Shutterstock
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new Clean Power Plan, which was drafted to protect our environment from pollution. But the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) sees the proposition as poison for poor Black communities, WatchDog reported.
The Clean Power Plan’s ambitions to cut down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in America would result in the average family shelling out more than $1,225 for power and gas by 2030, the NBCC claimed, citing a study released by Management Information Services, Inc.
“The EPA’s carbon dioxide regulation is a slap in the face to poor and minority families,” NBCC CEO Harry Alford said last week in a statement. “These communities already suffer from higher unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the country, yet EPA’s regressive energy tax threatens to push minorities and low-income Americans even further into poverty.”
The NBCC argued that the Clean Power Plan would increase poverty among African Americans by more than 23 percent. In 2025, the NBCC argues that Black households will lose more than $300 in their median household income if this plan is implemented. By 2035, losses will climb to about $700.
Roger Bezdek, president of Management Information Services, told Watchdog that Blacks spend 10 percent more on utilities than Whites. Expenses incurred by the new Clean Power Plan, Bezdek said, will affect places where minority communities are most concentrated, which includes Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Texas.
“Lower income people have to spend more of their discretionary income on energy because they have no choice,” Bezdek said. “When the crunch comes, they can spend less on food, less on clothing, less on entertainment, less on education — but they can’t spend less on energy. They have to pay the utility bills.”
In response, the EPA insists that the Clean Power Plan will do the community more harm than good.
“Reducing greenhouse gases, the primary driver of climate change, is especially beneficial to low-income communities, communities of color and indigenous populations, those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,” the agency told Watchdog.
But Bezdek argues that the “bottom line” is that minorities will end up with encumbering costs. ” …No one disputes that, not even EPA,” he said.
Alford agrees, adding that the EPA is indifferent to the plight of minority households. “We should pursue policies that expand opportunity for the less fortunate, not ones that further disadvantage them.”
Do you agree with Alford?
