Will The Environment Lead To Class Warfare

Where do the "poor" get the resources to fight global warming?

Green burden weighs on poor
April 27, 2007
Carol Goar

One of the most cogent rallying cries of the environmental movement is that we're all in this together.

No doubt we are. But we're not all despoiling the planet at the same rate. And some of us have more latitude to change our lifestyle than others.

Generally – though not always – affluence is the determining factor.

People who are rich tend to live in big houses, drive high-powered vehicles, fly all over the globe and buy superfluous appliances. People who are poor, even if they disregard the Earth's limits, don't have the means to do as much damage.

This suggests that the wealthy should be the first to sacrifice. Most of them could get along without an SUV, unplug a few gadgets and reduce their discretionary air travel without great hardship. Low-income people have fewer options. Home heating, basic utilities and work-related transportation account for most of their energy consumption.

This is an aspect of the environmental policy that is seldom discussed.

Politicians would rather announce greenhouse gas reduction targets than allocate the adjustment costs. Economists would rather calculate the price of action vs. inaction than grapple with messy questions of distribution. Even environmentalists would rather speak in generalities – living up to the Kyoto Protocol, respecting the rights of future generations, practising responsible stewardship – than get down to the specifics of who should sacrifice what.

The result of this contribute-what-you-can approach has been limited and spotty progress. Some people have chosen to live more sustainably. Some businesses have adopted clean technologies. Some communities have invested in renewable energy. But most have waited for leadership.

Now that Environment Minister John Baird is promising to provide it – and back it up with mandatory emissions controls and tough energy-use regulations – we're going to have to talk about burden sharing.

This is an area in which there is little research to guide policy-makers.

But we do know a few things:

1.) An across-the-board increase in energy prices would have a disproportionate impact on the poor.

That became clear in April of 2004, when the Ontario government raised hydro rates by 9 per cent. Energy Minister Dwight Duncan maintained that consumers could "eat" the increase with modest changes in their lifestyle.

But for low-income families, many of whom lived in poorly insulated apartments with electric heating and older appliances, there was little room to cut. All they could do was turn down the thermostat or skimp on necessities to pay their utility bill.

Under pressure from anti-poverty groups, Duncan offered a one-time energy relief payment to consumers at risk of having their power cut off.

2.) A strategy forcing everyone to compensate for the profligate energy use of the privileged would destroy any hope of solidarity.

We've seen that in global climate change negotiations for decades.

Nations such as China and India argue that they should not be held back by emissions caps drafted by Western nations that were free to burn fossil fuels and produce greenhouse gases during their industrialization phases. They see no reason to deprive their citizens of the benefits of unconstrained growth to make up for the mistakes of richer nations.

These same tensions would surface domestically if Ottawa forced all Canadians to contribute equally to the battle against global warming.

Conservers would complain that they were being punished for the bad habits of energy hogs. Farmers would point out they needed more energy than urban dwellers. Suburban commuters would say they couldn't afford to live in the city. Low-income tenants would object to cutting basics while well-off homeowners trimmed frills.

3.) A poll-driven response to the recent surge in environmental concern would push poverty to the margins of the political agenda.

That is the scenario social activists fear. If climate change is the defining issue of the next election, the widening gap between those who can afford to alter their lifestyle and those who can't will be ignored.

The resources needed for decent housing, safe places for kids to play and adequate income support programs will be diverted into technology development and tax incentives.

In the long run, the poor will suffer the most if we continue to mistreat our habitat. They are the least able to cope with heat waves, water shortages and rising food prices.

But in the short run, they need to be shielded from harsh correctives.

It is easy to get caught up in the green craze. It taps into our middle-class guilt, our concern over the disappearance of forests and farmland and our desire to do better.

But hurting vulnerable people to fix a compromised ecosystem would be a bad bargain.

Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.