Climate Gentrification: Why Environmentalism and Social Justice Are Two Sides…..

canadian-maple-leaf-gold-coin1Many people wonder why some rich people can have such remarkably callous disregard for the well-being of the planet, given that everyone, rich and poor, will suffer from the effects of climate change, air pollution, ocean acidification, loss of biodiveristy, etc.

While this is true, the level of suffering will not affect everyone equally, and environmental ruin will inflict far more pain on the poor.  What happens in a food shortage? Are all rib-eye steaks gone?  Of course not; they’re just harder to come by.  Technology available to those who can afford it will always provide purified air and water, fine food and drink, and every other conceivable luxury.

From today’s newsletter from the American Energy Society:

Climate gentrification” noun, def: extreme weather (hurricanes, flooding, etc.) disproportionately destroys lower-cost homes and buildings. Most governments respond to the damage by rebuilding better quality structures and pricier accommodations, which typically displaces the previous residents. Economists are calling this “climate gentrification“; areas destroyed by extreme weather that have become wealthier include coastlines in New Jersey, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida.

This is why environmental activism and advocacy for social justice are two sides of the same coin.

Tagged with: , , , ,
One comment on “Climate Gentrification: Why Environmentalism and Social Justice Are Two Sides…..
  1. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    “why environmental activism and advocacy for social justice are two sides of the same coin”.

    No, that’s exactly why environmental causes are losing the interest of the general public global.

    Confusing environmental issues with “class warfare” in an attempt to re-invigorate leftist political ideology only harms everyone.

    Promoting divisiveness and internecine conflict simply alienates the very people needed to adopt and support the introduction of clean technology. It also calls in question the credibility of “green” advocates who seem more intent on using the cover of environmentalism to pursue extraneous political/ideological objectives.

    Just as when people grow suspicious and no longer support large charities when they discover 90% of the funds raised are spent on ‘administration’ or used for political purposes.

    It’s important to include everyone in environmental beneficial technology, that’s not helped by promoting conflict.