World Ends, Poor Hardest Hit

Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 6, 2007

Everyone knows this old saw about how various newspapers respond to nuclear armageddon “WORLD ENDS, WOMEN & MINORITIES HARDEST HIT.”

Hillary Clinton makes parody a reality in Cedar Rapids, while discussing climate change: 

Global warming hits particularly hard at the poor, she said.

"One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs," Clinton said.

To be fair, though, she sounds practically Julian Simon-esque in other parts of the speech, with a little rah-rah for human ingenuity:

"The climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country," she said. "It will unleash a wave of innovation, create millions of new jobs, enhance our security and lead the world to a revolution in how we produce and use energy."

If only she wasn't talking about a "wave of innovation" mandated by Washington. Sigh.

A whole passel of fun on global warming here. 

Comments

|11.6.07 @ 7:06PM|#

At least she believes that human intelligence and technology will be able to tackle the problem. Thats a step up from a lot of leftists.

|11.6.07 @ 7:12PM|#

What's the current connection between energy costs and global warming?

It's the fight against global warming that is going to raise energy costs.

Franklin Harris|11.6.07 @ 7:13PM|#

At least she believes that human intelligence and technology will be able to tackle the problem.

Except it's not "human intelligence" so much as it is "government intelligence," as the rest of us will never find solutions without the government guiding us. And leftists have always believed that.

|11.6.07 @ 7:20PM|#

"One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs," Clinton said.

Shit, I'd pay a dollar to see where she got that figure from. Unless it (as I suspect) came out of somebody's ass.

|11.6.07 @ 7:22PM|#

Except it's not "human intelligence" so much as it is "government intelligence," as the rest of us will never find solutions without the government guiding us. And leftists have always believed that.

Yeah, of course thats the downside. But its better than "OMG OUR STANDARD OF LIVING WILL COOK US OFF THE PLANET UNLESS WE ALL GO BACK TO THE STONE AGE!"

|11.6.07 @ 7:28PM|#

Pretending not to understand the difference between intelligence and incentives when discussing individuals' response to externalized environmental costs is soooo 1997.

|11.6.07 @ 7:30PM|#

Wouldn't global warming lower energy costs? Less clothing to wash, less heating oil, etc? Or is that offset by AC in the summer?

|11.6.07 @ 7:30PM|#

If a politician would promise to permanently eliminate income and capital gains taxes and put a carbon tax in its place, I might just be able to get on board with that. Maybe. But I have yet to hear anyone promise that. But a carbon tax in addition to our income tax? No thanks.

|11.6.07 @ 7:31PM|#

I mean of course, via the DEMAND KURV, wouldn't global warming lower the demand for energy and therefore lower the price. Oops.

|11.6.07 @ 7:46PM|#

The world is gonna end? (whimper)

Paul|11.6.07 @ 7:53PM|#

"One in four low-income families have already missed a mortgage or rent payment because of rising energy costs," Clinton said.

Or that rise in cigarette taxes. It's been years since I worked at a convenience store, but I saw the carton price of Marlboros at $43. I nearly swerved off the road.

How the hell can Hillary Clinton directly attribute the loss of a house to rising energy costs vis. Global Warming(tm)?

My wife, who works with the indigent complained bitterly everytime the cigarette taxes went up. "They won't have any money to feed their kids, but by god, they'll figure out a way to buy cigarettes," she'd say.

|11.6.07 @ 8:21PM|#

At least she believes that human intelligence and technology will be able to tackle the problem. Thats a step up from a lot of leftists.

You actually believed the noises she was making when her lips moved?

|11.6.07 @ 8:25PM|#

Laying down as a premise that global warming is partially/entirely man made, I see that the only government entity that can rightly claim any true sovereignty and thus regulatory power over the atmosphere which is being hypothetically damaged is the FAA. This works out very nicely for the wide range of commercial industries and preserving the last shreds of federalism we have in tact post 1933, considering it places them in a unique stalemate as their charter and workforce depend on maintaining a certain status quo in the use of fossil fuels for propulsion. It would at least be unlikely to see draconian regulations passed before technology was achieved to compensate.

Space Monkey|11.6.07 @ 8:38PM|#

I think Hillary's argument within the US is kind of stupid, but the argument definitely has legs between rich and poor countries.

Rich countries largely cause problem.

Effects of global warming likely to be worst for tropical areas (poor countries) and agricultural economies (poor countries).

Clearest avenue to becoming a rich country (industrialization) discouraged by developing world because of the emissions it would produce.

Some politicians and experts have been openly dismissive of the effects on the developing world, instead focusing on how a temperature increase would lengthen growing season for American farmers.

Toast: now with more pectin|11.6.07 @ 9:12PM|#

temperature increase would lengthen growing season for American farmers.

And a big chunk of the landmass of the rest of the Earth, including huge areas of Canadian and Russian land just south of tundra.

Space Monkey|11.6.07 @ 9:44PM|#

Yeah, thats my point.

Not that global warming is bad, but that the poor countries will be affected negatively disproportionately to their contribution.

There may not be an economic or technological solution for global warming if there is no economic incentive to solve it. If only the people downstream are affected, why should the people upstream change their behavior?

Most would view this as unfair.

Thats why the issue attracts the moral arguments such as the one given by Hillary Clinton.

Toast tasted, woman approved.|11.7.07 @ 4:17AM|#

solve it

Ah, you misunderstood me. I think warming would be a good thing. Storms being eaten by warm air masses, more farming land, people out and about trading. Why, it'll rival the progress that followed that 12th-century warming!

Of course, some people would be threatened by such abundance, but it would be beyond speculation to suggest that fat talking heads realize that when they suggest economically crippling ideas.

|11.7.07 @ 7:57AM|#

Julian Simon believed in breaking things in order to create new jobs fixing them? That's news to me.

In the above quote, Hillary is so obviously referencing Cold War technological competition. I'd like to know directly how good she thought that was, on net.

JasonL|11.7.07 @ 8:45AM|#

As others have noted, the implied connection between energy costs and global warming is more than a bit off. I get this feeling a lot of people believe in their heart of hearts that abundant free energy is right around the corner as soon as we get the government to dismantle Exxon-Mobile.

Green = cheap = liberated from the tyranny of paying bills, ergo vote Democrat.

Salvius|11.7.07 @ 9:17AM|#

The climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country... It will... create millions of new jobs

Yeah, and maybe we should create even more new jobs by running around and smashing everyone's windows!

DannyK|11.7.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Your lead-in would be more convincing if there weren't tons of writers, including some who write for this magazine, who argue against addressing global warming because the slowed rate of growth would "condemn the starving millions to further poverty", etcetera.

If we're going to use the fate of the poor as a moral guidepost, shouldn't both sides of the debate get to use it?

Guy Montag|11.7.07 @ 10:26PM|#

Sounds like Assassanation by Nature.

The Ozone Hole (tm)|11.8.07 @ 8:01AM|#

Helloooo. Remember me? (tap tap) Is this thing on?
I am so going to fry your asses. Just wait!
Hello?

Hello?

Toast in a hole|11.8.07 @ 9:00PM|#

You had you chance, hole. In fact, you could have done it before we detected you. You've done your part to contribute to hysteria, and we have to respect that. But it's time to retire.

Try a toupe.