_______________________________
There is an assertion often thrown around by a number of local environmental and climate advocacy groups:
Global warming in our region will degrade the lives of low-income folks more than those with greater economic resources.For example, the
Seattle-based Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy has made this point on their website:
I go to a lot of regional climate policy gatherings and this claim has been accepted wisdom by many environmental activists, with nodding approval when stated. And this assumption is driving all kinds of actions, like inspiring some activists to oppose the carbon-tax initiative (I-732) because it doesn't provide enough support for low-incoming and minority folks.
This blog asks the question directly:
Is it really true that global warming's effects in the Northwest will hit poor individuals more than others? My analysis suggests that there is no basis for this assumption and that it serves as a" convenient truth" for those with agendas beyond the environment.
AnalysisThe Big One: Roadway IcingLet us begin by asking what is the number one weather phenomenon that kills and injures Washington State residents and particularly poorer ones. Is it windstorms, floods, smoke from wildfires, or thunderstorms?
No, it is clear that it is ice on roadways (a.k.a black ice), something I have blogged about
many times in the past (and I have had a project with WSDOT to deal with it). I have testified in many legal cases on this topic, and a large number of those injured have been low-income folks, who are particularly vulnerable. Many of them ride long-distances to jobs in all kinds of weather and they often have cars without the latest safety features. Less well off folks often have longer commutes because they can't afford expensive homes near the central cities.
A warming climate associated with increasing greenhouse gases will reduce snowfall over the Pacific Northwest, with increasing temperatures substantially reducing the frequency of "black ice" on roadways.
Conclusion: warming temperatures reduce ice on the roadways, which will preferentially aid low income folks for the most dangerous meteorological threat facing them.
River Flooding
One of the key threats to our region from global warming associated with increasing greenhouse gases is heavier precipitation and flooding. My colleagues and I have done a lot of research on this topic using global and regional models, and the conclusions are emphatic: by the end of the century extreme precipitation will be enhanced, and coupled with less snowpack,
flooding--particularly in the fall-- will be enhanced. Homes along rivers will experience increasing flooding.
I would suggest that there is no reason to expect that poor folks live preferentially along rivers. In fact, the opposite is probably true: water and river view is a premium experience, with land along rivers costing a premium. If you want proof of this, check any real-estate site like Zillow. If anything, flooding will preferentially affect richer folks.
For $700,000 you could purchase this waterside home near North Bend, one that
is threatened by increases in precipitation under global warming. I wouldn't.
Conclusion: Thousands of waterfront homes in our region are threatened by global warming, but there is no reason to believe that poorer folks are preferentially threatened. The opposite is probably the case.And the same is true for rich farmland (such as the Snoqualmie Valley) that will experience more flooding.
Landslides and slope failuresHeavier precipitation under global warming will increase the frequency and intensity of slope failures in our region. Particularly vulnerable homes are at the tops or mid-slopes of the inclines extending from Puget Sound. These prime view locations are preferentially owned by wealthy folks, such as the famed Perkin's Lane in Seattle, which has experienced repeated slope failures during heavy rain events.
Conclusion: Landslides and slope failures, a major potential impact of global warming, will preferentially harm rich and well-to-do folks.Rising Sea LevelAs the earth warms, regional sea level will rise, with the exception of portions of the northwest Olympics Peninsula that are still rebounding from the loss of ice after the last ice age. Estimates range from 1-2 feet by the the end of this century. Those living along the water will be particularly vulnerable. As can be easily determined by using a real-estate web site (like Zillow) or a map of incomes around our region (see below), folks along the water tend to be considerably richer than those living inland.
Conclusion: the impacts of sea-level rise will preferentially hit wealthier folks.WildfiresIt has been suggested that increasing temperatures under global warming will increase the threat of wildfires. This suggestion is based on the assumption that we won't deal with the real issues (like the mismanagement of the forests and letting folks live in forests that have frequently burned for millennia). But lets accept that the number of wildfires will increase. Will poor folks be preferentially harmed by these increased wildfires?
As someone who has spent a lot of time exploring the eastern slopes of the Cascades, I have noted that many of the houses in the most vulnerable locations are vacation homes and residences of relatively well-to-do retirees. Check out the real-estate site and you will not believe the expensive homes being built in the most vulnerable locations (see image below).
Poorer folks generally don't live in these vulnerable forest mansions.
There is a lot of agriculture along the eastern slopes, and some orchards or vineyards could be vulnerable to increased fires as the region warms. These agricultural properties (and fruit processing facilities) are preferentially owned by relatively well to do farmers and investors. On the other hand, after a vineyard is burned, there might less jobs for agricultural workers initially. But perhaps more work later restoring the land (e.g. replanting).
What about wildfire smoke and health impacts? Would lower-income or minority folks suffer more?
There is no reason to expect this. Wildfire smoke spreads rapidly, influencing large numbers of people and many towns/cities (such as the smoke the hit both Spokane and Seattle last year). All will suffer.
Conclusion: Increases in wildfires will affect wealthier individuals as much or more than lower income folks in terms of loss of property. Health effects from smoke will influence all groups.
Heat WavesFinally, let us consider heat waves, which will surely increase due to global warming. Richer folks will have more access to air conditioning and thus will more opportunity to escape unpleasant warmth. An important question is whether lower-income folks will have more heat-related health issues and morbidity than their richer neighbors?
Although there may be some class-related effects here, I suspect they will be minor due to the meteorology of our region. Unlike the eastern U.S, Northwest heat waves are accompanied by relative low humidities. The reason, strangely enough is the cool Pacific Ocean (which ensures dew points are low) and desert-like conditions of the interior west. As a result,
sweating is very effective here, compared to high-humidity region east of the Rockies. Furthermore, the dry air allows effective cooling at night on both sides of the Cascades. So it might be 90-100F during the day, but temperatures drop to the 50s or 60s at night. A plot of the temperatures at Pasco for the past four weeks illustrates this.
With effective skin evaporation and cooling at night, heat exhaustion and deaths are rare in our region, even with very hot weather. And folks in western Washington can get relief from heat by heading to the water, which is always cool here (I notice that many flock to Puget Sound and Lake Washington beaches during hot periods).
To prove the above, here is a plot of heat-stress hospitalizations for Washington State (per million people). The highest was in 2009 during our historic heat wave (when many all-time records were observed). During that year the rate was annual heat exhaustion rate hit 15 per million (so about 100 in the State for entire year).
Heat-related deaths were far less. Roughly 7 in the 2009. Perhaps of that 7, there was some preference for low-income folks, with the elderly being the most vulnerable. But not a major source of mortality in our region and our low summer humidities will continue under global warming.
Conclusion: Heat waves should increase and one can expect some increase in heat exhaustion/heat deaths. But this is a very small threat to the population of our region due to our meteorology and proximity to water.
Agricultural Impacts and Jobs
Eastern WA agriculture should be enhanced by global warming. Unlike California, there should be plenty of water in our future, particularly if additional reservoirs are built (Northwest rainfall will be modestly greater with global warming). Already California firms are buying up agricultural land and the number of acres in vineyards has risen substantially.
As CA become warmer and drier, there will be a huge potential for agricultural expansion in eastern Washington from those picking fruit and those working in the packing and shipping industries. Thus, employment and wages should grow substantially. Since agricultural workers are predominant low income and minority folks, they can look forward to improve economic opportunities as a result of global warming.
Homeless IndividualsCold waves and hyperthermia are potent threats to even young homeless people as
documented extensively. By the end of the century, winter temperatures will be substantially higher than today (5-8F) and thus the threat of hyperthermia
should be substantially lessened. Warmer temperatures during the summer will be unpleasant but generally not life threatening for those living outside. There is no expectation of more extreme storms in our area.
Substantially warmer temperatures and a sharp drop in the frequency of lowland snow brought be global warming will be of considerable benefit to homeless folks living outside.
Health Benefits of Less Wood SmokeIn poorer rural communities there is substantial dependence on burning wood for heat. Such wood smoke is an acute health risk, contributing to asthmatic symptoms, lung cancer, and heart disease. With substantial warming by the end of the century, heating requirements will be reduced, thus lessening the need to burn wood. Richer households tend to use natural gas or electricity for heating, and thus enjoy less exposure to noxious wood smoke.
Conclusion: Warming will result in less wood smoke, which should have preferential benefits for poorer communities.
Grand ConclusionConsidering all the expected changes in the Northwest climate that will occur under global warming (and some will be large), there is NO reason to expect that global warming will have more overall negative impact on low-income or minority individuals. In fact, one could easily make the opposite case:
that warming will preferentially degrade the lives of richer folks.Thus, the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, Seattle's Climate Solutions, some Democratic activists, and other "progressive" groups that are making this claim (that poor folks will experience great impacts) are doing so without any real evidence of its validity. Using this false assumption, they are opposing important advances in saving our planet and the environment, such as the I-732 revenue-neutral carbon tax initiative. It appears that their social agendas (increasing government budgets for interventions to aid low-income groups) are more important than their commitment to the environment. Aiding our less advantaged citizens is important, but that is a separate issue. But groups like the Alliance are willing to sacrifice critical environmental progress and any hope of bipartisan environmental action for their political goals.
Regarding I-732, the opposition of some groups is particularly surprising, consider that this initiative would reduce the sales tax by 1%, a boon to low-income folks in a state with a highly-regressive tax structure, as well as a tax rebate for working families that would neutralize their extra fuel costs. It is time for them to reevaluate their positions and lend support to measures such as I-732 that will encourage a move to a less carbon-intensive economy.
The key point: ALL of us in the Northwest are going to be affected by global warming, and all of us must work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare our society to adapt. Those trying to divide us (like the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy) are greatly undermining progress.
AddendumThis blog is only talking about the effects of global warming in our region. My point is that in the Northwest the effects of global warming do not preferentially hit poor people or minorities. We are all in this together.
Since I-732 ONLY deals with Washington State, only effects in our region are relevant. Even those wanting to create a non revenue-neutral carbon tax, would only spend the money in WA (they are not going tax Washingtonians and give the money to the underprivileged in California).
