What are your thoughts on "eco-apartheid"?

Question

The Sun Magazine has a great article (http://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/387/bridging_the_green_divide?page=1)

with an activist named Van Jones who makes the connection between poverty and global warming:

"Recently Jones has been connecting two issues that have largely been seen as separate worlds: the abysmal conditions of U.S. inner cities and the need for a healthier planet. To stem global warming, Jones argues, the mainstream environmental movement must make itself relevant to low-income Americans; why should a single parent working two jobs care about greenhouse gases if there are far-more-immediate concerns at hand? Jones calls for the creation of a “green-collar” job corps that will train urban youth of color to retrofit U.S. cities so that they are environmentally sustainable."

Answer 1

Sort of a new brown shirt campaign I suppose.  They can all wear Mao hats and have pictures of Che Guevara on their t-shirts.  Wouldn't that be great?

Answer 2

Okay, there is no such thing as global warming. Well, there is, but its not happening now. The only thing that makes the Earth hot is the Sun. As of 5:40 PM, it is 29 degrees Farenheight, and is 21 degrees Farenheight! Youd think a more populated place would generate more heat, but NOOO!

Also, this winter has been the coldest in 40 years! At least 10 centimeters of the polar ice has regained!

Answer 3

Sad and true, but just one facet of a larger problem.  Here is the key statement.

"We are in a transition phase of our history. Suicidal, industrial capitalism is in a slow-motion collapse — we just hope it collapses faster than the environment — and a greener, ecologically wiser form of capitalism is emerging."

Everything else flows from this.  A "wiser form of capitalism", whatever that will be called, will be inclusive rather than divisive (like the ugly, morally repugnant and self-defeating social Darwinists).

I'd like to add an anecdotal story.

I knew an Ayn Rand type and I liked to pull his chain.

There was this traveling gymnastic program for kids.  They go to daycare centers and give gym class to the kids for an hour a week.  When the van pulled up, the kids would go nuts 'cause it was play time.  Well, it cost an extra $8 bucks a week to get your kid in the program.  There would always be one or two kids left out, had to say in the daycare room while the other kids go and play.  Because the parents didn't see the value or just because they really didn't have the extra $32 a month to spare.  

So, yanking the chain, I say "It's a shame there's not a government program to pay for those kids so they could be included.  You know, the director of that program has seen kids go from shy and uncoordinated to outgoing, energetic, confident and really improving in their physical skills from just one hour a week.  Really, it's been proven that these types of physical activity programs make a real measurable difference in children’s lives, and furthermore, children who are given some training and encouragement get a developmental advantage that stays with them for the rest of their lives.  The children who are denied these opportunities can be developmentally disadvantaged against the other kids for the rest of their lives."

His response and I quote.  "If the parents don't see the value of the program or can't come up with the $8 dollars then that’s the way it should be.  That's the way it should be"

This is the mindset we are up against.  

Living in silos and ignoring others' problems won't solve this.

Answer 4

Sorry, I'm a laissez-faire capitalist and social darwinist.  I'll sell them a used hybrid within their price range if they're interested, or I'll buy the ones you "give" them at a fraction of their value and resell them at a steep markup to people who actually want them.  Either way, they're going to end up with the car they actually want, and I'm going to profit from their lack of foresight.  There's no way socialism will work as long as people like me exist (and without us, everyone else would still be plowing with beasts of burden).

Answer 5

When I saw your question I thought I'd be in agreement. There is eco-apartheid occurring but you've misidentified the source. When India announced a new car, affordable for the masses there who ride bikes or motorcycles, it was attacked because of the additional CO2 it would create. Never mind that currently entire families ride on a single scooter to get around. Never mind that it's more fuel-efficient than most cars made today. No, it was bad because we in the developed world just 'can't afford' to let the poor of the world improve their lives. We must keep them in their places, in poverty, so that they don't cause us problems.

The fact that the environmental movement is constantly trying to get public lands and national park areas declared wilderness area. Then only they and the unemployed can afford the time it would take to hike back in to enjoy what is currently available to everyone. Look up the meaning of the word apartheid before you buy into this argument. Then again, coining the term apartheid to apply to any argument like this would be considered offensive by some.

Answer 6

I think it is a political term used by liberals to engender class warfare so that they can gain even more power over every aspect of our lives.

Answer 7

this is so true, but I think it has to do partially with the fact that eco-friendly technology is such a new idea that many things are still in the prototypical stage (including an eco-friendly socierty), and prototypes always cost at least 20 times as much as a mass marketed counterpart.

on the point of government jobs created with the focus on eco-conscious infrastructure; that is a massive undertaking, and it would need to be very well planned out, or unconditionally supported for the next 3 decades to work. In other words, it would have to be the next NASA

hey we put a man on the moon, why not save the planet and stop apartheid?