Climate change is unique! – Is it good?
Repost from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW IT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
We know how completely biased the BBC is when it comes to climate change, and how leftist they are.
They put the two together in this article as a piece of political propaganda:
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, it was the black neighborhoods of the city that bore the brunt of the storm. Twelve years later, it is the black counties of Houston suffered the full force of Hurricane Harvey. In both cases, the disaster further complicated problems in already sprawling neighborhoods.
Climate change and racism are two of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. They are also closely linked. There is a clear distinction between who is causing climate change and who is bearing its effects. People of color throughout the South are the ones who will are most affected by the climate crisis, even though their carbon footprint is generally very low. Similar racial divisions also exist within nations, due to deep structural inequalities caused by a long legacy of unequal power relations.
I won’t upset you with the rest of what follows. It’s the usual load of tedium waking, with little basis in fact, and simply the extreme views of the author.
It is based on the mistaken assumption that both the Global South as a whole and ethnic minorities in Western countries have been adversely affected by Western industrialization.. To quote anthropologist Jason Hickel ::
“Countries in the Global North have effectively dominated the atmospheres. As a result, they have enriched themselves, but with devastating consequences for the rest of the world and for all life on Earth. “
Of course we’ve been on this road before. By all measures, the third world is much better today than it was before the industrial revolution. This is no coincidence but is a direct result of economic growth and technological development, all of which have been created from fossil fuels.
But poorer communities have always been more vulnerable to weather anomalies, or indeed any natural disaster. The answer to that is not getting rid of fossil fuels, but making those communities richer to make them more resilient.
And, of course, that’s exactly what’s been going on in the past few decades. Thanks to economic growth in the West, a third world economy is also growing, benefiting from Western trade and technology and expertise, but not from aid.
The BBC article uses Zambia as a specific example:
Zambia clearly demonstrates this injustice of climate change. The average carbon footprint in Zambia is very low, only 0.36 tons per person per year – less one tenth of the UK average. However, the country is facing an environmental disaster, including a prolonged drought there are more than one million people left in need of food assistance by 2021.
Zambian climate scientist Mulako Kabisa said: “Zambia has experienced the negative impact of climate variability and change over the past three decades. “The biggest impact is increased temperatures and reduced rainfall, leading to climate shocks including droughts and floods.”
These changes in rainfall and temperature have resulted in crop failures, livestock deaths and a drop in the country’s GDP, she added. “Drought in particular has resulted in a loss of livelihood for the smallholder-dominated agricultural sector, as production depends on having enough rain.”
While specific events are often difficult to attribute directly to climate change, IPCC observed all of these effects in South Africa already have. Worse could come. “Local evidence and simulated forecasts both indicate that precipitation will be more variable,” says Kabisa. “The production season will change and drought events will become more frequent.”
These climate decomposing experiences generally don’t make news. In the overview of most of the unreported humanitarian crises in 2021, Zambia comes in at number one.
For Zambian climate activist Veronica Mulenga, the implications of justice are clear. “The climate crisis affects some parts of the planet more than others,” she said. “Injustices throughout history and today have exposed black, indigenous, and colored communities to environmental health risks far greater than those of white communities. Those most affected by climate change are the poor and black communities. As a continent, we are one of the hardest hit by the impacts of climate change and we are left behind as the world moves towards a low-carbon economy. Without taking into account those most affected, climate solutions turn into climate exclusion.”
This exclusion extends to international negotiations, where Mulenga says her country has been marginalized. “Africa’s voice has not been well represented in climate summits, leaving climate justice out of the equation,” Mulenga said. “At COP26, the lack of vaccines and funding for African countries prevented many delegates and activists from participating in the negotiations, myself included. Racism and white supremacy have long excluded African voices from environmental policy”.
This kind of amateur language belongs in the student common room, not in a supposedly objective, well-informed BBC report.
But what are the facts to support these juvenile claims? Far from hard work, Zambians are twice as wealthy as they were a few decades ago:
In particular, agricultural output, although affected by drought in the past few years, has rapidly expanded since the 1990s. The last year in the chain, 2019, is still the third highest yield. in the record.
The drop in production, as recently seen, has happened before, and has nothing to do with climate change.
As for droughts caused by climate change, the World Bank Portal clearly shows that Zambia has no long-term rainfall, even though the 1960s and 70s were much wetter periods:
And they commented:
Of course, the BBC won’t tell you that, because it would spoil their climate story.
If you think this number is oddly familiar, you’d be right!
The author, Jeremy Williams, published a book last year called Climate Change is Racist. I watched it again at that time here, and it’s as childishly absurd as this BBC episode.
According to his account of the Amazon, Williams is a writer and campaigner for social and environmental justice. He writes at The Earthbound Report (twice recognized as the UK’s leading green blog) and is the editor of the book Time to Act.
He has every right to publish his opinion, but why would the BBC give so much publicity to a self-confessed eco-activist, without making any effort to challenge those? What does he say or publish the alternative point of view?