Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 221 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Climate Change Disasters Making Poor Families In America More Hungry

If you’re one of those Republicans who say that people shouldn’t worry about climate change, because it will bring economic benefits to America as a result of increased agricultural yields, you need to take a look at the evidence to the contrary offered today in the form of a vote in the U.S. Senate. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand offered an amendment to the Senate’s farm bill (S.Amdt. 931 to S. 954). The farm bill as currently written takes $400 million dollars away from food stamps, and uses that money to pay for increasing agricultural insurance costs that are related to an increasing rate of extreme weather events.

hot earthNo single extreme weather event is evidence of climate change, but the increase in the rate of extreme weather events as the years go on is in accord with scientific predictions of the consequences of climate change. As time goes on, annual damage to farmers’ fields, orchards, and herds is getting larger. To keep the agricultural system intact in spite of increasingly erratic climate, the federal government is having to increase its subsidies to agricultural insurance plans, and is increasing the assistance it gives to farmers in their payments of agricultural insurance premiums.

That money had to come from somewhere. The Senate has chosen to take away $400 million dollars poor families that depend on food stamps to eat in order to fill in the gap. Gillibrand’s amendment would have reversed the farm bill’s cuts to food stamps, and paid for the reversal by taking money out of the federal subsidies for agricultural insurance. Today, the Senate voted against Gillibrand’s amendment, with a vote of 70 in opposition, and only 26 (24 Democrats and the Senate’s 2 independents) in favor.

It was a tough choice for senators to make. Should they protect money to feed Americans now, or provide money to protect against losses due to climate change, hoping that the insurance subsidies will keep the U.S. agricultural system from collapsing? Few people will eat if farmers can’t recover from climate catastrophes.

What the U.S. Senate should have done a generation ago was to pass strong climate legislation to end America’s dependence on fossil fuels and provide adequate funding for sustainable energy infrastructure. The Senate still hasn’t passed that legislation, and as a result of its climate cowardice, the U.S. Senate today was forced to choose which Americans would become the newest victims of climate change. The Senate chose to let Americans on food stamps go hungry.

The longer the U.S. Senate waits to pass serious climate legislation, the more choices like this it will be forced to make. More and more Americans are going to be segregated off into the category of climate losers, as our political leaders seek to protect those elite groups with the best lobbyists from the consequences of our nation’s inaction on climate change.

4 comments to Climate Change Disasters Making Poor Families In America More Hungry

  • Tom

    Amazing, isn’t it? Our dysfunctional, corporate owned congress just can’t accept that industrial civilization has any consequences. Of course the poor will pay – you don’t expect the rich to have to deal with any costs since they’re all about profit and gain all the time. We’ll just keep doing this until we can’t apparently.

  • Dave

    Green Man, dont’ alternative energy sources cost more, and wouldn’t the extra cost take even more bread from the mouths of the poor? You are right about the tough choices, but don’t expect the Senate to ever make them. I offer the example of these folks authorisng 455 million for the National endowment for the “Arts.” Certainly that would have covered the 400m shortage on the food stamps. (Art lovers, please simmer down. I am an art lover, just would rather see private patronage rather than government appointees picking the winners.)

    • Dave, sustainable energy sources do NOT cost more. They simply don’t shift most of the costs onto the general population, in the form of health and economic damage due to pollution and climate change, while allowing energy companies to rake in the dough.

      The costs of climate change are much, much more than the funding for the National Endowment of the Arts. If you’re really a fiscal hawk, you ought to focus your wrath on the climate drain.

      • Dave

        Your point about the real costs is well taken, but I am wondering (above) if politicians can’t make simple and reasonable short term fiscal decisions that are perceived as hurting their constituents, how can one hope that they will make good long term policy? As for automobile pollution, I have always sorta thought that, since in the beginning only the rich could drive cars because of the expense, it would end up that way as well, as increasing scarcity of oil resources would drive prices up out of most people’s reach. I am still sorta waiting for that. To my way of thinking it’s still a more likely solution than politicians legislating low and middle income people (their constituents) out of the market.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>