Why Climate Change policy is bad for races of color.
Using the trickle-down theory as the basis of my conjecture, let me explain to you why the push to “do something” to save the climate will ultimately do more harm to people of color than any other race.
It’s time to wake up.
If indeed the action taken to lower the earth’s temperature requires charging more for fossil fuels then let me explain why this policy is inherently racist.
First, inner city people, comprises mostly of people of color, will have to pay more for their food, for their electricity, for charging their smartphones and playing their x-boxes, since all of these things are currently powered by fossil fuels. Cheap gas means cheaper food, cheaper utility bills, longer rides in older cars, cheaper bus fares.
All of the things that are cheaper now so that people who live near or below the poverty line in major cities, which is disproportionately Black or Hispanic, will pay more, making it harder to make ends meet, all while they are helping to ‘save the planet.’
It will harder to climb out of poverty when energy costs are higher
Poor people in general will get less social service treatment as well because of increased fuel process brought on by climate change proponents. The U.S. economy will weaken, less people working means less people paying the taxes that support social services like drug treatment programs, personel, etc.
In a good economy, everyone wins because money is flowing, people are working and when you have cheap abundant energy, everyone wins, including people of color who live near or below the poverty line.
In Africa, Southeast Asia, Southern India, these places are finally being raised up out of poverty because of cheap energy. With strict regulation, a carbon tax, a fine, or worse, a rule of law that forbids the use of fossil fuels in these developing areas of the world, people of color would be hurt the hardest. They would be hit by several forces at once, including:
1) Less access to medical healthcare due to the roll back of donations from countries who are being forced to comply with expensive energy regulation.
2) NGO who live on international support, would be hard hit, and these are the front line agencies who fight poverty and try to lift these global communities up. Bad global economies mean less money for the poorest of the poor.
3) More corruption. Leaders who run these poor countries would naturally get IMF funding for agreeing not to develop fossil fuels, but instead, would be “paid” to take on renewable projects like windmills or solar panels as a way of generating less reliable energy. But in small countries, when there is money, there is always corruption. Again, corruption always hurts the poorest of the poor, and in this case, the poorest are people of color in Africa and in South Asia who must now wonder why they can’t get electricity because it “harms the planet.”
At its core, the idea of making energy expensive (when it is cheap) is racist. It targets the people who need it the most, people who barely have electricity to begin with. Making it more expensive means people will die, but they will be told they are ‘saving the planet. ‘
I have interviewed over a dozen of experts in astrophysics, climatology, energy production and meteorology, including people from NASA, JPL and NOAA. I have study climate change the 1980’s when I first started to doing Talk Radio and researched environmental causes that at the time, focused on waste rather than fossil fuels and carbon output. .I have attended conferences where climate change was discussed long before it was a thing, back when emphasis wasn’t on punishing rich countries who use cheap energy.
When the globalists start punishing us for using cheap, efficient energy, people of color, not just in our country but elsewhere, will feel the pain more than the liberal elite who feel better because they have done something to ‘save the planet,’ while killing those who just want to have hot meal and a warm place to sleep.