Editorial: An inconvenient cost for going green

Published 12:00 am Wednesday, August 1, 2018

We’d love to hear the plan that Bend’s Climate Action Steering Committee is coming up with to reduce Bend’s use of fossil fuels by 40 percent by 2030 and by 70 percent by 2050. How much will it cost residents?

This week, the plan could grow bolder and broader — taking on Bend’s social inequality. The committee is scheduled to discuss on Thursday looking at climate change problems through an equity lens.

It’s been one of the inconvenient truths about fighting climate change that policies to go green can hurt the poor. Poor people can’t eat solar panels. And many low-income people in Bend can’t even afford a home to put solar panels on.

If fossil fuel prices rise in Bend, that’s going to hurt the poor. If housing costs rise because of new green requirements on homes, that’s going to hurt the poor. If incentives promote electric cars, electric cars are more expensive and that hurts the poor.

Many communities developing climate action plans have sought to make adjustments in their plan to consider or fight against inequity.

For instance, Portland created a new position “an equity specialist” to ensure the city considered equity in planning. That city has also discussed prioritizing green projects with an additional consideration for their positive equity impact. It talked about giving contracts for green projects to businesses with “fair labor conditions” or who are owned by people of color.

Those policy choices don’t have to get silly. But it could get silly very quickly. Never doubt the willingness of some to use the coercive power of government to regulate, tax and mandate straight into silliness.

Marketplace