Thanks to Newley for pointing me in the direction of BET's (Black Entertainment [or Exploitation] Television) piece on climate change and black folks, which draws on the the carnage of Hurricane Katrina to make a point about the disproportionate vulnerability of blacks to the effects of climate change.
Granted, some nuances are neglected by the author. For example, I'm quite sure Katrina can't be blamed for black poverty in urban areas below sea-level and inadequate flood defenses. Further, I'm fairly sure the author refers to Antarctica when he means the Arctic, and although blacks do consume less energy and fossil fuel per capita than their white counterparts, I don't think that can be attributed to any sort of environmental ethic within the black community. Nevertheless, BET does a commendable job of identifying a previously ignored source of greenhouse gas emissions: ". . .asking Black folks to give up gas-guzzling SUV's and other bling is a tough sell." Yes, yes - we must do something about those "bling" emissions. What percentage of the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory can be attributed to "bling"? How do we incorporate "bling" into market-based mitigation measures? Is it time to start thinking about a cap on U.S. "bling"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment