Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Fighting Homophobia One Country at a Time
Stephen Lewis is a former Canadian legislator, former Ambassador to the United Nations, former UN Special Envoy on HIV/AIDS in Africa and a life long activist for social justice. Unlike most current and former politicos, Stephen is genuinely passionate about injustice. On Tuesday, he spoke before the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting made up of the leaders from the 53 Commonwealth nations about the developing travesty of government sponsored homophobia in Uganda. (This was an important venue for this speech as 40 of its members still criminalize same-sex conduct.) His entire speech is devoted to railing against Uganda for the introduction of the Anti-Homosexual Bill - perhaps the most horrendous piece of legislation proposed in the modern era. It can--and should--be read in its entirety. http://ow.ly/Fzf0
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dreaming of a Green Thanksgiving
Holidays have long been a time of over-consumption -- of gifts we don't really want, food we don't really need, and the extra gasoline we pump to reach our destinations. But holidays can also be a time to relax, reflect, and reset for the year to come. And for those of us following the progress of the climate bill and the promises of world leaders preparing for Copenhagen, this year's season has a slightly greener focus.
Scores of online advice columns are looking at ways to "Green Thanksgiving," offering easy tips such as recycling, using cloth napkins and reusable left-over containers, and starting compost heaps for extra food scraps. One article from Slate gives advice on how to choose a turkey with the smallest carbon footprint. Another from About.com gives revelers ideas on starting a new tradition of eco-friendly Thanksgiving, not just this year but in every year to come.
This new-ish mainstream greening of tradition comes not a moment too soon. One article from the Wonk Room warns, "Global Boiling Declares War on Thanksgiving." Treeehugger lists similar articles discussing this year's shortage of Libby's canned pumpkin, due to unseasonably torrential rains in Illinois that prevented the harvest of large portions of this year's pumpkin crop.
At the same time, researchers at the Mauna Loa government observatory measured atmospheric CO2 in concentrations of 385 ppm this fall, pointing to a steady increase of greenhouse gas accumulation in line with the 2001 IPCC report's worst-case-scenario climate model. At this rate, one researcher observed, CO2 concentrations will reach 450 ppm by 2040, spiking global temperatures by up to 6.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
Dwindling grocery stocks of Libby's canned pumpkin are the least of the changes and hardship we will face. But this is still a time of family and gratitude, after all, and nothing kills the Thanksgiving mood like bringing up drought and famine. Perhaps the best course this season is to give thanks not only for what we have, but what we know -- and how we can use our knowledge to affect positive environmental change.
Scores of online advice columns are looking at ways to "Green Thanksgiving," offering easy tips such as recycling, using cloth napkins and reusable left-over containers, and starting compost heaps for extra food scraps. One article from Slate gives advice on how to choose a turkey with the smallest carbon footprint. Another from About.com gives revelers ideas on starting a new tradition of eco-friendly Thanksgiving, not just this year but in every year to come.
This new-ish mainstream greening of tradition comes not a moment too soon. One article from the Wonk Room warns, "Global Boiling Declares War on Thanksgiving." Treeehugger lists similar articles discussing this year's shortage of Libby's canned pumpkin, due to unseasonably torrential rains in Illinois that prevented the harvest of large portions of this year's pumpkin crop.
At the same time, researchers at the Mauna Loa government observatory measured atmospheric CO2 in concentrations of 385 ppm this fall, pointing to a steady increase of greenhouse gas accumulation in line with the 2001 IPCC report's worst-case-scenario climate model. At this rate, one researcher observed, CO2 concentrations will reach 450 ppm by 2040, spiking global temperatures by up to 6.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
Dwindling grocery stocks of Libby's canned pumpkin are the least of the changes and hardship we will face. But this is still a time of family and gratitude, after all, and nothing kills the Thanksgiving mood like bringing up drought and famine. Perhaps the best course this season is to give thanks not only for what we have, but what we know -- and how we can use our knowledge to affect positive environmental change.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Women's Media Center on Saturday's Health Care Vote
One of the great things about The Women’s Media Center (a non-profit organization founded by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan, dedicated to making women visible and powerful in the media) is the unique content they produce on issues crucial to women’s health. This morning they sent around a great article by Peggy Simpson, titled “Health Care Reform: Pro-choice Forces Win the First Round in the Senate.”
In the piece, Simpson discusses the historical impact of Saturday’s vote, but, one of the real victories is for the feminist community. She writes, “[f]or the feminist community, as well as the anti-abortion lobby, the vote also meant that the Senate bill would not contain the House-passed Stupak amendment, which would vastly extend the 1976 Hyde amendment banning federal funds for abortion.” Simpson also discusses the challenges that lay ahead.
To read the piece in its entirety, click here.
Peggy Simpson worked 17 years for the Associated Press, in Texas and Washington, D.C.; covered economics and politics for the Hearst Newspapers, served as Washington bureau chief for Ms. Magazine and reported on Eastern Europe’s transition from communism to a Democratic market economy, as a freelancer during the 1990s. She has also taught at Indiana University, George Washington University and at the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. She currently is a freelancer writer in Washington.
In the piece, Simpson discusses the historical impact of Saturday’s vote, but, one of the real victories is for the feminist community. She writes, “[f]or the feminist community, as well as the anti-abortion lobby, the vote also meant that the Senate bill would not contain the House-passed Stupak amendment, which would vastly extend the 1976 Hyde amendment banning federal funds for abortion.” Simpson also discusses the challenges that lay ahead.
To read the piece in its entirety, click here.
Peggy Simpson worked 17 years for the Associated Press, in Texas and Washington, D.C.; covered economics and politics for the Hearst Newspapers, served as Washington bureau chief for Ms. Magazine and reported on Eastern Europe’s transition from communism to a Democratic market economy, as a freelancer during the 1990s. She has also taught at Indiana University, George Washington University and at the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. She currently is a freelancer writer in Washington.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Multiple Factors Imperil Oceans
A new study published in Nature finds the oceans' capacity to store CO2 is diminishing, even as global emissions show no sign of significant reduction. This news has grave implications for the earth's atmosphere, which has been sharing an anthropogenic carbon burden with the oceans since the Industrial Revolution.
The study's research team, led by Dr. Saman Khatiwala of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Georgia Institute of Technology, found the oceans' rate of uptake for CO2 began slowing in the 1980s and decreased by 10 percent between 2000 and 2007. As the water becomes more acidic, it loses its capacity to act as a carbon sink, shutting the door to emissions that are left to the atmosphere.
In addition to atmospheric effects, an article in the Boston Phoenix connects ocean acidification to a frightening and burgeoning loss of ocean life. Brian Skerry, an underwater photojournalist profiled for the article, describes changes he's seen in ocean life throughout his long career. Areas once thick with life are now dead zones, depleted by overfishing, bottom trawling, acidification and rising water temperatures.
Using the near extinct bluefin tuna as an example, Skerry says, "These are animals that cavemen painted on their walls, that Plato wrote about, wondering about their travels through the Earth's oceans. Yet we're wiping them out."
Daniel Pauly's September New Republic article, Aquacalypse Now, warns, "eating a tuna roll in a sushi restaurant should be considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod and other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent."
Accelerated commercial fishing methods are one reason for the depletion of ocean life. New methods include GPS fish finders, radar, sonar technology and automated trawlers. An ocean that once teemed with life simply cannot compete with the appetites of the walking world.
In addition to overfishing, acidification caused by CO2 leads to a decrease in the carbonate ions crucial to the development of mollusks, shellfish and coral reefs. Warming adds another challenge to the mix -- the melting Greenland ice sheet adds a freshwater layer to the Atlantic, preventing the overturning of nutrients that spur the growth of plankton.
Although the news is sobering, Daniel Pauly ends his story on an empowering note. There's no need to end fishing, or to expect an end to fish. What we must do, says Pauly, is demand our political representatives put a stop to the "fishing industrial complex." The Nature study gives us another option. Regulating emissions and supporting climate change legislation is one more way to restore our oceans.
The study's research team, led by Dr. Saman Khatiwala of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Georgia Institute of Technology, found the oceans' rate of uptake for CO2 began slowing in the 1980s and decreased by 10 percent between 2000 and 2007. As the water becomes more acidic, it loses its capacity to act as a carbon sink, shutting the door to emissions that are left to the atmosphere.
In addition to atmospheric effects, an article in the Boston Phoenix connects ocean acidification to a frightening and burgeoning loss of ocean life. Brian Skerry, an underwater photojournalist profiled for the article, describes changes he's seen in ocean life throughout his long career. Areas once thick with life are now dead zones, depleted by overfishing, bottom trawling, acidification and rising water temperatures.
Using the near extinct bluefin tuna as an example, Skerry says, "These are animals that cavemen painted on their walls, that Plato wrote about, wondering about their travels through the Earth's oceans. Yet we're wiping them out."
Daniel Pauly's September New Republic article, Aquacalypse Now, warns, "eating a tuna roll in a sushi restaurant should be considered no more environmentally benign than driving a Hummer or harpooning a manatee. In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, cod and other favorites, by a staggering 90 percent."
Accelerated commercial fishing methods are one reason for the depletion of ocean life. New methods include GPS fish finders, radar, sonar technology and automated trawlers. An ocean that once teemed with life simply cannot compete with the appetites of the walking world.
In addition to overfishing, acidification caused by CO2 leads to a decrease in the carbonate ions crucial to the development of mollusks, shellfish and coral reefs. Warming adds another challenge to the mix -- the melting Greenland ice sheet adds a freshwater layer to the Atlantic, preventing the overturning of nutrients that spur the growth of plankton.
Although the news is sobering, Daniel Pauly ends his story on an empowering note. There's no need to end fishing, or to expect an end to fish. What we must do, says Pauly, is demand our political representatives put a stop to the "fishing industrial complex." The Nature study gives us another option. Regulating emissions and supporting climate change legislation is one more way to restore our oceans.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Struggle for Civil Marriage for Same Sex Couples
As we await the New York Senate's action on the bill to provide civil marriage to same sex couples, we need to remind ourselves of the journey we've been on. The struggle to win rights and protections for same sex couples has been a rollercoaster of wins and losses, including on November 3rd the most recent defeat in Maine and the most recent victory in Washington (where voters upheld the Washington law passed earlier expanding legal protections for domestic partners to include all rights and protections held by married couples, with the exception of the word “marriage”). While there have been many setbacks along the way, the trajectory is strongly positive. In 2000, for example, no state extended the freedom to marry to same sex couples and only two – with 0.6% of the U.S. population – offered any recognition of same sex couples. Today, five states have marriage equality and another ten offer other forms of relationship recognition. These 15 states contain 37% of the U.S. population. The Civil Marriage Collaborative has supported state-based organizations fighting for same-sex marriage rights in every state where advances have been won. If we’ve learned anything along the way it’s that there is no quick and easy way to winning equality. Instead, it is perseverance – particularly when the going is the hardest – that pays huge dividends.
Journalist Detained in Iran
Yesterday, New America Media announced that correspondent Shane Bauer is among the three Americans who have been detained in Iran since July 31, when they were held on the Iran-Iraq border while hiking in Kurdistan.
According to his website, Shane Bauer is a freelance journalist and photographer based in the Middle East. A fluent speaker of Arabic, his work has largely focused on the Middle East and North Africa, where he has spent much of the past six years. He is a Middle East correspondent for New America Media and his work has been published in the US, UK, Middle East, and Canada including outlets such as the L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique (German edition), Slate.com, Aljazeera.net, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, Democracy Now!, E: The Environmental Magazine, and Black Entertainment Television.
Sandy Close the Executive Editor and Director of New America Media/Pacific News Service, issued the following statement yesterday in response to reports from Tehran that Bauer, his girlfriend Sarah Shourd and their close friend Josh Fattal are accused of espionage.“
We are deeply concerned that the Iranian authorities appear to be accusing Shane and his friends of espionage, an allegation that is both disturbing and absurd. We appeal to the Iranian authorities to treat this case for what it is and show compassion and leniency. The simple fact is that three friends went hiking and may have strayed across the Iranian border by mistake. Shane Bauer is a gifted writer and photographer whose regular freelance reporting for NAM from the Middle East has shed much-needed light on events in the Arab world. He had offered to report for us on the elections in Iraqi Kurdistan during his trip to the region, on what was first and foremost a vacation with friends. Our thoughts are with Shane’s family at this difficult time and with the families of Sarah and Josh. We continue to hope that they will be released soon.”
If you would like to show your support for Shane, Josh, and Sarah please join visit www.freethehikers.org
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Plastic and Other Garbage Accumulates in Oceans
A story in today's New York Times warns that scientists estimate five or more vast swaths of trash exist in oceans worldwide. Plastic and other human detritus are pervasive throughout the oceans, but gyres, whirl-pooled areas of swirling water currents, bring the trash together in large, floating bunches. The best known of these toxic gyres is the Pacific Garbage Patch, estimated at twice the size of Texas and floating about 1,000 miles off the coast of California.
Old fishing nets, bottle caps, light bulbs and other garbage fill in the patch, but the plastics that make up the majority of ocean trash are particularly damaging. Plastics take an estimated 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill. When exposed to sun and water in the ocean, they appear to decompose at a much faster rate, but actually just break down into tiny "nurdles" and microscopic particles that fish ingest.
Even more troubling are the toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCBs that plastic readily absorbs. When plankton and small fish swallow tiny plastic bits, they ingest the attached chemicals. Smaller marine animals are in turn eaten by larger ones, and the toxic chemicals pile on up the food chain in a process called bioaccumulation. Journalist Marla Cone's 2006 book Silent Snow describes this process in disturbing detail, as it relates to indigenous people living in the Arctic who subsist on high-food-chain animals such as seal. As the "kings" of the food chain we've become, human beings are at risk of absorbing high levels of toxins accumulated by animals living in polluted environments.
Author Alan Weisman's chapter on nurdles in his 2007 book The World Without Us offers a detailed view of the lifespan of plastic.
The positive side of this sobering news is that awareness breeds action. With the Obama administration taking steps to regulate our treatment of the oceans (see yesterday's post), scientists have a better chance of finding an audience for their discoveries and warnings.
Old fishing nets, bottle caps, light bulbs and other garbage fill in the patch, but the plastics that make up the majority of ocean trash are particularly damaging. Plastics take an estimated 1,000 years to decompose in a landfill. When exposed to sun and water in the ocean, they appear to decompose at a much faster rate, but actually just break down into tiny "nurdles" and microscopic particles that fish ingest.
Even more troubling are the toxic chemicals such as DDT and PCBs that plastic readily absorbs. When plankton and small fish swallow tiny plastic bits, they ingest the attached chemicals. Smaller marine animals are in turn eaten by larger ones, and the toxic chemicals pile on up the food chain in a process called bioaccumulation. Journalist Marla Cone's 2006 book Silent Snow describes this process in disturbing detail, as it relates to indigenous people living in the Arctic who subsist on high-food-chain animals such as seal. As the "kings" of the food chain we've become, human beings are at risk of absorbing high levels of toxins accumulated by animals living in polluted environments.
Author Alan Weisman's chapter on nurdles in his 2007 book The World Without Us offers a detailed view of the lifespan of plastic.
The positive side of this sobering news is that awareness breeds action. With the Obama administration taking steps to regulate our treatment of the oceans (see yesterday's post), scientists have a better chance of finding an audience for their discoveries and warnings.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Obama Administration Looks to the Oceans
A White House task force is recommending a new National Ocean Council, which for the first time will attempt to develop national policy surrounding the United States' use and treatment of oceans, coastlines and lakes. As industry demand for ocean space grows, the new Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is working to consolidate the 140 laws and 20 federal agencies currently presiding over the nation's use and treatment of our waterways.
Although climate change is perhaps the most prominent environmental issue in the news these days, the state of the oceans takes a close second. Algal blooms caused by fertilizers and other pollutants are killing marine life at alarming rates, as are excessive levels of acidifying CO2. About 22 million tons of CO2 are absorbed by the oceans every day. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas, swirls 1,000 miles off the coast of California. And every eight months, oil in amounts rivaling the Exxon Valdez spill collectively seeps into oceans from runoff on driveways and roads.
Is this a tragedy of the commons, or an opportunity for positive change? Luckily, the Obama Administration is tackling the problem as opportunity, calling for new ideas and regulation related to marine spatial planning. Demand for ocean and coastal space is growing faster than ever. Along with traditional uses such as commercial fishing and shipping, oceans are now being tapped for oil reserves, deepwater wind farms, wave and tidal power. At the same time, commercial interests require oversight to ensure protection of marine life and water quality.
Click here for a detailed read of the White House task force plan.
Although climate change is perhaps the most prominent environmental issue in the news these days, the state of the oceans takes a close second. Algal blooms caused by fertilizers and other pollutants are killing marine life at alarming rates, as are excessive levels of acidifying CO2. About 22 million tons of CO2 are absorbed by the oceans every day. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, twice the size of Texas, swirls 1,000 miles off the coast of California. And every eight months, oil in amounts rivaling the Exxon Valdez spill collectively seeps into oceans from runoff on driveways and roads.
Is this a tragedy of the commons, or an opportunity for positive change? Luckily, the Obama Administration is tackling the problem as opportunity, calling for new ideas and regulation related to marine spatial planning. Demand for ocean and coastal space is growing faster than ever. Along with traditional uses such as commercial fishing and shipping, oceans are now being tapped for oil reserves, deepwater wind farms, wave and tidal power. At the same time, commercial interests require oversight to ensure protection of marine life and water quality.
Click here for a detailed read of the White House task force plan.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Al Gore's "Our Choice"
Al Gore spoke last night before a packed audience at The American Museum of Natural History, continuing the public awareness crusade he began with 2006's An Inconvenient Truth. While his first book (also an Oscar-winning documentary) focused on the problems of climate change, Gore's new book focuses on the tools we have to mitigate and reverse it.
Pacing the stage without notes, Gore spoke calmly and candidly about the state of the global environment and his views on what can be done to secure a cleaner, healthier future for all. "We have all of the tools and all of the solutions for three or four climate crises, and we only have to solve one," Gore said.
At its base, Our Choice is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of alternative energy methods we can use to shrink our dependence on greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels. Early chapters break down solar, wind, and geothermal alternatives. Gore also details nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration options, which remain highly controversial.
If he had stopped there, Gore's Our Choice would have served as a detailed textbook for environmental studies classes nationwide. But he ventures beyond dry explanations with chapters echoing his 2007 The Assault on Reason, with titles such as "Changing the Way We Think," and "Political Obstacles." At the Museum, Gore spent a significant portion of his presentation talking not about climate change, but about the amount of television the average American watches each day, and the neurobiological explanations for society's sluggish reactions to alarming news about global warming.
At the beginning of the summer, I blogged about a talk between the New York Times' environment reporter Andrew Revkin and Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When asked his opinion on the single most influential step individuals can take to mitigate climate change, Pachauri, without skipping a beat, implored the audience to stop eating so much meat. Al Gore, when asked the same question by an audience member at the Museum, had a different answer. Change our laws and policies, Gore said, which we are in a uniquely privileged position to do as citizens of the United States.
Gore remained positive throughout his talk, and despite spiking levels of CO2 and dire predictions of a dreary outcome at Copenhagen, he has hope that continued education and outreach coupled with innovation will solve the climate crisis. We simply cannot, in Gore's words, "give the back of our hand" to our children and future generations. According to Gore, future generations will have one of two questions to ask, looking back at the critical choices we are currently making. They will ask either 1) "What were you thinking?" or 2) "How did you find the moral courage to solve this problem when so many said it was unsolvable?" As in An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice frames society's response to climate change as a moral issue.
Gore exited the Museum's stage to a standing ovation. Look at Repoweramerica.org for the latest developments in climate change policy and suggestions on what you can do in your community to instigate change.
Pacing the stage without notes, Gore spoke calmly and candidly about the state of the global environment and his views on what can be done to secure a cleaner, healthier future for all. "We have all of the tools and all of the solutions for three or four climate crises, and we only have to solve one," Gore said.
At its base, Our Choice is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of alternative energy methods we can use to shrink our dependence on greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuels. Early chapters break down solar, wind, and geothermal alternatives. Gore also details nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration options, which remain highly controversial.
If he had stopped there, Gore's Our Choice would have served as a detailed textbook for environmental studies classes nationwide. But he ventures beyond dry explanations with chapters echoing his 2007 The Assault on Reason, with titles such as "Changing the Way We Think," and "Political Obstacles." At the Museum, Gore spent a significant portion of his presentation talking not about climate change, but about the amount of television the average American watches each day, and the neurobiological explanations for society's sluggish reactions to alarming news about global warming.
At the beginning of the summer, I blogged about a talk between the New York Times' environment reporter Andrew Revkin and Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When asked his opinion on the single most influential step individuals can take to mitigate climate change, Pachauri, without skipping a beat, implored the audience to stop eating so much meat. Al Gore, when asked the same question by an audience member at the Museum, had a different answer. Change our laws and policies, Gore said, which we are in a uniquely privileged position to do as citizens of the United States.
Gore remained positive throughout his talk, and despite spiking levels of CO2 and dire predictions of a dreary outcome at Copenhagen, he has hope that continued education and outreach coupled with innovation will solve the climate crisis. We simply cannot, in Gore's words, "give the back of our hand" to our children and future generations. According to Gore, future generations will have one of two questions to ask, looking back at the critical choices we are currently making. They will ask either 1) "What were you thinking?" or 2) "How did you find the moral courage to solve this problem when so many said it was unsolvable?" As in An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice frames society's response to climate change as a moral issue.
Gore exited the Museum's stage to a standing ovation. Look at Repoweramerica.org for the latest developments in climate change policy and suggestions on what you can do in your community to instigate change.
Maine Voters Reject Same Sex Marriage
Well, the New York Times called it a "stinging setback for the national gay-rights movement" and they are certainly right.
Yesterday Maine voters narrowly decided to repeal the state’s new law allowing same-sex marriage. Although early returns from the polls showed an extremely close contest, this morning, with 87 percent of precincts reporting, nearly 53 percent of voters had approved the repeal (Question #1 on the ballot), ending what has certainly been an exhaustive and emotional referendum on the national gay-marriage movement. Polls leading up to yesterday's vote had suggested a much closer race.
With this apparent repeal of the same-sex marriage law, Maine will become the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Although five other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont) do have legalized same-sex marriage in their states, in each of these cases, the same-sex marriage laws came through court rulings and legislative action, not through ballot initiatives voted on by citizens.
Sadly, also in New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, who, as we blogged about yesterday, supports gay marriage, lost to Republican Christopher Christie, who strongly opposes it.
While what happened in Maine yesterday is certainly disappointing news, I have no doubt that the gay rights movement will continue to persevere. One of the silver linings from yesterday’s disappointing outcome in Maine is that voter turnout was above average for the state, which typically tends to favor gay marriage. So let us remember that this is not the end of the fight to support same sex couples, it is only the beginning. We are sure that those fighting for gay rights will continue to be energized in this fight.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Gay Marriage on Election Day
It’s an election day and there are several important issues on the ballots in states across the country, particularly when it comes to gay marriage. Today the state of Maine will vote on gay marriage, and if it wins (e.g. if Question #1 on the state’s ballot is rejected), it would be the first time that voters in the Untied States would approve same-sexy marriage. Public opinion surveys in Maine show a virtual dead head on the Question 1, which would cancel the marriage statute that passed the legislature in may and was signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D).
In Washington state, Referendum 71 is asking voters to approve or reject a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor this past spring that would extend to same-sex couples scores of rights currently reserved for married spouses, including ensuring extended work leave for people with critically ill partners and preserving pension benefits for the surviving partner in the event of the other’s death. This week, the Washington Poll, released through the University of Washington, found even stronger support for this law, essentially an “everything but marriage” law, with a 56-39 lead, with 5 percent still undecided.
There are also important races as several states elect governors today. A bit closer to home, in New Jersey, voters will elect a governor, and the Human Rights Campaign has officially endorsed Governor Jon Corzine for reelection based on his strong support for LGBT equality, including his repeated pledges to sign a marriage equality bill that could still be passed by legislators later this year. Likewise Virginia voters will choose a new governor and have a chance to send more fair-minded lawmakers to the state’s House of Delegates in Richmond. Building on Human Rights Campaign’s work in 2007 helping to elect a more fair-minded state senate majority, the organization has endorsed Creigh Deeds for governor.
We will be keeping an eye out on these races, particularly in Maine and in Washington. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to get out and vote in your state today.
Monday, November 2, 2009
President Obama Ends US HIV Travel Ban
It was a historic moment last week when President Obama announced the end of the discriminatory US HIV Travel Ban.
So what does that mean exactly? Well starting in 2010, people living with HIV will no longer be barred from entering the United States, and they will no longer turned away at borders, no longer forced to hide their condition and interrupt medical treatment.
Here’s a quote from President Obama:
“Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS. Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we've treated a visitor living with it as a threat. We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country. If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it. And that's why, on Monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year.”
The Foundation would like to acknowledge the hard work of Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity and justice and promotes the rights to health for all. Physicians for Human Rights has been at the forefront of the movement to end the HIV travel ban. They have helped organize thousands of Americans who wrote moving comments to the Centers for Disease Control, urging them to end the ban.
Their efforts, along with those of everyday Americans who have taken steps to protect the health, dignity and human rights of people living with AIDS worldwide is not something to be understated. This decision is surely an uplift to human rights worldwide. It is, as Physicians for Human Rights wrote in a press release last week, “a monumental policy change.”
Friday, October 30, 2009
American E-Waste Piles Up
The United States has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to dealing with electronic waste. As reported yesterday in Scientific American, the US is one of the largest producers of e-waste in the world, yet we have no federal regulation in place to monitor toxic chemicals that go into our electronic products, and no federal regulation to monitor where they go when we're done with them.
As of today, 19 states have their own laws for e-waste, but these have little influence over large manufacturers. A patchwork of individually-tailored state laws as opposed to one comprehensive set of guidelines makes it difficult for large manufacturers to comply, and easy for them to turn a blind eye.
A team of researchers at the University of California found that obsolete electronics in US households add up to more than 1.36 million metric tons of potential e-waste. Most of our e-waste is sent out of our own backyards to Africa, China and India, where items are sold second-hand or broken down for their copper and iron components. But without regulation in the manufacturing stages, toxic chemicals from the used electronics leach into the environments where they end up after having been discarded by US consumers.
The Senate introduced a bill in July of 2009 that, if passed, will be the federal government's first step toward monitoring which chemicals are allowable in the manufacture of electronic devices, as well as the ways in which electronics can be legally recycled. But this initial bill focuses on research. Although it is a clear step forward, it is still leagues behind where we could and should be -- working not only on research, but on fully-formed manufacturing, recycling and disposal methods.
While we wait for the government to catch up, there are things we can do as individuals to promote responsible electronics recycling. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has been a staunch defender of electronics recycling laws in the city of New York. Search their site for current information on the state of e-waste in NYC. The Council on the Environment of New York City is another great resource, with two e-recycling events happening this weekend in New York.
As of today, 19 states have their own laws for e-waste, but these have little influence over large manufacturers. A patchwork of individually-tailored state laws as opposed to one comprehensive set of guidelines makes it difficult for large manufacturers to comply, and easy for them to turn a blind eye.
A team of researchers at the University of California found that obsolete electronics in US households add up to more than 1.36 million metric tons of potential e-waste. Most of our e-waste is sent out of our own backyards to Africa, China and India, where items are sold second-hand or broken down for their copper and iron components. But without regulation in the manufacturing stages, toxic chemicals from the used electronics leach into the environments where they end up after having been discarded by US consumers.
The Senate introduced a bill in July of 2009 that, if passed, will be the federal government's first step toward monitoring which chemicals are allowable in the manufacture of electronic devices, as well as the ways in which electronics can be legally recycled. But this initial bill focuses on research. Although it is a clear step forward, it is still leagues behind where we could and should be -- working not only on research, but on fully-formed manufacturing, recycling and disposal methods.
While we wait for the government to catch up, there are things we can do as individuals to promote responsible electronics recycling. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has been a staunch defender of electronics recycling laws in the city of New York. Search their site for current information on the state of e-waste in NYC. The Council on the Environment of New York City is another great resource, with two e-recycling events happening this weekend in New York.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wisconsin Passes Producer Responsibility Bill
There’s good news in the world of sustainable consumption and production! Last week Wisconsin’s Governor Jim Doyle signed into law a new producer responsibility bill for electronics. That makes Wisconsin state the twentieth with such a statewide e-waste law. This bill was sponsored by Senator Mark Miller (D-WI), who was one of the first state legislators to introduce such a bill in the US, nearly eight years ago.
This law that Governor Doyle passed is modeled on the Minnesota producer responsibility law, which calls on manufacturers of computers, TVs and printers to meet collection goals tied to what they are selling. It also includes a ban on use of prison labor and it includes a disposal ban.
This is a significant victory in a lot of ways. While only two states such passed laws this year (Indiana is the other), Wisconsin’s new law is actually a very strong one. According to Barbara Kyle, the National Coordinator at the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, “We’d rather pass fewer laws with teeth, than see states pass weak bills that don’t really mean much. This has collection goals tied to sales, for computer, TV and printer manufacturers. Adding printers into the mix is an important development for meaningful laws.”
This bill also continues a strong show of support for producer responsibility laws. Wisconsin is the fourth state in the Midwest (along with Minnesota, Illinois and Indiana) that have recently passed such laws, which goes a long way in showing that regional momentum definitely helps in getting bills passed.
Additionally, and not surprisingly, Wisconsin’s bill was opposed by manufacturers, who clearly lobbied against it (mostly via their industry associations). A strong coalition of recyclers, local governments, NGOs, schools, and some other businesses were able to overcome these lobbying efforts to get this bill passed. It shouldn’t be understated the amount of time and energy that goes into passing a bill over the objections of a regulated industry.
Let’s hope this momentum from the Midwest carries into other regions. There’s no reason we shouldn’t have effective producer responsibility laws in every state. For a full list of laws by state, be sure to check out this great resource.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Jobs in Navajo Nation...At What Cost?
Native American communities are still feeling the deleterious effects of decades of uranium mining on their land, even though many mines have been closed since the 1980s. But outcry from Navajo communities over health risks and desecration of sacred lands apparently means nothing to energy companies that are lining up for permits. With the proposed Senate climate bill and upcoming talks in Copenhagen focusing on reducing CO2, many energy industry leaders are placing their bets on nuclear as the "clean and green" power of the future.
But the Navajo Nation knows first-hand that nuclear is far from safe. "This has multi-generational effects," said Early Tulley, Vice President of the Navajo group Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment. "I won't even live long enough to see what it does to people in 500 years." Tulley's wife and daughter have both battled cancers they attribute to radiation contamination on their land.
Since Uranium mining began in the 1940s, The Navajo Nation has been ravaged by kidney disease and cancer, diseases that had previously occurred so rarely among Navajo that words to describe them did not even exist in their native language. Now the Navajo know what cancer is, and they have spent decades petitioning the government to acknowledge its link to uranium mining.
Mining companies counter the horror stories of rampant illness with assurances that today's methods and oversight of mines are much more stringent than they were in the past. In situ leaching, a uranium extraction method in which chemicals dumped into an aquifer leach out uranium, was recently described by an industry executive as perfectly environmentally safe. The water contaminated in the process is purified at the end of the process, but generations of Navajo who have seen their families suffer from poisoned environments will not accept industry assurances blindly.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar instituted a two-year moratorium on awarding new mining claims in New Mexico, but the issue is still up for debate. There is no doubt that opening new uranium mines will add jobs and rejuvenate the economy in the Navajo Nation, but at what cost?
But the Navajo Nation knows first-hand that nuclear is far from safe. "This has multi-generational effects," said Early Tulley, Vice President of the Navajo group Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment. "I won't even live long enough to see what it does to people in 500 years." Tulley's wife and daughter have both battled cancers they attribute to radiation contamination on their land.
Since Uranium mining began in the 1940s, The Navajo Nation has been ravaged by kidney disease and cancer, diseases that had previously occurred so rarely among Navajo that words to describe them did not even exist in their native language. Now the Navajo know what cancer is, and they have spent decades petitioning the government to acknowledge its link to uranium mining.
Mining companies counter the horror stories of rampant illness with assurances that today's methods and oversight of mines are much more stringent than they were in the past. In situ leaching, a uranium extraction method in which chemicals dumped into an aquifer leach out uranium, was recently described by an industry executive as perfectly environmentally safe. The water contaminated in the process is purified at the end of the process, but generations of Navajo who have seen their families suffer from poisoned environments will not accept industry assurances blindly.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar instituted a two-year moratorium on awarding new mining claims in New Mexico, but the issue is still up for debate. There is no doubt that opening new uranium mines will add jobs and rejuvenate the economy in the Navajo Nation, but at what cost?
Friday, October 23, 2009
A Victory for Net Neutrality
We’ve blogged often about the importance of network neutrality. Well there’s been an important and historic development. Yesterday, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Net Neutrality, which follows through on its earlier promises to preserve an open Internet.
Over 1.6 million people have supported Net Neutrality in the past few years and more than tens of thousands came out in the last week to stand behind the FCC. Yesterday’s vote was an extremely important step forward in securing an open Internet and it was a decisive victory for the public interest and civil rights organizations, small businesses, Internet innovators, political leaders and the public who will all be impacted by this decision.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn voted in favor of the rulemaking; Commissioners Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert McDowell gave partial support to the proposal.
The proposed rules would codify the four open Internet principles that now guide the FCC’s oversight and enforcement of communications law. The FCC also proposed rules that would codify two new principles prohibiting Internet service providers from discriminating against content or applications and ensuring that network management practices be transparent.
The FCC is seeking public comment on these proposals, with initial comments due by January 14, 2010 and reply comments due by March 5. Free Press will send an announcement out as soon as you can start filing official comments.
This victory is no doubt in part due to the hard working folks in the media reform movement. Congratulations to them all! Let’s hope this is the first in a series of victories for Network Neutrality.
Over 1.6 million people have supported Net Neutrality in the past few years and more than tens of thousands came out in the last week to stand behind the FCC. Yesterday’s vote was an extremely important step forward in securing an open Internet and it was a decisive victory for the public interest and civil rights organizations, small businesses, Internet innovators, political leaders and the public who will all be impacted by this decision.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn voted in favor of the rulemaking; Commissioners Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert McDowell gave partial support to the proposal.
The proposed rules would codify the four open Internet principles that now guide the FCC’s oversight and enforcement of communications law. The FCC also proposed rules that would codify two new principles prohibiting Internet service providers from discriminating against content or applications and ensuring that network management practices be transparent.
The FCC is seeking public comment on these proposals, with initial comments due by January 14, 2010 and reply comments due by March 5. Free Press will send an announcement out as soon as you can start filing official comments.
This victory is no doubt in part due to the hard working folks in the media reform movement. Congratulations to them all! Let’s hope this is the first in a series of victories for Network Neutrality.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
This Saturday -- Climate Action in Your Neighborhood!
Author Bill McKibben's web site 350.org is initiating a world-wide day of climate action this Saturday, October 24th, with events as widespread as a black-tie gala in Shanghai to a group hug in Yukon Territory, all in the name of protecting the environment.
"350" refers to the atmospheric CO2 level McKibben and others want world political and business leaders to focus on as a stabilization goal. The earth hasn't seen 350 parts per million since 1987, a huge leap from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, but not even close to the 400-550 ppm to which some scientists fear we are currently headed. Among scientists, 350-550 ppm is considered the range in which drastic and irreversible climate change will occur, such as massive sea level rise, changes to ecosystems, agriculture and animal migrations.
"Our job is to change the political reality," McKibben said, "because the physical and chemical reality is not going to change."
350.org has reaped the rewards of social networking sites, and since the idea for an International Day of Climate Action was posted, it has spread virally around the world. Saturday, over 4,000 events are planned in 170 countries, with 1500 in the United States alone.
Go to the site to search your zip code for events happening near you.
"350" refers to the atmospheric CO2 level McKibben and others want world political and business leaders to focus on as a stabilization goal. The earth hasn't seen 350 parts per million since 1987, a huge leap from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, but not even close to the 400-550 ppm to which some scientists fear we are currently headed. Among scientists, 350-550 ppm is considered the range in which drastic and irreversible climate change will occur, such as massive sea level rise, changes to ecosystems, agriculture and animal migrations.
"Our job is to change the political reality," McKibben said, "because the physical and chemical reality is not going to change."
350.org has reaped the rewards of social networking sites, and since the idea for an International Day of Climate Action was posted, it has spread virally around the world. Saturday, over 4,000 events are planned in 170 countries, with 1500 in the United States alone.
Go to the site to search your zip code for events happening near you.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Nuclear Power Controversial as Ever
The United States is currently reviewing 18 new construction applications for nuclear power plants, and is considering doubling the allowable temporary above-ground storage limit for radioactive waste. This would raise the current 20 year limit to 40, with the idea that in 40 years researchers will have come up with a solution for permanent storage. But scientists and industry leaders are no closer to consensus than they were when the first nuclear power plants began operating in the '50s. Many remain skeptical about the proposed extra twenty years, wondering if they will bring us anything more than dangerous waste piled up in our backyards.
Power utilities are championing nuclear power as the new "green" fuel since its production does not produce any greenhouse gases. But many environmentalists, as well as citizens living near nuclear plants, argue the waste is too dangerous to be considered "clean," even if the actual power generated does not hurt the environment.
Quoted yesterday in Bloomberg News, Georgui Kastchiev, senior scientist for nuclear safety at the University of Vienna's Institute for Risk Research said, "New plants will continue to be built with no concern for where to put the spent fuel. A solution to the problem is constantly being moved to some point further in the future."
No one debates a viable solution for safe, long term nuclear waste storage remains elusive. Where industry leaders and anti-nuclear activists differ is their perception of the level of risk taken when nuclear waste is stored in above-ground casks. Although designed for 20 or more years of storage, casks are vulnerable to weather and terrorists attacks. Storing waste underground is equally controversial because of unpredictable seismic shifts that could release radioactive waste into soil and groundwater.
Even so, fifty new plants are currently being built worldwide. China is building 16 with 90 proposed, and the United States is reviewing 18 applications. Japan and India have also expressed interest in building nuclear power capacity in coming years.
One General Electric executive went as far as to call spent fuel an "opportunity," pointing to the unused energy in the waste.
Meanwhile, the long debated repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain has been abandoned, after $9 billion in utility company funds paid for investigating the safety of the site.
Power utilities are championing nuclear power as the new "green" fuel since its production does not produce any greenhouse gases. But many environmentalists, as well as citizens living near nuclear plants, argue the waste is too dangerous to be considered "clean," even if the actual power generated does not hurt the environment.
Quoted yesterday in Bloomberg News, Georgui Kastchiev, senior scientist for nuclear safety at the University of Vienna's Institute for Risk Research said, "New plants will continue to be built with no concern for where to put the spent fuel. A solution to the problem is constantly being moved to some point further in the future."
No one debates a viable solution for safe, long term nuclear waste storage remains elusive. Where industry leaders and anti-nuclear activists differ is their perception of the level of risk taken when nuclear waste is stored in above-ground casks. Although designed for 20 or more years of storage, casks are vulnerable to weather and terrorists attacks. Storing waste underground is equally controversial because of unpredictable seismic shifts that could release radioactive waste into soil and groundwater.
Even so, fifty new plants are currently being built worldwide. China is building 16 with 90 proposed, and the United States is reviewing 18 applications. Japan and India have also expressed interest in building nuclear power capacity in coming years.
One General Electric executive went as far as to call spent fuel an "opportunity," pointing to the unused energy in the waste.
Meanwhile, the long debated repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain has been abandoned, after $9 billion in utility company funds paid for investigating the safety of the site.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A New Media Analysis of the Status of Women
There’s a major media analysis of the status of women underway and it’s called, The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything. The report is spearheaded by Maria Shriver, with powerhouse partners including the non-profit The Center for American Progress, The Rockefeller Foundation, NBC News and Time Magazine. The basis of the project is a nearly 500 page report and national poll on where we, as women, are today.
Progressive Women’s Voices alum Courtney Martin wrote a conclusion of the report, and The Women's Media Center (WMC) is singled out in the Media chapter as a place to look for answers: "We would do well to trumpet the analysis of The Women's Media Center..." WMC co-founder Gloria Steinem writes exclusively on the WMC website about the potential for good news and bad news in the multi-million dollar effort:
"You have to pay attention to understand that the immediate cause of workforce parity is not women's advancement but men's job loss: three out of four paychecks eliminated by the recession have been in construction, manufacturing and other fields that are better paid and therefore still overwhelmingly male."
You can read Gloria Steinem’s full essay "It's Not a Man's World or a Woman's Nation” online. You can also watch the CNN Headline News's Joy Behar Show discussing the report with Joy and Judith Regan. Check that out here. Women’s Media Center also placed our SheSource expert Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in MSNBC's coverage of the report, which you can watch here.
Progressive Women’s Voices alum Courtney Martin wrote a conclusion of the report, and The Women's Media Center (WMC) is singled out in the Media chapter as a place to look for answers: "We would do well to trumpet the analysis of The Women's Media Center..." WMC co-founder Gloria Steinem writes exclusively on the WMC website about the potential for good news and bad news in the multi-million dollar effort:
"You have to pay attention to understand that the immediate cause of workforce parity is not women's advancement but men's job loss: three out of four paychecks eliminated by the recession have been in construction, manufacturing and other fields that are better paid and therefore still overwhelmingly male."
You can read Gloria Steinem’s full essay "It's Not a Man's World or a Woman's Nation” online. You can also watch the CNN Headline News's Joy Behar Show discussing the report with Joy and Judith Regan. Check that out here. Women’s Media Center also placed our SheSource expert Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in MSNBC's coverage of the report, which you can watch here.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Money Talks for the Planet
Experts in the biological, ecological and social sciences concluded the DIVERSITAS conference in Cape Town today (see my 10/14 post), revealing some startling and positive preliminary research on the real costs and benefits of ecosystem services.
DIVERSITAS participants weighed the cost of environmental degradation against the cost of preserving coral reefs, forests, coastlines, grasslands, and more. While the upfront cost of preservation and clean-up is sometimes significant, in every single example the rate of return was found to be positive. Pavan Sukhdev of the United Nations Environment Programme and head of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project presented research on the economic worth of coral reefs worldwide, breaking down specific aspects of the cost benefits of a healthy reef. According to Sukhdev, the breakdown looks like this:
Although his research appears to be great news, and just the "eureka!" moment industry leaders and policy makers need, Sukhdev says we are far from the path we need to be on to salvage coral reefs. Sukhdev says coral reefs are unlikely to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 levels above 350 parts per million, but the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found CO2 already at 379 ppm in 2005.
DIVERSITAS participants found similarly positive cost-benefit ratios when looking at deforestation. According to their research, cutting deforestation rates in half has a net value of about $3.7 trillion, not to mention an added benefit of absorbing 4.8 gigatonnes of carbon each year that would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.
Click here for a chart listing the various biomes studied and their respective costs and benefits.
At its conclusion, the 600-plus participants of the DIVERSITAS conference proposed an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which would work similarly to the IPCC.
"We call on governments and non-governmental organizations to join us in establishing IPBES as soon as possible," the concluding statement implored. "The fabric out of which the Earth system is woven is unravelling at an accelerating rate."
DIVERSITAS participants weighed the cost of environmental degradation against the cost of preserving coral reefs, forests, coastlines, grasslands, and more. While the upfront cost of preservation and clean-up is sometimes significant, in every single example the rate of return was found to be positive. Pavan Sukhdev of the United Nations Environment Programme and head of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project presented research on the economic worth of coral reefs worldwide, breaking down specific aspects of the cost benefits of a healthy reef. According to Sukhdev, the breakdown looks like this:
- Food, raw materials, ornamental resources: average $1,100 (up to $6,000);
- Climate regulation, moderation of extreme events, waste treatment / water purification, biological control: average $26,000 (up to $35,000);
- Cultural services (eg. recreation / tourism): average $88,700 (up to $1.1 million)
- Maintenance of genetic diversity: average $13,500 (up to $57,000)
Although his research appears to be great news, and just the "eureka!" moment industry leaders and policy makers need, Sukhdev says we are far from the path we need to be on to salvage coral reefs. Sukhdev says coral reefs are unlikely to survive in an atmosphere with CO2 levels above 350 parts per million, but the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found CO2 already at 379 ppm in 2005.
DIVERSITAS participants found similarly positive cost-benefit ratios when looking at deforestation. According to their research, cutting deforestation rates in half has a net value of about $3.7 trillion, not to mention an added benefit of absorbing 4.8 gigatonnes of carbon each year that would otherwise spew into the atmosphere.
Click here for a chart listing the various biomes studied and their respective costs and benefits.
At its conclusion, the 600-plus participants of the DIVERSITAS conference proposed an Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which would work similarly to the IPCC.
"We call on governments and non-governmental organizations to join us in establishing IPBES as soon as possible," the concluding statement implored. "The fabric out of which the Earth system is woven is unravelling at an accelerating rate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
