affects poor communities differently. We saw that clearly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Could you talk about these different impacts of climate change depending on geography, race and class?

Gelobter: Communities of color and low-income communities in this country clearly feel the impact of climate change and have been feeling that impact for over 20 years.

My organization, Redefining Progress, has conducted a number of studies on Latinos and climate change and African-Americans and climate change. Different communities bear quite a different vulnerability to the risks of global warming. Six years ago, we already had figured out that the greatest victims of climate change were the lower-income communities and communities of color. You can see it in the disparity in heat deaths in St. Louis. You can see there's an impact on agricultural communities and on border communities and indigenous communities, particularly in the Arctic.

We have to address issues of justice: people have a right to health and to a secure place to live. They have this right whether they're black, or white, or whatever.

Even before Katrina hit, New Orleans was an extremely clear case of what's happening all over the country. People of color and from low-income communities are spending almost twice as much of their income than white people on energy -- both for gasoline, because they have to commute farther and because they live in substandard housing, which requires less efficient and more expensive heating.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: globalization, global warming, climate change, social justice

Catherine Lerza is a writer, editor and a senior philanthropic advisor at the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Two AlterNet articles today about global warming and nothing on Iraq.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 21, 2007 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's wrong with you people at AlterNet? Are you that unaffected by Bush's insane war of choice?

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just how many
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 21, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
African women die each year cooking over an open fire?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think 403 Posted by: Beck
» RE: Just how many Posted by: LJAllen
» RE: Just how many Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Comments
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 21, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. I like how you address the issues of developing countries. I think it will be hard to make the case that they should be eco-friendly after the Western developed countries have been trashing the planet for centuries. You can tell them it's a matter of life or death for them or their grandchildren 50 or 100 years down the road. But I think they'd rather have the car and the big-screen TV now, and worry about the rest later. You're up against billions of people wanting instant gratification after spending thousands of years as peasant farmers, knee-deep in mud and rice paddies.

2. How much is it going to cost the poor people to make their houses more energy efficient? What is the payback time, etc.?

3. "Communities of color"?...So do white people live in "colorless communities"? PC language is fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: another one rides the bus. Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: another one rides the bus. Posted by: dwatkins9
» RE: another one rides the bus. Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: another one rides the bus. Posted by: dwatkins9
» Inner City buses are from hell.... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Comments Posted by: jaby
Suburbs Are the New Cities
Posted by: edith on Apr 21, 2007 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In this sense, addressing the problem of climate change gives us an opportunity to build a lifestyle that's more in accordance with our values, right?"

Well, there's the cultural politics of this interviewee-advocate showing. Whose "values" is he talking about? His own, obviously. Are his values the values of the average working American who lives in a suburb? Clearly not.

He doesn't like suburbs and he disapproves of how people live in a very bossy manner. He ignores the tremendous growth of employment centers in both exurbs and suburbs which facilitate shorter commutes, and open the possiblilties of mass transit in suburbs that links office and business parks, as well as large(in some suburbs there are buildings that are over 20 stories high) buildings.

The suburbs west of Chicago, the suburbs that track Boston's 128, the suburban but dense office parks and apartment complexes that track the Beltway and Rt. 66 in the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC, the suburbs almost everywhere have become our new cities and it is impractical and ingenuous to ignore the [sub] urban employment centers. People do like to live near where they work. Often they can do both more than 10 miles away from the center of the older cities that are usually held up as models by some advocates of "greener" transportation. And these newer(some are pretty old by now) suburban employment centers contain substantial numbers of nonwhite populations contrasted to the stereotypes perpetuated by this interview.

Now, some older cities like Baltimore, Boston, San Francisco and even New York have come back or are coming back because of rehabilitation of old seaports and warehouses as higher income housing attracts younger professionals downtown once again. But for average Americans, suburbs are where America can afford to live, even with inclusion of the price of rising fuel prices.

No doubt, more efficient transportation policies can be fashioned for where Americans live and work; they need not completely focus on where the interviewed elitist ideologue would prefer Americans to live and work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Energy independence as the basis for democracy
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 21, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Africa is a great example: a whole region of the planet that now has a choice: bypass the Western industrial revolution and jump straight to a renewable economy (Africa is perfect for solar, since it sits right on the equator where solar input is maximum).

The main conflict regions in Africa are also associated with oil extraction, and Exxon and Chevron are very active in Chad-Cameroon and Nigeria, and have plans for expansion (into Sudan?). African can choose the oil route, and look forward to more endless and bloody wars, or can decide to cooperate (A United States of Africa?) and jump right to a renewable energy economy.

Which choice do you think the IMF and the World Bank will promote? Will they give African countries billions in loans to develop a renewable energy industry (remember, the World Bank financed the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline to the tune of $3.7 billion dollars)? Or will they continue to promote the interests of multinational oil corporations by using US taxpayer money to finance oil and gas projects in Africa?

If the World Bank and the IMF were to throw all their weight behind the development of renewable energy on a global basis, you might see rapid development - but those institutions serve the interests of the banks and the billionaires, not of the world's poor. As evidence, the World Bank Energy Page is devoted to fossil fuels - 'clean' coal, gas turbines, etc - and their 'solar electricity' link doesn't work.

While it'd be nice to see the World Bank finance a $5 billion solar development project for Africa, it'll never happen - especially not with Paul Wolfowitz, an Iraq oil grab architect, at the Bank's helm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Climate Change and Poverty are Irreconcilable
Posted by: vertical on Apr 21, 2007 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m sorry folks, but global climate change and poverty are Irreconcilable! For instance, the 19th century invention of electricity currently reaches only a third of humanity, which is a good thing because the production of electricity is responsible for more pollution than any other human activity. This means we need to triple the production of electricity to meet demand, but produce half of the pollution we currently create, and don’t forget there will be a third more people in another fifteen years.

The only fix is a plague that wipes out half of humanity. Or if you are an Arthur C. Clark fans aliens from outer space will save us. Most likely there will be a war for the last crumbs and most life on the planet will be obliterated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mmmm...yes....
Posted by: dwatkins9 on Apr 22, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And if most of us are ultimately going to end up on public transportation in coming years, how will we deal with this one? One can avoid the public parks and libraries, but most people do have to get to work.

Well, there are also bicycles. Whenever I think of bicycle commuting, though, I think of those horrible, demoralizing pictures from the 60's of thousands of Chinese workers in Mao suits, riding to their jobs on kludgy looking bikes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Renewables will provide all the energy we need.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 22, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the main themes of the fossil fuel lobby is that "if we take action to slow global warming, we will all end up living in poverty and penury".

This is nonsense - it's like listening to a heroin dealer warn his customers of the horrible life they will lead without access to heroin.

Solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind turbines, hydrogen development, sustainable agriculture, recycled materials for industrial manufacturing, new energy storage technology - all will provide more than enough energy for a reasonably sized human population (the current size or less!).

The only people who will 'suffer' are the robber barons who control the global fossil fuel markets - and they have enough cash to retire, so who cares if they have to give up their Lear jets? I suppose the oily public relations trolls who work for the robber barons will also need new jobs, as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

watch the robber barons
Posted by: richholland on Apr 24, 2007 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
appr. 8 years ago my first visarun to Cambodia:

poor people, girls in skirts, bycicles, ponycars.
Nowadays POOR people,girls in blue jeans, everybody motorcycles, gasoline for sale in milkbottles.
BUt here still the American Dream exists.
If America cannot control his own social problems, his own envirmental problems how the USA will control the rest of the world. Everybody loves humming Hummers, hamburgers and hot dogs.
You cannot throw bombs upon everybody, can you?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Warming has been co-opted
Posted by: rkm on Apr 24, 2007 2:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why have government leaders jumped on the climate-change bandwagon? It is not because they are listening to public pressure, nor because they want to do something about global warming. Their 'solutions' -- carbon trading, carbon taxes, nuclear energy -- will all make things worse. Already carbon-trading is causing deforestation, which increases greenhouse gases. Climate change is real, but the media-fanned hysteria is aimed at distracting us from what we really need, which is sustainability. It is also aimed at lulling us into believing that 'something is being done'.
rkm - http://cyberjournal.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]