logo
Why Are Black Neighborhoods Underwater? Science Points to the Wealthy.

Why Are Black Neighborhoods Underwater? Science Points to the Wealthy.

Yahoo4 days ago

In January, a relentless wave of wildfires tore through Los Angeles, reducing a historic Black community to ash and claiming 29 lives. Later that month, a rare winter storm brought heavy snow to the Southeast and the Gulf Coast. Eleven people perished.
Then, in March, more than 100 tornadoes ripped through the South in two days, leaving 42 dead across eight states. Weeks later, rain and extensive flooding soaked the region, resulting in hundreds of water rescues and 25 deaths.
All of these disasters — from wildfires to floods and tornadoes — have connections to global warming. In America, researchers say, they all are connected to how much money is in your bank account, too.
A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change this month found that emissions from the wealthiest Americans have led to increased heat waves and flooding, particularly in communities of color. Scientists say that the findings underscore an often overlooked aspect of the climate crisis — that those least responsible for global warming often face the most severe impacts of environmental change.
Or, put another way: Black communities in the United States are bearing the brunt of a climate crisis that they did little to cause.
And, researchers say, the toll of climate change also disproportionately costs Black Americans their lives.
Since 1999, Black people have died from natural disasters and extreme weather, at a rate nearly twice as high as white people. In the South, it is even more pronounced, with Black people dying at a rate in some states that is more than three times higher than for white people.
'This is not an academic discussion — it's about the real impacts of the climate crisis today,' said Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, a researcher with the policy group Climate Analytics and a co-author of the Nature Climate Change study.
Schleussner and his fellow researchers found that emissions from the wealthiest Americans have directly caused these increased heat waves, winter storms, and flooding. In all, the world's richest 10% are responsible for nearly two-thirds of global warming since 1990. Yet it is neighborhoods like those in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and St. Louis — where Black families emit far less climate change-causing carbon — who are left to pick up the pieces after each calamity.
The disasters are deadly — even for those that survive them. They've left thousands of Black families in the aftermath without housing and jobs. And with every passing day, researchers say, a disproportionate number of Black families are grappling with punishing heat, flooding, and pollution — threats that are growing more severe each year.
'Climate action that doesn't address the outsize responsibilities of the wealthiest members of society risks missing one of the most powerful levers we have to reduce future harm,' Schleussner said.
Lessening those harms can be difficult for already under-resourced Black communities, said Gabrielle Cole, a St. Louis resident who lost her home to tornadoes earlier this month.
'We are just unprepared,' said Cole. 'We are unprepared as a community, and climate change and weather events like this are mainly impacting predominantly Black areas, predominantly underserved communities.'
Scientists say that the devastation caused by global warming is becoming increasingly common. Last year, the U.S. experienced 27 separate weather and climate disasters with damages of at least $1 billion each, making it the second-highest year on record, just behind 2023, which saw 28 such events. In all, this decade has seen about 23 disasters per year with damages at $1 billion or more. In comparison, even when accounting for inflation, the increase is dramatic. The 1980s averaged 3.3 per year, the 1990s averaged 5.7, the 2000s averaged 6.7, and the 2010s averaged 13.1.
The pattern is clear: As the climate crisis accelerates, it magnifies long-standing racial and economic inequities, making survival and recovery even harder for those with the fewest resources, Cole said.
Black neighborhoods are disproportionately exposed to extreme weather, receive less disaster recovery aid, and face steeper barriers to recovery. After experiencing roof damage during a 2024 storm, Cole's insurance company told her they'd stop insuring her home in June 2025. Then she lost her home altogether to a tornado. Nearly 30 people died during the storm system.
'It comes at us from all directions,' she said, first with the storms and then the fallout. 'There's a lot of people strategizing on how to acquire Black land after these events, and to take these homes from us in a vulnerable state.'
Below, you can click through a story map that outlines the real life impacts of climate change on Black communities.
The world's wealthiest 10% of people — defined as those who earn at least $47,000 per year — contributed seven times more to the rise in monthly heat extremes around the world than the global average. While millions of Black Americans fall into the world's top 10%, the median income for Black Americans is $43,000, roughly $15,000 less than white Americans. That means more than half of Black adults are making less than $47,000 per year.
Several studies show that Black households emit less carbon per capita than white households, and white households are the largest emitters of greenhouse gas in the country.
'This is something that we've known for a long time through our experience,' said Lemir Teron, an associate professor in Howard University's Department of Earth, Environment, and Equity. 'Black Americans, at least amongst Americans, contribute much less to climate change, but we feel it the most.'
Teron, who was not part of the study's research team, said that the findings show that true responsibility 'lies across all sectors, especially those with the largest environmental impact,' he added. That means a 'stronger critique of the industries driving climate change — like the transportation and building sectors — and of wealthy individuals.'
The post Why Are Black Neighborhoods Underwater? Science Points to the Wealthy. appeared first on Capital B News.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue
Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue

Newsweek

time13 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Net Approval Positive on Only One Key Issue

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's net approval rating is negative on a range of issues except immigration, a new poll shows. According to political analyst and statistician Nate Silver, writing in his Silver Bulletin Substack, Trump has a net negative approval rating on trade, the economy and inflation but a slightly positive rating on immigration. Why It Matters Taking the temperature of the nation, approval ratings are good measures of the public's response to Trump's policies and his actions as president. In the first few months of his second term, Trump's popularity has fluctuated, with some polls more favorable than others. Sustained backlash to his policies could persuade the president to change his approach. Trump, who made immigration a central part of his campaign, has vowed to crack down on border security, carry out mass deportations and end federal benefits for people residing in the country illegally. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters in the rain after arriving on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on May 30. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson What To Know Silver aggregated dozens of recent polls and found that Trump's approval rating on immigration was +2.5 percent. The president did not fare as well on other issues, with a -9.5 percent approval rating on trade, -11.3 percent on the economy and -17.5 percent on inflation. May polling conducted by Verasight U.S. for Strength in Numbers found similar results, with Americans disapproving of the president's handling of all the policy areas they were asked about except border security. That poll also found that 49 percent disapproved of his immigration policy, while 47 percent approved. Overall, Silver found that when analyzing the polls, Trump had a -5.4 net approval rating. An RMG Research/Napolitan News poll, conducted between May 14 and 21 among 3,000 registered voters, showed Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Other polls have found a more positive response to the president. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, 53 percent of respondents said they approved of Trump, while 46 percent said they disapproved. What People Are Saying Scott Lucas, a professor in international politics at University College Dublin, previously cautioned against reading too much into any one poll, telling Newsweek: "Opinion polls have their own biases." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 20: "We are, together, going to make America bigger, better, stronger, wealthier, healthier, and more religious, than it has ever been before!!!" What Happens Next The midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, may offer a clearer indication of voters' attitudes toward the president's policies.

The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill
The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill

Politico

time20 minutes ago

  • Politico

The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill

The Senate's deficit hawks might be raising the loudest hue and cry over the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.' But another group of Republicans is poised to have a bigger impact on the final legislative product. Call them the 'Medicaid moderates.' They're actually an ideologically diverse bunch — ranging from conservative Josh Hawley of Missouri to centrist Susan Collins of Maine. Yet they have found rare alignment over concerns about what the House-passed version of the GOP domestic-policy megabill does to the national safety-net health program, and they have the leverage to force significant changes in the Senate. 'I would hope that we would elect not to do anything that would endanger Medicaid benefits as a conference,' Hawley said in an interview. 'I've made that clear to my leadership. I think others share that perspective.' Besides Hawley and Collins, other GOP senators including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Jim Justice of West Virginia have also drawn public red lines over health care — and they have some rhetorical backing from President Donald Trump, who has urged congressional Republicans to spare the program as much as possible. Based on early estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 10.3 million people would lose coverage under Medicaid if the House-passed bill were to become law — many, if not most, in red states. That could spell trouble for Majority Leader John Thune's whip count: He can only lose three GOP senators on the expected party-line vote and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Republicans already have one all-but-guaranteed opponent in Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky so long as they stick to their plan to raise the debt limit as part of the bill. They also view Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson as increasingly likely to oppose the package after spending weeks blasting the bill on fiscal grounds. Meeting either senator's demands could be enormously difficult given the tight fiscal parameters through which House leaders have to squeeze the bill to advance it in their own chamber. That in turn is empowering the senators elsewhere in the GOP conference to make changes — and the Medicaid group is emerging as the key bloc to watch because of its size and its overlapping, relatively workable demands. Heeding those asks won't be easy. Republicans are counting on savings from Medicaid changes to offset hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, and rolling that back is likely to create political pain elsewhere for Thune & Co., who already want to cut more than the House to assuage a sizable group of spending hawks. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is insisting the Senate make only minor changes to the bill so as to maintain the delicate balance in his own narrowly divided chamber. Thune and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) have already acknowledged that Medicaid, covering nearly 80 million low-income Americans, will be one of the biggest sticking points as they embark this month on a rewrite of the megabill. They are talking with key members in anticipation of difficult negotiations and being careful not to draw red lines publicly. 'We want to do things that are meaningful in terms of reforming programs, strengthening programs, without affecting beneficiaries,' Thune said, echoing language used by some of the concerned senators. Crapo voiced support in an interview for one pillar of the House bill — broad new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries — but rushed to add that he's 'still working with a 53-member caucus to get answers' to how the program can be overhauled: 'I can only speak for myself.' Complicating their task is the fact that some in the group — namely Collins and Murkowski — have a proven history of bucking their party even amid intense public pressure. The pair, in fact, helped tank the GOP's last party-line effort on health care, in 2017. Leaders view them as unlikely to be moved by the type of arm-twisting Republicans are planning to deploy to bring enough of the fiscal hawks on board. And then there's Hawley, who is playing up Trump's own warnings to congressional Republicans about keeping their hands off Medicaid. Hawley and Trump spoke shortly before the House passed its bill, with the senator recounting that the president said 'absolutely categorically, 'Do not touch Medicaid. No Medicaid benefit cuts, none.'' Hawley, like Crapo, has indicated he is comfortable with work requirements, but he is pushing for two major tweaks to the House language: undoing a freeze on provider taxes, which most states use to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, and new co-payment requirements for some beneficiaries that he has been calling a 'sick tax.' The provider tax changes would present an issue with multiple senators, who fear it would exacerbate the bill's impact on state budgets and slash funding that helps keep rural hospitals afloat. Justice, a former governor, called it a 'real issue.' 'They haven't done anything to really cut into the bone except that one thing,' Justice added. 'That's gonna put a big burden on the states.' Moran grabbed the attention of his colleagues when he warned in a pointed April floor speech that making changes to Medicaid would hurt rural hospitals. A 'significant portion' of his focus, he said, 'is to make sure the hospitals have the capability and the revenues necessary to provide the services the community needs — Medicaid is a component of that.' Collins, who is up for reelection in 2026, has also left the door open to supporting work requirements, depending on how they are crafted. She has also raised concerns about the provider tax provision, noting that 'rural hospitals in my state and across the country are really teetering.' Murkowski, meanwhile, isn't as concerned about the provider tax, because Alaska is the only state that doesn't use it to help cover its share of Medicaid spending. But she has expressed alarm over the House's approach to work requirements, including a decision to speed up the implementation deadline to appease House hard-liners. She said it would be 'very challenging if not impossible' for her state to implement. As it is, any effort to water down the House's Medicaid language will face steep resistance in other corners of the GOP-controlled Senate, where lawmakers are pushing to amp up spending cuts, not scale them back. Some senators, in fact, want to further tighten the House's work requirements or reduce, not just freeze, the provider tax. 'I'd be damned disappointed if a Republican majority with a Republican president didn't make some reforms,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 'The provider tax is a money laundering machine. … If we don't go after that, we're not doing our jobs.' Ron Johnson and a few others are continuing to push to change the cost split for those Medicaid beneficiaries made eligible under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government now picks up 90 percent of the cost, and House centrists nixed an effort by conservatives to reduce it. One idea under discussion by conservatives is to phase in the change to appease skittish colleagues and state governments, but that is still likely to be a nonstarter for 50 GOP senators. Hawley warned that 'there will be no Senate bill if that is on the table.' Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.

Why the U.K. is betting $76 million on solar engineering to help cool the planet
Why the U.K. is betting $76 million on solar engineering to help cool the planet

Fast Company

timean hour ago

  • Fast Company

Why the U.K. is betting $76 million on solar engineering to help cool the planet

The climate crisis is worsening. Last year was the warmest on record, global sea ice levels are at a record low, and the economic toll of extreme natural disasters continues to mount. Just this week, the World Meteorological Organization said the global average temperature is likely to rise nearly 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within the next five years, with 'growing negative impact on our economies, our daily lives, our ecosystems and our planet.' Experts are adamant that the only way to slow the warming is to stop burning the fossil fuels that create the greenhouse effect. And yet, in 2024, emissions reached a new high. As the WMO's Secretary-General Celeste Saulo put it: 'We are heading in the wrong direction.' And as the temperature rises, so does the chance that Earth's natural systems will cross thresholds that trigger irreversible and cascading destruction. The encroaching threat of these tipping points is why the British government's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is pouring £57 million ($76 million) into studying 'climate cooling approaches.' That's a fancy way of referring to climate geoengineering, or intentionally tinkering with the Earth's weather systems in an attempt to cool things down. More specifically, ARIA is examining whether we might be able to reflect some sunlight away from the surface of the Earth and back into space.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store