Feminists and LGBT’s on board for climate fight–Racial and ethnic groups, not so much

As a white liberal, I suppose it should distress me that white liberals tend to be on the other side of the climate debate. It doesn’t–white liberals have been wrong on a lot of things historically. Being right all the time would be boring. I can’t do anything about my color–I’m getting of an age where tanning seems dangerous. As for being liberal, I’m liberal because of principle, not past performance. As long as we’re wrong less frequently than the opposition, I figure we’re doing okay. And we are.

I do note that the LGBT community and activist feminist groups are climbing on board the Klimate Train. I just read a story in the Daily Beast titled ‘Is Caring About Climate Change An Essential Part Of LGBT Identity?’

Like the story’s author, I approached this story ready to scoff. But there’s a real case to be made. Those from the LGBT community who have been converted to climate activists say that “While governments and corporations refused to acknowledge the severity of the AIDS crisis—an eerie parallel to the response to date on climate change—we educated the masses, told our stories, harnessed the media, raised money.”

Perhaps even more importantly, they believe that strategies and communications techniques they used in the fight to change public opinion on gay marriage and acceptance of LGBTs overall are exactly what is needed to persuade the ‘moveable middle’ to embrace more active measures to fight climate change.

On the other hand, a recent story in the Des Moines Register titled ‘Why Climate Change Is a Woman’s Issue‘ was not nearly as impressive, the thrust of the piece being that because women handle more of the agricultural work in developing countries, climate change will have a greater impact on women. The author also argues that in those same countries women can get shortchanged at mealtimes if there isn’t enough to go around.

(The piece also features Democrat Tom Steyer, the guy who’s funding candidates based on their commitment to fighting climate change. The story has a quote that may come back to haunt him. Steyer said, “Per kilowatt hour, solar requires eight times more jobs than fossil fuels.” As Tim Worstall has been known to remark, those are additional costs of green energy. Higher labor costs for solar is a bug, not a feature.)

Back to feminism and climate change. Using the same logic as the author, feminists should also be participating heavily in the debates about GMOs and the allocation of resources to micro-nutrients, vaccines and clean water. Women are more heavily impacted by all changes involving health and nutrition, not just because they go out in the fields, but because they are caregivers to children and well, because there are more women than men on this planet. Using the same logic, women would almost certainly argue for more resources being directed to these more immediate threats.

Missing from the bandwagon so far are ethnic activists, despite it being fairly clear that the people most affected by whatever climate change impacts come our way will not… be… white… This may be because even expatriates can see that economic development of India, Nigeria, China, Indonesia and Brazil will have a greater impact than avoiding climate change.

As someone who does not see danger to global agriculture from climate change, I cannot support this feminist viewpoint. (I have no idea how widespread this new climate activism runs through either the LGBT or feminist communities.) I have long argued that feminists in the United States probably miscalculated and misallocated resources when they chose to aim at the glass ceiling instead of fighting harder to establish a concrete floor below which women would not sink. Feminists in other countries that chose differently have seen better outcomes. State supported childcare seems to have more of an impact than a guaranteed percentage of seats on the board of directors. Focusing on climate change rather than malnutrition, disease and access to clean water seems very much like making the same mistake.

I would urge feminists to widen their vision to include other environmental impacts on women. It is women who are breathing dung fumes while cooking over a 3 stone oven. It is women making the long march to get water. It is women looking after ill and weak children suffering from cholera and malaria.

As for gay activists fighting climate change–go for it. Your experience may elevate the discussion of the issue and one thing is for sure. You will certainly  do better than the idiots that have been trying to push the issue to date.


11 responses to “Feminists and LGBT’s on board for climate fight–Racial and ethnic groups, not so much

  1. Hmmm, comparing the non-crisis of “climate change” to the real AIDS crisis is interesting on many levels.
    AIDS was predicted to be much much larger in the US and the developed world than it turned out to be. Except in Africa, AIDS has been a very small health risk in the world when compared to heart, cancer, diabetes, and other infectious diseases.
    AIDS activists made an industry out of hyping the risks of AIDS.
    AIDS research grew huge at the expense of research into other, larger health issues based on the false projections of AIDS risk.
    But at least there really is an HIV virus that really does kill far too many people.
    “Climate change” (it is amazing how the climate extremists got away with renaming this from “Global Warming”) on the other hand is not only vastly over hyped. It is only detectable by way of using deep statistical analysis on data that turns out to be tortured into submission.
    At least with AIDS some of the predictions were accurate.
    As for my demographics, I am just happy that I do not have to worry about someone telling me what I am expected to think based on my ethnic identity or gender identity. How peculiar that “feminists” and LGBT people apparently need to receive marching orders on what to think.

    • Hiya hunter, both my post and the linked article were attempts to look at the strategies employed against the two problems, not to conflate them.

      • Tom,
        That was my understanding and intent as well. Both problems have been monetized by activists. Both have been wildly over stated. Both have used pressure groups claiming moral high ground and brooking no critical review.
        The article, to me, is a way to harvest some of the gay rights advocates who may be thinking of what to do next now that the US has done what they want.
        Scary scenario: Climate fanatics shopping for friendly Court venues and getting Court rulings, which in the US are law by decree, to impose the most radical and mindless of the CO2 obsessed policy demands.
        Who needs some stinkin’ law or science if you get Judges to rule for you?

  2. Made me think of this Quote by cwon14 at Climate Etc:

    When Dr. Curry finally gets there she can explain why she didn’t realize the obvious 25 years ago and condemn “consensus” for exactly what it is, a Progressive politics loyalty oath.


    • “for exactly what it is, a Progressive politics loyalty oath”

      That may be what it is, but that is not what it was. In 2003 the Senate voted on the Climate Stewardship Act sponsored by those radical lefties John McCain and Joseph Lieberman. A half dozen Republicans voted in favor and about 10 Democrats voted against. They tried again in 2005, that time a dozen Dems voted no. They tried again in 2007, with a Democrat majority in the senate, and it died in committee.

      I think that the climate-change-as-political-litmus-test started after Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” when the left realized they could use it to push their big government agenda. That is also roughly when global warming went from “this could be a serious problem” to “the sky is falling” and skeptics started to be demonized. And that lead some people who were concerned about global warming to be concerned about the Konsensus and to start to re-examine what they had taken on trust. I was one of them.

      The politically correct gang (including LGBT activists) are essentially totalitarian, so they are natural allies to the climate warriors.

      • People do forget how recently climate change was a bi-partisan gesture, along the lines of motherhood and whirled peas.

      • In 2003 it was not clear to a lot of people just how contrived the evidence for global warming actually was. In 2003 it was only starting to be apparent that global warming was not about science, but was instead a social mania.

    • I’ll add that back in the 90’s the models looked a lot better than they do now (20 years of failure will do that) and we did not have the observational estimates of climate sensitivity to cast further doubt on the models. Also, we did not have the evidence of global greening. So the possibility of global warming being a big problem was a lot more plausible. The main issues were, as I recall (perhaps erroneously) whether the risk avoidance was worth the cost and whether action needed to be taken soon or put off.

  3. Maybe we should start seeding the press with articles about “Climate Hope” to go with “Climate Change”.

  4. I take it these guys want to redefine homosexual sexual identity to include “caring for climate change”. This leads to the conclusion that a homosexual who focuses on human rights and never gives climate change much thought isn’t homosexual? Or isn’t “properly homosexual”?

    The majority of repression, censorship, intolerance, and abuse originates in the extremes (left, right, religious). The idea that homosexuals have to adhere to a particular political belief or credo is repressive and intolerant. It’s an idea coming from an extremist position.

    I don’t think it makes sense to stereotype homosexuals and class them all as leftists or focused on climate change. Nor is communistoid equal to social liberal. For example Pope Francis and Fidel Castro are both extremely homophobic.

    Thus I have to conclude these articles or proposals are, as they say in Texas, pure BS.

    • Fernando,
      BS, sadly, becomes all too often what passes for political truth.
      Think of how conservatives who happen to be African American are generally treated by way of an example.
      What part of Texas do you call home?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s