New York Times, Sept. 19, 2013
In what can be seen only as an act of supreme indifference, House Republicans passed a bill on Thursday that would drastically cut federal food stamps and throw 3.8 million Americans out of the program in 2014.
The vote came two weeks after the Agriculture Department reported that 17.6 million households did not have enough to eat at some point in 2012 because they lacked the resources to put food on the table. It came two days after the Census Bureau reported that 15 percent of Americans, or 46.5 million people, live in poverty.
These numbers were basically unchanged from 2011, but in a growing economy steady rates of hunger and poverty amount, in effect, to backsliding. Cutting food stamps would accelerate the slide. Food stamps kept four million people out of poverty last year and kept millions more from falling deeper into poverty. Under the House Republican bill, many of these people would be impoverished.
The struggling middle class is also faring poorly. Though the unemployment rate dropped to a low of 7.8 percent last year from a high of 9.1 percent in 2011, median household income was virtually unchanged, at $51,017. In a healthy economy, income would rise when unemployment falls. But in today’s weak economy, much of the decline in the jobless rate is not due to new hiring, but to a shrinking work force — the very definition of a feeble labor market in which employed people work for years without raises and unemployed job seekers routinely end up in new jobs that pay less than their previous ones.
Even so, congressional Republicans have shown no inclination to end the automatic budget cuts that, if left in place, will lead to an estimated loss of 900,000 jobs in the coming year, keeping poverty high and incomes stagnant. In addition, there seems to be little Republican appetite for renewing federal unemployment benefits — a lifeline for millions of unemployed Americans — when they expire at the end of 2013.
It is nothing new that poor people are stuck and those in the middle class are struggling. The poverty rate, though steady last year, has worsened or failed to improve in 11 of the last 12 years. The latest numbers would have been worse but for “doubling up.” There are currently 10.1 million adults age 25 to 34 who are not in school and who live with parents or others who are not spouses of cohabitating partners. If they were on their own, 43 percent of them would fall below the poverty line, which last year was $11,945 for someone under age 65.
Similarly, while median household income held steady last year, it was still lower by 8.3 percent, or $4,600, (measured in 2012 dollars) than in 2007, before the recession. And the longer the historical perspective, the more dire the situation. From 2000 to 2012, median income for working-age households headed by someone under age 65 (again in 2012 dollars) fell almost $7,500, from nearly $65,000 to just under $57,500, a decline of 11.6 percent.
Against that backdrop, there is no justification for savaging the safety net and decimating the budget.

ClimateProgress, Sept. 23, 2013
By Katie Valentine
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won’t just help alleviate climate change – it could also help save millions of lives each year, according to a new study.

The study, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change, found up to 3 million premature deaths could be avoided each year globally by 2100 if aggressive emissions cuts are made. By reducing carbon emissions, the study states, the world will also reduce “co-pollutants” such as ozone and particulates. Long-term exposure to these pollutants has been linked to premature death.
“It is pretty striking that you can make an argument purely on health grounds to control climate change,” said Jason West, one of the study’s lead authors.
The study broke the potential lives saved from reducing carbon emissions into increments: in 2030, aggressive carbon cuts would save 300,000-700,000 premature deaths a year, jumping to 800,000 – 1.8 million in 2050 and 1.4 million to 3 million in 2100. The study also found another surprising co-benefit of reducing emissions: By cutting each ton of CO2, the associated cost savings of were $50 to $380, based on a cost-benefit analysis that associates saving lives with saving money — more, the study found, than the estimated cost of cutting carbon in the next few decades.
Though the study is one of the first to take a global look at how reducing air pollutants could save lives, its findings back up previous examinations that have taken a regional approach. This month, researchers from MIT found that in the U.S., exposure to air pollution leads to about 200,000 premature deaths each year, with California experiencing the most early deaths from air pollution. A study from April found that in 2010, air pollution was linked to 1.2 million premature deaths in China, making it the fourth-leading risk factor for deaths in the country. That study also found that globally in 2010, air pollution contributed to 3.2 million deaths, ranking it seventh on the global list of risk factors for death. And a new NASA map, which was put together with the help of West’s research, displays the regions of the world most prone to early death from air pollution, with China, Europe and India displaying some of the worst rates of pollution-induced premature death.

The study’s findings also make sense given the large body of research linking air pollution to adverse health effects. Studies have found long-term exposure to air pollution is linked to kidney damage, heart attack and stroke, lung cancer, and of course asthma and respiratory illnesses. Women’s exposure to high levels of traffic pollution in the first two months of pregnancy has been found to dramatically increase the risk of severe birth defects in the unborn child.
In the U.S., more than 40 percent of Americans live in regions with unhealthy levels of particulate and ozone pollution, according to the American Lung Association. That’s part of the reason why public health advocates have lauded President Obama’s climate plan, saying it has the potential to cut down on incidences of asthma and respiratory illnesses. The president’s plan and any further cuts to emissions have the potential to help city-dwellers and poor and minority communities most of all: a 2012 report found people in non-white and low-income communities breathe in more toxic particulate pollution than people in white, affluent communities.

Climate Progress, Sept. 23, 2013
By Katie Valentine
The traditional environmental movement has a diversity problem.

That’s according to Van Jones, founder of Green for All and environmental and civil rights advocate. But Jones says it’s not just that the staffs of many large, mainstream environmental organizations have been historically mostly white — it’s that most of the smaller environmental justice groups are getting a fraction of the funding that the big groups receive.
Jones says for the environmental movement as a whole to succeed, that needs to change. Environmental justice groups are the ones serving populations that are often most vulnerable to climate change and affected most by pollution — Americans who are low income, live in cities and are often people of color.
“The mainstream donors and environmental organizations could be strengthened just by recognizing the other ‘environmentalisms’ that are already existing and flourishing outside their purview,” Jones said.
These environmental justice groups work on a smaller scale than the major mainstream groups like the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund — they’re groups like the Bus Riders Union in Los Angeles and West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT) in New York City, groups that are working towards improving the environmental health of their communities. Danielle Deane, Energy and Environment Program Director at the Joint Center, said the groups don’t always get the credit they deserve for their support of environmental issues.
“For whatever reason, often the innovation, the hard work by community leaders that’s happening to help prepare their cities as they expect extreme weather events like Sandy, often those leaders don’t get the level of attention they deserve even though they’ve been working on some of these issues for decades,” she explained. “I think that’s slowly changing, but I think there’s a lot more activity by a wide range of folks that isn’t yet getting its due.”
One of the biggest reasons for that, as Jones said, is the funding gap that exists between the small-scale environmental justice groups and the large, mainstream environmental organizations. A recent report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy found from 2007 to 2009, just 15 percent of environmental grants went towards benefiting marginalized communities, and only 11 percent went towards advancing “social justice” strategies.
The Washington Post investigated the issue in March and found that environmental justice-focused organizations operate “on shoestring budgets.” In fact, according to the Post, a 2001 report found the environmental justice movement gets just 5 percent of the conservation funding from foundations, with mainstream environmental groups getting the rest.
Jones said diversifying the donor lists of foundations that usually give to environmental groups would help black Americans in particular make their voices heard in the environmental movement. Polls show that, as a group, black Americans support environmental and climate change specific regulations as much or more than white Americans do. A 2010 poll from the Joint Center found black Americans in four swing states supported action on climate change and a solid majority of respondents said they wanted the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the 2012 election. The poll also found a majority of respondents said they would be willing to pay up to $10 per month more in electric rates if the extra charge if it meant climate change was being addressed, and more than 25 percent said they would pay an additional $25 per month.
A Yale poll from 2010 yielded similar results: it found Hispanics, African Americans and people of other races and ethnicities were “often the strongest supporters of climate and energy policies and were also more likely to support these policies even if they incurred greater cost.” It also found 89 percent of black respondents said they would strongly or somewhat support regulating carbon as a pollutant, compared to 78 percent of white Americans.
“I think there’s always been way more support in the black community for climate solutions and environmental solutions than we have credit for,” Jones said. “Some affluent white communities are more vocal and maybe have more intensity, and also more resources to single this one issue out, but the polling data’s pretty clear that African Americans are among the most supportive of environmental regulation and climate solutions.”
Deane agrees. She said black Americans have reason to care about the environment, because they’re one of the groups most affected by its health. A 2008 study found 71 percent of black Americans live in counties in violation of federal air pollution standards, compared to 58 percent of white Americans. That increased exposure to pollution contributes significantly to the high rate of asthma in the community — black children are twice as likely to have asthma as white children, and overall, black Americans have a 36 percent higher rate of asthma than whites. In addition, according to the 2008 report, 78 percent of black Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant, compared to 56 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Blacks are also 52 percent more likely to live in urban heat islands than whites, which makes them more vulnerable to heat waves.
“I think there’s still a disconnect where the public perception of who really cares about environmental issues and who wants action on climate — a disconnect between what’s happening on the ground and public perception, ” Deane said. “Because African Americans know they tend to suffer disproportionately from pollution, you tend to see high levels of support for action to make sure companies all have to meet higher standards, but often when you see environmentalists you tend to see folks that are not necessarily as diverse as what we know and what we see on the ground.”
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Taskforce, says fighting for environmental causes is about much more than protecting natural resources — to her, environmental issues are civil rights issues. Just recently in her own district of Houston, she helped fight against a grease recycling plant that was proposed for a residential neighborhood.
“I’ve found the black community to be very well informed about environmental issues, and that’s because they live them every day,” she said. “One of my minority neighborhoods had to fight against a cement factory. Another had to fight against a waste facility in their community. So most African Americans know what it is to try to keep their neighborhood well. That makes them more sensitive, it makes their members more in tune.”
Jackson Lee says environmental justice weaves into all the decisions the CBC makes. According the League of Conservation Voter’s annual environmental scorecard, the lifetime environmental voting record of the current members of the CBC is 86 percent — meaning they voted in favor of environmental issues 86 percent of the time. And in 2009, Jones said, every member of the CBC except one — Rep. Artur Davis (R-AL) — voted in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, making the CBC one of the “greenest” caucuses of the last Congress.
Jones said there’s long been tension between mainstream environmental groups and environmental justice organizations. Mainstream groups can feel like they’re unfairly being called racist and that claims of lack of support for environmental justice groups can be unfounded, and environmental justice groups often are jealous of the publicity and funding the mainstream groups get and wary to reach out to them for fear of being rejected. But the onus to make the change, he said, isn’t on the environmental justice groups — it’s the donors and foundations who need to expand who they send their money to, and mainstream environmental groups have the power to help them do that.
“If you go to Detroit, you will find lots of community gardening going on, lots of community cleanup going on, lots of small-scale manufacturing going on. None of this is being directed by any mainstream environmental group — these are organic, well-considered responses from people who are trying to make their lives better,” Jones said. “Those people should be called environmentalists as much as anybody who is standing up for endangered species.”
Andrew Breiner contributed the graphics to this piece.

New Scientist, Sept. 22, 2013
By Michael Marshall 
Switching to clean energy might seem like the expensive option, but it would pay for itself almost immediately, according to a new analysis. The reason? Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will cut air pollution, saving lives and therefore money.
By 2050, 1.3 million early deaths could be avoided every year. From estimates of how much society values a human life, researchers deduce that the new energy supplies should be worth the cost.
The conclusion offers a strong incentive to countries to start cutting back on fossil fuels as soon as possible. It also offers support for the US Environmental Protection Agency, which on Friday proposed limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired and gas-fired power plants to 499 kilograms [1100 pounds] per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. (On average, a typical coal-fired power station in the US emits 940 of CO₂ kilograms [2072 pounds] per megawatt-hour.)
“The work strengthens the case for these new regulations by pointing out the air quality and health benefits,” says Jason West at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the analysis.

Smog, smog everywhere

As well as releasing greenhouse gases that warm the planet, burning fossil fuels gives off large quantities of polluting chemicals. These can build up into dense smogs, like the one that smothered China’s capital Beijing in January. Such smog is a major public health hazard. West estimates that worldwide, air pollution kills over 2 million people annually.
Now West and colleagues have estimated how much air pollution would be reduced if humanity slashed its fossil fuel use. The team simulated global air pollution in 2030, 2050 and 2100, using two scenarios: one in which humanity cuts its greenhouse gas emissions fairly quickly, and a similar scenario with no global climate policy. Then, using the patterns of global air pollution, they calculated how many people would die as a result of smog, using real epidemiological data as a guide.
In each of the three future years selected, cutting fossil fuels saved lives compared with a control scenario. In 2030, 0.5 million premature deaths per year were avoided, and this rose to 2.2 million in 2100. Keeping these extra people alive means that they can work and continue to contribute to society.

Statistical life

West’s team estimated this economic benefit using a statistic called the Value of Statistical Life. This measures how much value society puts on a person’s life, for instance, by looking at how much people demand to be paid before risking their life.
The team found that for every tonne of CO₂ not emitted, the average global benefit at any one time was between $50 and $380 depending on where you are in the world. In 2030 and 2050, these benefits outweighed the cost of cutting emissions, which was less than $100 per tonne of CO₂. The benefits were less clear by 2100, because by then the easiest reductions had already been achieved so any further cuts were more expensive, at around $300 per tonne. But even then, “the benefits are of the same order as the costs,” says West.
The calculations do not include pollution’s effects on children or the costs of caring for people suffering from pollution-related disease, so the economic benefits may be underestimated.

Short-term gains

If the calculations stand up, the gains from cutting air pollution are greater than expected, says Gregory Nemet at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Pollution will only fall if we cut greenhouse gas emissions in the right way, cautions Martin Williams of Kings College London. For instance, burning biomass could be very polluting if done carelessly. “Uncontrolled and inefficient combustion of wood can lead to the emission of lots of particles.”
Even if greenhouse gases are cut, other benefits, like reducing extreme weather events, will not become apparent until the end of the century, according to a recent study by Nigel Arnell at the University of Reading in the UK. That gives politicians a reason to prevaricate.
But the drop in air pollution, and its consequences, changes that equation. “This gives us a benefit that’s immediate,” says West, giving an incentive to act now.
Journal reference: Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2009
 

The Atlantic, Sept. 24, 2013
By Ta-Nehisi Coates

Global Possibilities, Sept. 24, 2013
By Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva
This week the Environmental Protection Agency took a critical step to reduce carbon pollution, one of the biggest (and still growing) causes of climate change. The EPA’s rule limiting emissions from new coal plants is the first step in President Obama’s plan to tackle what has truly become a global crisis. I agree with him that we can’t wait any longer. We’re seeing record-breaking storms and severe weather around the country and the rest of the world. We can’t sit back and wait any longer.
If it hasn’t already, climate change will impact everyone soon regardless of who they are, where they live or how much money they have. The physical and health consequences will be especially severe for children, the elderly, people with lower incomes, and people who work outdoors in industries like agricultural and construction.
American Latinos will be among the most strongly affected. We have a personal as well as a collective national stake in limiting climate change. It’s time for us to take the lead.
Since I was first elected to Congress in 2002, I’ve worked to protect the Southern Arizona communities I represent from excessive pollution. I’ve also worked to protect the Grand Canyon and our many other ecological and historical treasures. Protecting people and the great outdoors are two sides of the same coin, and each benefits the other. I’ve introduced legislation to clean up our public lands and put young people to work at the same time; to allow our public schools to upgrade their facilities to make them more energy efficient and lower their electricity bills; and to give our community college students workforce training and education in sustainable energy industries, just to name a few.
We need these kinds of approaches because climate change is intensifying extreme weather events that threaten communities across the country. Last year Arizonans endured record-breaking heat in 11 counties, surpassing thirty-five separate extreme heat records. A total of 64 large wildfires put Arizonans’ homes and health at risk. We all saw the devastation and tragic deaths caused by the recent Yarnell Fire. Today our neighbors in Colorado are working to recover from historic floods.
This is not random chance. There are well understood scientific reasons for these catastrophes. We have the power to reduce their impact, and we should use it.
The President has proposed a plan to fight climate change by controlling carbon emissions from the nation’s largest sources. You’ve heard it before, and it’s still true: Investments in renewable energy will create jobs and help make us energy independent. Latinos are strongly in favor of this plan. According to a poll by Latino Decisions, 86% of Latinos support the President taking action to limit carbon pollution.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, close to 50 percent of all Hispanic Americans live in counties that frequently violate the legal limit for ground-level ozone, which most of us call smog. That means millions of Latinos are at risk of worsening asthma, bronchitis and even death. The time for Latinos to get involved and take leadership roles in this fight is now.
That’s why I’m proud to host a panel at this year’s Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) public policy conference to highlight the importance of engaging Latinos. Latino leaders are becoming some of the nation’s most influential and important champions for a cleaner environment. They join a long line of environmental justice grassroots advocates who fought against incinerators, landfills, and other toxic industrial uses in their neighborhoods. As a community, we have a personal responsibility to ensure that climate change and renewable energy policies move forward to protect the health of our children and future generations.
I know it can be hard to feel encouraged or inspired when Congress looks dysfunctional. But when we think back on the many other great causes that succeeded throughout American history, we remember that none of them started on a straight, smooth-paved road. Civil rights faced much greater dysfunction – and violence – than clean air advocates face today. We can do this. We owe it to ourselves and to the future of our great country.