If you said “the poor and minorities”, you’d be right. Harry Alford, the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, provides the details
(IBD) The Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental activists frequently claim that climate change will disproportionately affect poor and minority communities.
This, they argue, justifies unprecedented environmental regulations like the EPA’s soon-to-be-finalized “Clean Power Plan” to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030.
But what effect will the regulation itself have on minority communities? A new study commissioned by my organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, answers this question.
The Clean Power Plan will lead to lost jobs, lower incomes and higher poverty rates for the 128 million blacks and Hispanics living in America. This should serve as a warning to federal and state lawmakers as they prepare for this sweeping regulation to go into effect in the coming months.
The cost of energy will skyrocket, which will effect the poor the most, and particularly minorities.
The study estimates that this single regulation will cause cumulative job losses for blacks and Hispanics of roughly 7 million and 12 million, respectively, over the next 20 years. Over the same time period, black families can expect their annual incomes to fall by $455, while Hispanics will take home $515 less per year.
This regulation will also impose higher costs of living, which again hit minority families the hardest. Today, blacks spend 10% more of their income on housing, 20% more on food, 40% more on clothing and 50% more on utilities than do white families.
Similar disparities exist for Hispanics: 5% more on housing, 10% more on utilities, 40% more on clothing and fully 90% more on food.
Why do Warmists, who are mostly middle and upper income White leftists, hate poor minorities? Let’s be clear, I do not mean that in any sarcastic nor facetious manner. Liberalism hurts minorities, especially Blacks. We see what happens to lower income Blacks in Democrat urban areas. We see how leftist policies tend to keep Blacks poor and downtrodden, beholden to The Government (really, the Democratic party). We see what the destruction of the family, immorality, over-sexualization, abortion on demand, and so many other Leftist policies have done to Blacks, and other minorities. The Cult Of Climastrology is going to hurt them even more.
The study estimates that the regulation will increase black and Hispanic poverty by 23% and 26%, respectively.
Anyone think Warmists really care? A rhetorical question, obviously.
Never forget that Obama once said that his plans would make the cost of energy “skyrocket”. The sorry son-of-a-bitch (literally) has not changed his Nation-killing plans one iota.
Our host:
Face it: that’s the case for virtually everything.
Our host asked:
Because, despite their claims to understand and appreciate the needs of the poor, they are totally clueless about what life really is like for poor working people. They know that they have the votes of black Americans virtually locked up, so it doesn’t really matter if their oh-so-nobly-intended policies don’t produce anything close to what they claim.
What they still can’t figure out is why white working class Americans are deserting the Democratic Party, but the answer is simple: the Democrats cannot be both the party of the working man and the party of the non-working man at the same time.
We oppose government enforced environmentalism, therefore, we must be opposed to a clean and healthy Earth….
atleast Bastiat didn’t have to deal with even more than in his time….
Michael, it’s a continually-used argument form, because it persuades weaker minds, and we know that the left are very much dependent upon the weaker minds.
They know exactly what they are doing. When the left’s policies hurts their own voter base, they always claim that the solution is more taxes and regulation. Which again hurts their own voter base. Leftism begets more leftism. It’s the circle of socialism.
Pirates are more honest.
Teach is kind hearted always looking out for the poors.
He is like The Great white Father who knows what is best for them. But yet the blacks and poors still do not choose to vote like Teach says.
Teach blames poverty in urban areas on the Dems, do you blame Dems for somehow making the Red States the poor states ? Why do the Red States have the highest rates of teen pregnancy? Again must be the fault of those Dems making them watch Hollywood movies
Teach are you even aware of the fact that poverty rates are HIGHER in rural areas than in urban areas?
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty.aspx
In the United States, people living in poverty tend to be clustered in certain regions, counties, and neighborhoods rather than being spread evenly across the Nation. Research has shown that the poor living in areas where poverty is prevalent face impediments beyond those of their individual circumstances. Concentrated poverty contributes to poor housing and health conditions, higher crime and school dropout rates, as well as employment dislocations. As a result, economic conditions in very poor areas can create limited opportunities for poor residents that become self-perpetuating.
A Note About the Data Source
The American Community Survey (ACS) was developed by the Census Bureau to replace the long form of the decennial census. The ACS uses a rolling sample of U.S. housing units (250,000 monthly) to provide basic population characteristics annually for areas with populations of at least 65,000 people. ACS accumulates samples over 3- and 5-year intervals to produce estimates for areas with smaller populations; only the 5-year average ACS provides coverage for all counties in the United States. The 2009-13 ACS is used here to examine poverty at the regional and county level.
Regional Patterns
While the overall rate of poverty is higher in nonmetro counties than in metro, the difference between nonmetro/metro poverty rates varies significantly across regions. The nonmetro/metro poverty rate gap for the South has historically been the largest. In 2009-13, the South had a nonmetro poverty rate of 21.7 percent—nearly 6 percentage points higher than in the region’s metro areas. The difference in poverty rates in the South is particularly important for the overall nonmetro poverty rate because an estimated 42.7 percent of the U.S. nonmetro population lived in this region in 2009-13. Regional poverty rates for nonmetro and metro areas were most alike in the Midwest and the Northeast in 2009-13.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/ImageGen.ashx?image=/media/114622/persistentpoverty.png&width=480
John wrote:
Sadly enough for your argument, poor working class white voters have been deserting the Democratic Party; it’s only poor black working class voters who are sticking with the people sticking it to them.
The problem is simple: the Democrats cannot be both the party of the working man and the party of the non-working man, because working people understand that all of those oh-so-nobly-intended programs to provide welfare and food stamps and enable people to survive without working come out of their paychecks!
Kentucky, one of our poorest states, does elect Democrats . . . to local offices. Kentucky Democrats tend to be moderate Democrats, the kind that do radical things like balance the budgets. It’s just when Kentucky Democrats go to Washington that they become wild-eyed liberals, and Bluegrass voters really aren’t putting up with them anymore. That’s why an attractive candidate like Alison Lundergan Grimes, already a statewide elected official, got her butt so thoroughly kicked by Mitch McConnell; Senator McConnell carried some union coal counties he had never carried before, even against token opposition.
Rural voters, in Kentucky and elsewhere in the South, gave the Democrats plenty of chances, but the Democrats’ programs simply failed to perform as promised. Why? Because the Democrats were so concerned about giving out welfare that they forgot that what most poor people want isn’t a handout, but a job, and the Democrats’ policies have never helped in that.
John wrote:
The Census Bureau has come up with an improved way to measure poverty, taking into account not just wages and welfare benefits, but the cost of living as well, and, using those measures, the state with the highest poverty rate is California. You can make a lot more money in the Pyrite State, and still be a lot worse off in real terms.
Excellent Capture of the Saul Alinsky Bait and Switch strategy used by the left.
Excellent.
John-“Are you aware poverty rates are higher in rural area than urban areas? Are you aware of basic math? Are you aware that statistics, especially percentages, can be highly misleading? Obviously not. Case in point: A rural area could have, say, 100 people, with 10 of them being poor which means a poverty rate of 10%. An urban area, say, with a million people, could have 90,000 people in poverty, which would mean a poverty rate of 9%. So does that mean the rural is worse? Not really. But such is the problem with percentages- when the number you’re comparing gets bigger, the rate gets smaller.
as i have said more than once, abusers have to abuse … warmists are abusers of children and the elderly , they are effected by limited incomes and need heating and cooling. raising energy rates is designed to stifle growth and drag the USA to a fourth world economy and will hurt the most vulnerable the worst.
The abusers will twist my name but that’s what they do to hide their own shame
jl, what you actually have are differences in costs of living. Wages tend to be lower in rural areas, but housing costs are as well. I bought 7.92 acres, with a livable — though still fixer-upper — house, and 500 feet of river frontage for $75,000. It’s a poor area, which keeps prices down. In the meantime, I’ve previously noted a 375 ft² studio apartment in Gramercy Park, on sale for $425,000. It would take a lot more income to buy and live in that shoebox, but that doesn’t mean someone would live better.