Overbrook grantee L.A.A.N.E. (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy) is in the news, due to their groundbreaking report released this month detailing the waste, pollution and lost opportunity resulting from L.A.'s trash pickup system. According to the report, L.A. is largely serviced by private haulers that work independently, with low oversight and pick-up routes that often overlap, waste fuel, and contribute to pollution. Benefits from the smaller green fleet of vehicles municipal haulers use are over-ridden by the gas-guzzling and ghg-spewing trucks favored by private haulers. What's worse is the private haulers are not held to their word that recyclables and compostables end up at their proper destinations, and too many of these items go straight to landfills where they will remain for hundreds of years, if not more. And, according to the L.A.A.N.E. report, every time recyclables go to landfill the city of Los Angeles misses a great opportunity for green job creation. With a little oversight, coordination and public awareness, every one landfill job could be transformed into 10 jobs sorting and recycling.
See below for a series of links to news stories mentioning the L.A.A.N.E. report:
LA TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-trash-20110127,0,1681829.story
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-trash-20110129,0,5155545,full.story
DAILY NEWS
http://www.dailynews.com/politics/ci_17209372
KTLA 5 TV NEWS
http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/26c01382-0cbf-4704-95fc-56181bc3d47c/News/KTLA-Study-Finds-L-A-s-Trash-Disposal-System-Wasteful-Lynette-Romero-reports
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_17209372?nclick_check=1
USC ANNENBERG
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/los-angeles-trash-policy-trash-report-says
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Veg-ing Out for the Planet's Future
As environmentally-conscious citizens of the world, we are already walking and biking to work, driving hybrids, shortening our showers and refusing plastic bags at the check-out counter. Some of us even compost or buy exclusively organic vegetables. Surely this is enough! Not so fast, says Wendee Holtcamp of The Daily Climate. Holtcamp asks the question many "fringe" vegetarians have been asking for years: "Can eating less meat curb climate change?" Holtcamp investigates, proving through the momentum of recent scientific research that the movement to reduce meat consumption is no longer the exclusive domain of latter-day hippies.
With predictions that the world's population will hit 9 billion by 2050 (the optimistic estimate out of the U.N. is 8 billion), scientists looking at food production and consumption are warning that our current system is unsustainable. Opinions differ on how exactly to solve this problem, but one necessary change is becoming abundantly clear: we in the western world have got to stop eating so much meat.
Statistics on the waste associated with mass meat production have been out for awhile, but it's good to be reminded now and again: To produce a little over 2 pounds of factory-farmed meat (that's an ample dinner of two16-oz steaks for you and your companion), 22 pounds of animal feed and over 4,000 gallons of water are used! And what makes up animal feed? Mostly corn, soybeans and other grains that would be equally nutritious and edible to hungry humans.
According to David Tilman, a University of Minnesota ecology professor quoted in Holtcamp's article, "We use about half of our farmland to grow grains for animal feed. Were we to eat less meat or eat more environmentally efficient meat, we would export more grains, and this would decrease the demand for crops that are an underlying driver of tropical deforestation."
Take into account the pesticides, petroleum and biodiversity loss that come from cultivating so much grain -- grain that bypasses the stomachs of malnourished people living in developing countries and goes straight to those of animals destined for western plates -- and it's obvious something needs to change. Whether your main concern is climate change, loss of fresh water and biodiversity, toxic chemicals in our soil, or even just the possibility of a hamburger-free future, the current meat-centric American diet is not sustainable. According to Holtcamp, an average American meat-eater drops an annual carbon footprint one and a half tons greater than a vegan's!
So what do we do? The recent report "Eating the Planet," co-commissioned by Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming, provides multiple scenarios for feeding the coming 2050 global population without the use of intensive agriculture. No one can see the future, and multiple variables will shape what our food production system looks like in forty years. But one thing the report states definitively: less meat equals less loss of biodiversity and less pollution.
Although some environmentalists, including IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, say that going vegetarian is one of the single most significant things a meat-eater can do to combat climate change, "Eating the Planet" allows some wiggle room for those who can't face the prospect of completely veg-ing out. You don't have to completely cut it out, just limit consumption to 90 grams per day, says the report, which translates to a little less than half a pound.
No time to read the full report? A short FAQ page addresses lots of great questions about meat, mass agriculture, climate change and the sustainability of the global food system. Click here.
With predictions that the world's population will hit 9 billion by 2050 (the optimistic estimate out of the U.N. is 8 billion), scientists looking at food production and consumption are warning that our current system is unsustainable. Opinions differ on how exactly to solve this problem, but one necessary change is becoming abundantly clear: we in the western world have got to stop eating so much meat.
Statistics on the waste associated with mass meat production have been out for awhile, but it's good to be reminded now and again: To produce a little over 2 pounds of factory-farmed meat (that's an ample dinner of two16-oz steaks for you and your companion), 22 pounds of animal feed and over 4,000 gallons of water are used! And what makes up animal feed? Mostly corn, soybeans and other grains that would be equally nutritious and edible to hungry humans.
According to David Tilman, a University of Minnesota ecology professor quoted in Holtcamp's article, "We use about half of our farmland to grow grains for animal feed. Were we to eat less meat or eat more environmentally efficient meat, we would export more grains, and this would decrease the demand for crops that are an underlying driver of tropical deforestation."
Take into account the pesticides, petroleum and biodiversity loss that come from cultivating so much grain -- grain that bypasses the stomachs of malnourished people living in developing countries and goes straight to those of animals destined for western plates -- and it's obvious something needs to change. Whether your main concern is climate change, loss of fresh water and biodiversity, toxic chemicals in our soil, or even just the possibility of a hamburger-free future, the current meat-centric American diet is not sustainable. According to Holtcamp, an average American meat-eater drops an annual carbon footprint one and a half tons greater than a vegan's!
So what do we do? The recent report "Eating the Planet," co-commissioned by Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming, provides multiple scenarios for feeding the coming 2050 global population without the use of intensive agriculture. No one can see the future, and multiple variables will shape what our food production system looks like in forty years. But one thing the report states definitively: less meat equals less loss of biodiversity and less pollution.
Although some environmentalists, including IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, say that going vegetarian is one of the single most significant things a meat-eater can do to combat climate change, "Eating the Planet" allows some wiggle room for those who can't face the prospect of completely veg-ing out. You don't have to completely cut it out, just limit consumption to 90 grams per day, says the report, which translates to a little less than half a pound.
No time to read the full report? A short FAQ page addresses lots of great questions about meat, mass agriculture, climate change and the sustainability of the global food system. Click here.
Friday, January 14, 2011
January 2011 Letter from the Board Chair and President
Below is The Overbrook Foundation's January 2011 Letter From The Board Chair and President. It can be read in its original format here.
Starting in early 2009, the Foundation periodically posted letters from its Chair and President outlining steps being taken to address the impact of the global financial crisis on its grantmaking programs (The letters from 2010 and 2009 are below). In October 2009 and, in part, because of the continuing financial downturn, the Foundation began an active strategic planning effort to examine all aspects of the Foundation’s life, with a particular focus on its mission, values and grantmaking. We are writing now to report on the outcomes of our strategic planning efforts and how they will affect our grantmaking
over the next several years.
Over the last three years, our investment portfolio experienced significant volatility and we continue to anticipate significant fluctuations in its performance over the coming months and years although we are cautiously optimistic that it will continue to slowly improve in 2011 and 2012. The Board has decided it will counter that volatility by committing the Foundation to a steady level of funding for its Human Rights and Environment Programs through 2012. We expect that by the end of 2012 the Foundation will have weathered the worst impacts of the financial storm and that we will be able to gradually increase our grantmaking levels beginning in 2013. In 2011 and 2012, our grantmaking will remain approximately 30% below its peak funding in 2008.
The Board has revisited the Foundation’s mission and values statements crafted in 2001 and refined them to reflect its current direction.
Mission
The Overbrook Foundation is a progressive family foundation that supports
organizations advancing human rights and conserving the natural environment.
Values
Honoring the vision and dedication of its founders, Helen and Frank Altschul, The
Overbrook Foundation:
• Honors its role as a steward of both the public trust and the Foundation's mission
• Advances programs ethically, responsibly and respectfully
• Is transparent and open
• Engages in its work in a deliberate and thoughtful way
• Takes measured risks
• Employs diverse approaches to seize opportunities and respond to challenges
• Supports social justice and environmental sustainability
• Promotes advocacy, accountability and reform of institutions and government
Program
The Board recently completed the Foundation’s first comprehensive review since 2005 of its Environment and Human Rights Program.
The Foundation’s Environment Program will continue to focus on biodiversity conservation in Latin America and sustainable production and consumption in the United States. In Latin America, its geographic focus will include Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and, in certain circumstances, the nations of Central America. Criteria applied to potential projects will include: potential impact, level of innovation, the opportunity represented in the project, benefit to local communities, climatic implications and the strength of the funded group/leadership to accomplish the work proposed. The Environment Program will continue to seek out efforts that support innovative ideas in sustainability, particularly around the production and consumption of materials. The mitigation of climate change,
with a particular focus on energy efficiency, will receive distinct but limited support.
The Human Rights Program will continue to support organizations within the U.S that are advancing the U.S. domestic human rights movement where Overbrook has played a leadership role since 2005. It will also continue its grantmaking to strengthen gender rights in the U.S. where it has a long history of support for women’s rights, LGBT rights and anti-trafficking efforts. Building the reproductive justice movement and advancing marriage equality for same-sex couples will be central elements of the gender rights focus. Media reform and support of non-profit media will continue with support for nonprofit electronic and print media and efforts to reform the media landscape. This represents the Foundation’s contribution to progressive movement building in the U.S. Other movement building efforts not defined as human rights will be phased out over 2011. In the Latin America grantmaking program, the Foundation will continue to support human rights defenders and gender rights organizations.
We will continue to play an activist leadership role in the philanthropic community. Our program officers are heavily involved in organizing and managing funder collaborative partnerships, creating vital new non-profit organizations to advance change and assuming leadership roles in a variety of foundation associations. Through these various efforts, the Foundation believes it is able to influence the direction of significant philanthropic resources to those issues most central to its human rights and environment mission. Moving forward, we will continue using all of these mechanisms to protect and strengthen the fields in which our grantees are active and to learn more about work underway in the Foundation’s fields of interest.
Please note that letters of inquiry and unsolicited proposals will not be considered by the Foundation for funding in 2011 and 2012. Instead, because of the reduced funding available for grantmaking, Foundation staff will invite proposals on a limited basis as opportunities that clearly match the Foundation’s priorities are identified.
We deeply appreciate the difficulties that our grantees continue to face as the nation slowly recovers from the economic downturn of the last several years. Our Board of Directors and staff are sensitive to these challenges and will work diligently to assist our grantees and colleagues as they continue their work.
Sincerely,
Kathryn G. Graham, Chair of the Board of Directors and Stephen A. Foster, President and CEO
Starting in early 2009, the Foundation periodically posted letters from its Chair and President outlining steps being taken to address the impact of the global financial crisis on its grantmaking programs (The letters from 2010 and 2009 are below). In October 2009 and, in part, because of the continuing financial downturn, the Foundation began an active strategic planning effort to examine all aspects of the Foundation’s life, with a particular focus on its mission, values and grantmaking. We are writing now to report on the outcomes of our strategic planning efforts and how they will affect our grantmaking
over the next several years.
Over the last three years, our investment portfolio experienced significant volatility and we continue to anticipate significant fluctuations in its performance over the coming months and years although we are cautiously optimistic that it will continue to slowly improve in 2011 and 2012. The Board has decided it will counter that volatility by committing the Foundation to a steady level of funding for its Human Rights and Environment Programs through 2012. We expect that by the end of 2012 the Foundation will have weathered the worst impacts of the financial storm and that we will be able to gradually increase our grantmaking levels beginning in 2013. In 2011 and 2012, our grantmaking will remain approximately 30% below its peak funding in 2008.
The Board has revisited the Foundation’s mission and values statements crafted in 2001 and refined them to reflect its current direction.
Mission
The Overbrook Foundation is a progressive family foundation that supports
organizations advancing human rights and conserving the natural environment.
Values
Honoring the vision and dedication of its founders, Helen and Frank Altschul, The
Overbrook Foundation:
• Honors its role as a steward of both the public trust and the Foundation's mission
• Advances programs ethically, responsibly and respectfully
• Is transparent and open
• Engages in its work in a deliberate and thoughtful way
• Takes measured risks
• Employs diverse approaches to seize opportunities and respond to challenges
• Supports social justice and environmental sustainability
• Promotes advocacy, accountability and reform of institutions and government
Program
The Board recently completed the Foundation’s first comprehensive review since 2005 of its Environment and Human Rights Program.
The Foundation’s Environment Program will continue to focus on biodiversity conservation in Latin America and sustainable production and consumption in the United States. In Latin America, its geographic focus will include Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and, in certain circumstances, the nations of Central America. Criteria applied to potential projects will include: potential impact, level of innovation, the opportunity represented in the project, benefit to local communities, climatic implications and the strength of the funded group/leadership to accomplish the work proposed. The Environment Program will continue to seek out efforts that support innovative ideas in sustainability, particularly around the production and consumption of materials. The mitigation of climate change,
with a particular focus on energy efficiency, will receive distinct but limited support.
The Human Rights Program will continue to support organizations within the U.S that are advancing the U.S. domestic human rights movement where Overbrook has played a leadership role since 2005. It will also continue its grantmaking to strengthen gender rights in the U.S. where it has a long history of support for women’s rights, LGBT rights and anti-trafficking efforts. Building the reproductive justice movement and advancing marriage equality for same-sex couples will be central elements of the gender rights focus. Media reform and support of non-profit media will continue with support for nonprofit electronic and print media and efforts to reform the media landscape. This represents the Foundation’s contribution to progressive movement building in the U.S. Other movement building efforts not defined as human rights will be phased out over 2011. In the Latin America grantmaking program, the Foundation will continue to support human rights defenders and gender rights organizations.
We will continue to play an activist leadership role in the philanthropic community. Our program officers are heavily involved in organizing and managing funder collaborative partnerships, creating vital new non-profit organizations to advance change and assuming leadership roles in a variety of foundation associations. Through these various efforts, the Foundation believes it is able to influence the direction of significant philanthropic resources to those issues most central to its human rights and environment mission. Moving forward, we will continue using all of these mechanisms to protect and strengthen the fields in which our grantees are active and to learn more about work underway in the Foundation’s fields of interest.
Please note that letters of inquiry and unsolicited proposals will not be considered by the Foundation for funding in 2011 and 2012. Instead, because of the reduced funding available for grantmaking, Foundation staff will invite proposals on a limited basis as opportunities that clearly match the Foundation’s priorities are identified.
We deeply appreciate the difficulties that our grantees continue to face as the nation slowly recovers from the economic downturn of the last several years. Our Board of Directors and staff are sensitive to these challenges and will work diligently to assist our grantees and colleagues as they continue their work.
Sincerely,
Kathryn G. Graham, Chair of the Board of Directors and Stephen A. Foster, President and CEO
Monday, January 10, 2011
Another Victory for The Innocence Project
There's another victory for the folks over at The Innocence Project! Last week in a Dallas courtroom, a judge declared The Innocence Project's client Cornelius Dupree innocent after more than three decades in prison for a crime he did not commit.
DNA testing obtained by the Innocence Project proved that Mr. Dupree had been misidentified and wrongfully convicted of a 1979 rape and robbery in Dallas. Mr. Dupree was 19 years old at the time and sentenced to 75 years in prison. Throughout the trial and since, Mr. Dupree has maintained his innocence and, after serving 30 years, he was released on parole last July while DNA tests were pending. Mr. Dupree served more time in prison than any other person in Texas who was later cleared through DNA testing.
Cornelius Dupree’s case serves as another reminder of the urgency of reforming eyewitness identification procedures. In the U.S. a staggering three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence resulted from misidentifications. Of the 40 people exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, 34 were misidentified by at least one witness.
A bill to reform eyewitness identification procedures in Texas was introduced last year and would require all law enforcement officials to adopt written policies for identification procedures, including lineups and photo arrays such as the one used in this case. Authored by State Senator and IP Board Chair Rodney Ellis and State Representative Pete Gallego, it is our hope that this important bill will be adopted in the next legislative session. Please visit their website to learn more about Cornelius Dupree's case and the proposed reforms in Texas.
The Innocence Project staff in New York City spoke with Cornelius Dupree by phone shortly after the court hearing. He expressed his deep appreciation for the organization's hard work. “Without you,” he said, “I wouldn’t be free.”
The Foundation would like to extend its congratulations to The Innocence Project. Each post-conviction DNA exoneration creates a learning moment able to bring about meaningful and lasting reform. Moreover, significant media coverage of the exonerations like this galvanizes public support for policy reform. Overbrook is proud to have supported The Innocence Project for a decade. Its been an honor to watch the organization to protect the public against wrongful prosecution and convictions.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Electronics Recycling Gets Easier
Considering the three billion electronics products filling American households, as well as the 400 million individual units that are disposed of and replaced each year, consumers are starting to expect safe and easy recycling options. Indeed, e-waste laws are gaining momentum as states sign on; New Jersey began mandating e-waste recycling last Saturday, and New York will follow suit in April of this year. Click here for a list of the 20-plus states that mandate electronics recycling and details of the states' laws.
An article in this week's New York Times lists a number of options for responsible recycling, "responsible" meaning the toxic metals and chemicals embedded in the guts of our computers, ipods, cell phones, printers and more are not incinerated or dumped. The article references Demos and the Electronics Takeback Coalition, both Overbrook Foundation grantees. Click here for a pdf of Elizabeth Grossman's report for Demos, "Tackling High-Tech Trash: The e-waste Explosion and What We Can Do."
Check out this short article (click here) for a sobering account of what happens to electronics that are not disposed of responsibly.
An article in this week's New York Times lists a number of options for responsible recycling, "responsible" meaning the toxic metals and chemicals embedded in the guts of our computers, ipods, cell phones, printers and more are not incinerated or dumped. The article references Demos and the Electronics Takeback Coalition, both Overbrook Foundation grantees. Click here for a pdf of Elizabeth Grossman's report for Demos, "Tackling High-Tech Trash: The e-waste Explosion and What We Can Do."
Check out this short article (click here) for a sobering account of what happens to electronics that are not disposed of responsibly.
Monday, January 3, 2011
New Climate "Normal" for a New Year
If you were booked on one of the 4,000-plus flights delayed or canceled due to last weekend's storm, chances are you shook your fist at the sky at least once. True, sitting in an airport with a magazine and a Starbucks latte is not half as bad as weathering a storm must have been in pioneer days, but it's easy to lose perspective when you're already two days delayed with an unknown number of hours to go.
Snow in winter is a given, but was our latest storm "normal?" Was the wind speed and quantity of precipitation something we should have expected? The National Climatic Data Center is attempting to answer that question, as well as a slew of others comparing day-to-day weather with expected norms of years past. NCDC will soon publish a new "normal" for weather conditions based on 10,000 United States locations, an average the Center publishes once every ten years.
Meteorologically speaking, "normal" refers to an average of temperatures and precipitation levels over a thirty-year period. For the 2000-2010 decade, "normal" was based on the thirty-year period from 1971-2000. Excessive rains, droughts and the warming trend of the 1990s alerted climate scientists and people all over the U.S. that what we were experiencing was not "normal." The data set for the new decade will be based on averages from the thirty-year period of 1981-2010, a period that will exclude the cooler 1970's and include the hotter 2000s. The new "normal" will result in less drastic discrepancies between current temperature spikes and precipitation, and could have implications for the general acceptance of climate change. For instance, a particularly hot summer with excessive flooding, like 2010's summer, will not seem so bad compared to "normal." People will not see as great of a difference, and thus will be less alarmed, about what is and what used to be.
Of course, no one likes an alarmist, and there's plenty of data to support the theory that people won't change their behavior anyway, even when it is linked to climate change. (See my post "Changing the Climate Conversation" from November 2nd.) And it is interesting to note that 2010 saw more deaths worldwide due to natural disasters than to terrorist attacks over the past forty years combined. As we walk through airports, we're constantly updated on the color of the perceived "terror alert." But are we warned about climate anomalies? Not until they hold up our holiday plans.
Click here for an interesting take from the CEJournal, with links to editorials and posts discussing the climate change vs. "normal" debate.
Snow in winter is a given, but was our latest storm "normal?" Was the wind speed and quantity of precipitation something we should have expected? The National Climatic Data Center is attempting to answer that question, as well as a slew of others comparing day-to-day weather with expected norms of years past. NCDC will soon publish a new "normal" for weather conditions based on 10,000 United States locations, an average the Center publishes once every ten years.
Meteorologically speaking, "normal" refers to an average of temperatures and precipitation levels over a thirty-year period. For the 2000-2010 decade, "normal" was based on the thirty-year period from 1971-2000. Excessive rains, droughts and the warming trend of the 1990s alerted climate scientists and people all over the U.S. that what we were experiencing was not "normal." The data set for the new decade will be based on averages from the thirty-year period of 1981-2010, a period that will exclude the cooler 1970's and include the hotter 2000s. The new "normal" will result in less drastic discrepancies between current temperature spikes and precipitation, and could have implications for the general acceptance of climate change. For instance, a particularly hot summer with excessive flooding, like 2010's summer, will not seem so bad compared to "normal." People will not see as great of a difference, and thus will be less alarmed, about what is and what used to be.
Of course, no one likes an alarmist, and there's plenty of data to support the theory that people won't change their behavior anyway, even when it is linked to climate change. (See my post "Changing the Climate Conversation" from November 2nd.) And it is interesting to note that 2010 saw more deaths worldwide due to natural disasters than to terrorist attacks over the past forty years combined. As we walk through airports, we're constantly updated on the color of the perceived "terror alert." But are we warned about climate anomalies? Not until they hold up our holiday plans.
Click here for an interesting take from the CEJournal, with links to editorials and posts discussing the climate change vs. "normal" debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
