"Our concern here I think is fairly obvious. Black folks are both more likely to live in the places where heat waves are the most severe, and when they occur, we are more likely to face grave consequences," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, the CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, on the call with reporters today.
The report, which also warns of major wildlife extinctions and risks to crops from extreme heat, calls for reducing emissions 80 percent from current levels by 2050, which is consistent with the targets in major climate legislation moving through Congress.
But it also calls for specific steps to make cities "cooler and greener," such as more reflective and light-colored roofing to help reduce the "urban heat island" effect, as well as more green space such as parks, trees and "green roofs."
Other recommendations include better urban preparation and response to heat waves, such as improved public notification and outreach to the elderly, poor and homeless.
To help wildlife, the report calls for habitat restoration and wildlife management approaches that can help shield species from extreme heat, such as stream-shading vegetation to help cool waters and protect fish.
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add Comment"Global warming will bring increased summer heat waves ...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow - quite a stunning conclusion! I wonder if the authors of this report have a Nobel prize in their future for that bit of detective work. But, at least it seems like white adults will be OK.
This story reminds me of the old joke when scientists discover that the sun will explode tomorrow. The New York Times headline for that day: "World to End Tomorrow! Women and Minorities Hardest Hit."
AAAA+ Another Asinine Alarmist Article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis belongs in the National Enquirer. How about your editorial staff get off their butts and try to find something real instead of providing free propaganda?
After spending much of the summer in a light jacket and running the A/C for 4 days, I say bring it on! The upper Midwest is just now having tomatoes ripen. Coldest summer since statehood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any proof that reducing emissions lowers temperature? I have a hard time connecting the idea that driving less is a sound plan to reduce heat related deaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is much wrong with this article, but one thing I did find agreement with is the idea of simply building greener. I wonder what difference it would make if asphalt were light gray and all roofs were white.
The cynicism reflected in these comment sections is so sad. Where is the American "can do" attitude, or is it a thing of the past? We all, as in US, can do many different proactive things to make living (and dying) in urban areas more comfortable, even is you don't believe in global warming, or don't care that people of color and low incomes are most affected. The greening of America is a good goal for SO MANY reasons and for SO MANY people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisway2ec:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUtter eco-romantic garbage. Look at Africa. Millions of people are facing starvation because they can't feed themselves. What does all of this have to do with the cost of energy? These people can't afford fertilizers, pesticides or fuel for mechanized farming. This means that they are unable to feed themselves, as they are forced to use "organic" methods that produce meager or failed crops.
Modern farming is extremely energy intensive, but it is also very productive. Increase the cost of energy and poor people will die. Carbon taxes will cause poor people to die. There is nothing noble or "green" about forcing a race of people into starvation to satisfy the egos of an ex- Vice-President, a corrupt former Secretary General of the UN or an ego- maniacal Irish rock star.
Shoshin, you are all over the boards, quite a scatter shot, but as usual, you totally miss the target. I expect to make biofuels from my utter eco-romantic garbage, ie, my b...s... And how do you get from white roofs (or better yet, "green" roofs) and other ways to cool urban areas, thus using less energy cooling (thereby more for your extremely energy intensive modern farming) to "forcing" a race (bogus concept) into starvation? Wait, I need to rephrase that, I DON'T want to know how you get from urban heat waves to Africa to Irish rock stars. You don't need to believe in global warming to realize we don't need to suffer so much during heat waves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisway2ec:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above article takes for truth the unproven assumption that man made global warming is real. If you have any evidence that MMGW is real please post it.
There are a great many unintended consequences of this MMGW religion. One of them is that with higher energy prices, be it due to taxes or your own or some one else's bio-fuel efforts, poor people will feel the brunt of it, either through higher food prices or higher energy prices or both.
The simple fact of the matter is how will you pay to air-condition your house if you can't afford the electricity bill? Al Gore doesn't have that problem, neither does Kofi Annan or Bono, but they all want to guilt you into buying your carbon credits, preferably from them. Or make sure the government imposes compulsory purchase of them for you in the form of cap and trade.
Pretending that the creation and trading of imaginary carbon credits will somehow help poor people is so utterly ignorant that it should be criminal. Carbon credits is the ultimate status symbol for the wealthy; the 21st century equivalent of purchasing papal indulgences.
One more time, three words in a yellow bar, Discuss This Article. Let's paint the roofs white becomes show me proof there is a GAWD in the religion of MMGW? No. Put the carbon credits aside for a minute... do you have issues with more parks and trees, shading of streams to keep the water cool, cooling centers for those that need them, in the urban areas the authors list as most at risk of heat waves? Chill, dude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is a serious policy debate and we get comments from guys acting like naughty children disparaging other peoples hard work. These people who dont want to discuss the issue intelligently but just disparage scientific work without a scintilla of scientific evidence or well though out policy debate. Democracy requires responsible engagement by the public. All we get is a bunch of naughty boys making stupid comments and cheap insults. This is serious if you cant be serious go on reality tv where your ego obsessed antics wont threaten peoples lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'simplify:3' said Thoreau.Increase in heat/temperature is due to excess action, whatever, wherever. not cure the result but tackle the origin cause. To refresh:these are cooking and life style.most foods are forced on the body due to many socio-econ reasons:coffee, tea, cocoa,sugar, glucose,egg, meats, milk, biscuits and cakes, tobacco and all setup needed for the products, and so on. Transport fuel for the journeys many of which have become necessary only due to the developing egos of civilisation survival concepts. And the effects on health of the living . including the necessary treatments. And the wars and all that means. and many more you all know.Looking around i see many xyz i dont need but i desire. so the effcects are always catching up,and i manage to survive. even this small inroad of mine into what all of us are aware, costs energy, and raises nature's heat. I go to philo-sophy to justify.So, Se quera quera.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's YOUR evidence, Shoshin? I seem to recall a discussion we had some time ago on this very subject. Let me reiterate the key points since you seem to have forgotten - I'll make them as unambiguous as possible:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Cough up, or shut up.
2. Stop antagonizing the other posters.
3. Quit whining about all the interest groups you don't agree with - everyone has that problem (this is a new one).
galaxy_man
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs is scientific practice, you and your cadre are the ones proposing that man made global warming is real. The onus is on you to "cough up or shut up" as you so eloquently put it.
If others find my post antagonizing or discomforting, they should ask themselves why. All I want is to see some evidence, any evidence showing that MMGW is real. So far, I have seen none.
As to your issue of whining about special interest groups, why are you defending them? They are profiting from the abuse of science and spreading of falsehoods. Why should I sit there and smile and nod and not speak against it? Oh yes, because others might find it antagonizing and discomforting. I was not aware that science is only for the politically correct.
way2ec:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMitigation of the Urban Heat Island effect is a worthy issue, but later in the article, the authors begin chanting the mantra of the " need to limit greenhouse gas emissions". I find it quite bizarre that on one hand the authors have the cause staring them right in the face, yet feel compelled to tip their hats to man made global warming.
This article is just another infomercial for Big Climate.
Still clinging to those false notions of how science is conducted? I'll bet it's nice being completely unburdened by annoying traits like accuracy, credibility, or even-handedness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnjoy your stay as a handwaving lobbyist. Some of us have real issues to discuss.
Shoshin, when you get through reading Earth Under Fire by Gary Braasch, get back to us with your "haven't seen any evidence". I don't find your responses antagonizing or discomforting, I find them empty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading comments sections for several of the recent articles on climate change, it seems obvious that several commentators are so ubiquitous and so unlikely to have actually read many of the climate articles in Scientific American that they are either doing this as some kind of bizarre hobby or they are being paid by business (fossil fuel?) interests of some kind. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing the self-interest of anyone who writes to a comment board, so I'd recommend to readers that they ignore these boards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll agree with both parties in the little debate here. A) Heat waves are the subject of the article, and doing things to prevent them without imposing other major costs is good. period. B) Shoshin seems pretty hot headed, but there is actually quite a bit of evidence backing up what he says. If you want to know more, watch these documentaries and go from there:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Great Global Warming Swindle
The Obama Deception
Both can be found on Google Video.
Also, I don't think he's being paid, but ranting in these forums isn't very productive either. Especially with such an attitude, (obviously) people aren't listening. However, anyone who hasn't at least heard of this information before, isn't very in-touch with the information floating around on the internet, and/or only listens or pays attention to major media news outlets.