From The Metro:
The poorest people in the UK will be hit hardest by climate change, a report warned. A study by a coalition of environmental and social justice groups said one in five people still lived in poverty in this country, often unable to afford to heat their homes or eat healthily.
The impacts of rising temperatures will affect them most, as they tend to live in lower quality, less energy-efficient housing, have ... less money to adapt to higher prices of fuel and food.
Does not compute!
If we were worried about falling temperatures, with a consequently higher demand for fuel and more crop failures, then yes, the poorest would probably be the hardest hit. But if temperatures are indeed rising, then surely that will reduce demand for fuel for heating and we'll need less of something that is cheaper?
Let's also not forget that "The cost of meeting EU green goals is set to add an extra 20% to the average gas and electricity bill, according to new research..."
Elevate their cause?
1 hour ago
10 comments:
A study by a coalition of environmental and social justice should set the alarm bells ringing ... but unfortunately, sheeple will still believe this shit.
But if it gets warmer they won't need to heat their homes??????
"But if temperatures are indeed rising, then surely that will reduce demand for fuel for heating and we'll need less of something that is cheaper?"
No, I think they are concerned that instead of 'squandering' resources on heating, we'll be turning to this.
Perhaps we could employ all those out-of-work graduates as punkah-wallahs, instead? Useful AND green! :)
JM, that's hardly a headline is it? "Poor people less likely to be able to afford air conditioning".
In any event, reducing your room temperature by one degree uses rather less electricity than heating it up by one degree, so it would still be a net gain.
Mark W,
"I REALLY REALLY want a big fat grant" does not make a good headline....
This is what Lomborg pointed out, that global warming may kill x people (in hot areas who can't get food), but will kill less than x people in cold areas who won't freeze to death.
I forget the numbers, but it was quite a big difference. Of course, most comments were of the "burn the heretic" variety, despite Lomborg using the same data that is publicly available.
"often unable to afford to ... or eat healthily."
That phrase is always guaranteed to piss me off mightily.
I like to eat. I like good food. I like to cook. I have four children. I don't like spending money. I worked it out. Over Xmas and New Year we had 1 No pork leg, 1 No large ham, 1 No. Large Turkey (on a deal as it was the last fresh one in the butchers). Whole lot best part of £80. Meals eaten for family of 6 plus guests from this lot between Dec 24 and 4th Jan - about 80 plus lots of stock made, plus turkey curry for three. Less than £1/head.
Or make a stew out of a small amount of meat and lots of veg - cost per head less than 50p.
Eating healthily has sod all to do with low UK incomes. It's got all to do with effort and attitude.
They are such total smeg heads.
"A study by a coalition of environmental and social justice groups"
I too am very curious as to how a group earns the "social justice" moniker. Now, I assume it means said group must advocate stealing from Peter to give to Paul as a baseline.
I dunno why the "poor" can't just wear more woolies, or just endure. Anyhow, my LCD TV gives off so much heat from the screen that I don't need central heating.
Forget the future. The poorest are hit by "green" policies NOW that make motoring more expensive -- they cannot afford to live where they want or where it is cheapest because they cannot afford the costs of driving to work, parking etc; they cannot get to interviews etc to get jobs because they cannot afford to run a car (core taxes on which are highly regressive) and have no other way of getting there. Not to mention all the economic, social, psychological and other harms that come from enforced lack of mobility. To which the only answer if ever - public f****** transport, sometime never, that won't address these diseqilibria anyway.
Charlie B - I second all that.
Post a Comment