Executive Summary

Climate change represents a global challenge, but it also exacerbates existing disparities among individuals and communities. LGBT people face discrimination and exclusion, creating unique vulnerabilities that compound and heighten their exposure to climate-related harms. This report provides some of the first empirical documentation as to how LGBT people differentially experience the negative effects of climate change compared to non-LGBT people.

Using U.S. Census data and climate risk assessment data from NASA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), we conducted a geographic analysis to assess the climate risk impacting same-sex couples.

Key Findings

• LGBT people in same-sex couples are at greater risk of exposure to the negative effects of climate change compared to straight couples. 

  [OCS: Commonsense informs us that neighbors, one gay couple and one straight couple, face exactly the same climate risks.]

• LGBT people in same-sex couples are disproportionately located in coastal areas and cities. Among the 15 counties with the highest proportions of same-sex couples, all are coastal or urban.

  [OCS: Gays choose to live in areas where other gays live and support their particular lifestyle.]

• In the United States, same-sex couples disproportionately live in counties with greater risks due to climate change.

  [OCS: I doubt that gays are affected by climate change, which occurs over geologic time periods. However, they are affected by the weather and natural disasters, which affect everybody. If there is a discriminating factor, it is assets and income, not sex, weather, or climate.

• A 1 percentage point increase in the proportion of same-sex couples by county is associated with a 17.17 percentile increase in the NASA composite risk score, which focuses on meteorological changes such as extreme cold, heat waves, excessive precipitation, and dry conditions.

  [OCS: Don’t like the risks associated with your location; move your sorry ass to a more favored area.]

• A 1 percentage point increase in the proportion of same-sex couples by county is associated with a 6.13 percentile increase in the FEMA risk projection score, which focuses on natural hazards and disasters such as flooding, tornadoes, wildfires, hail, and lightning.

• Same-sex couples are more likely to reside in communities with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources. They are, therefore, less prepared to respond and adapt to natural hazards and other climate disruptions.

• A 1 percentage point increase in the county-level proportion of same-sex couples relative to opposite-sex couples is associated with a 15.27 percentile increase in the NASA exposure risk projections.

• This indicates that LGBT people in same-sex couples are more likely to be located in places with large impervious surface areas, high housing density, and low-lying infrastructure.

• Washington, D.C., a county equivalent, has the highest proportion of same-sex couples of any county in the United States. It scores high for a variety of climate risks, including heat waves (97th percentile), flooding (95th percentile), and dangerously strong winds (98th percentile).

  [OCS: Washington is literally built on a swamp and is subject to East Coast weather patterns. As for the percentage of alphabet people in the population, this does not bode well for the general population given the disproportionate number of gays in the government as measured against the general population.]

Recommendations

Given the disproportionate impact of climate change on LGBT populations and the degree to which LGBT populations face additional disparities in housing, health care, income, and access to food, climate change action plans at federal, state, and local levels, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must be inclusive and address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBT people.

• Policymakers and service providers must ensure that disaster relief is accessible and administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, including safe shelters, access to medication such as HIV treatment, and financial support for displaced LGBT individuals and families.

  [OCS: I have never seen sex-based discrimination in any disaster relief effort administered by local, state, or federal agencies. From what I have seen, people are treated uniformly—like crap.]

• Given that LGBT populations are more likely to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments, and fewer resources to respond to climate change, development plans, and zoning policies, particularly in urban areas, should prioritize expanding green space and enhancing structural resilience. Policies that mitigate discriminatory housing practices and provide economic relief to LGBT people will bolster the resilience of these communities to climate events.

  [OCS: Where individuals choose to live is based on a combination of factors, and most are free to relocate. That gays decide to congregate in a desert area like Palm Springs, California, which may be at a higher risk of earthquake damage or the effects of drought, is a matter of individual choice and should not be a subject of public policy. As for enhancing structural resilience, this should be the goal of every community, gay or not. As for expanding green space in desert areas like Palm Springs, this is a non-starter without altering idiotic progressive communist democrat environmental policies which prioritize the needs of fish and rodents over the needs of humans and involve flushing billions of gallons of potable water into the ocean rather than improving agriculture or supporting populations artificially impacted by increasing numbers of illegal alien invaders.]

• Future research should examine how disparities across housing, employment, and healthcare among LGBT people, particularly transgender individuals and LGBT people of color, compound the geographic vulnerabilities to the effects of climate change.

  [OCS: This is a plea for research funds based on a nonsensical proposition.]

• Federal and state surveys, including the U.S. Census, should include measures of sexual orientation and gender identity to increase the scope and granularity of information available on LGBT people, including assessments of climate risk.

  [OCS: There is no legitimate way to assess climate risk or determine optimum temperatures for a given locality. As for gathering Census data, it is time to demand the measurement of illegal aliens in the United States and their impact on resources.]

• NASA and FEMA risk assessments, as well as other measures of climate risk, should include LGBT people among social groups with elevated vulnerability to climate change when assigning social vulnerability scores.

  [OCS: NASA should remain dedicated to its primary mission of space exploration and stay out of intersectional politics. Social vulnerability scores are a crock of crap as they are used only to further the progressive communist democrat agenda by segmenting and stratifying individuals by sex, gender, and other characteristics, which are meaningless unless you are engaging in a political power play.]

<Source> <Full Report>