The Obama administration announced a restructuring of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, creating a federal climate service accessible to all Americans with the click of a mouse.
NOAA has already introduced a NOAA Climate Services web portal, described by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke as a "one stop shop of climate services."
Although open to everyone, the Climate Service is aimed at those industries and fields most directly affected by climate change, such as agriculture, water management, ski resorts and insurance. It is expected that over 500 NOAA employees will be redirected to work for the new Climate Service, but funds will be reallocated rather than added to avoid raising the budget. Because of the large scale of the restructuring, the Climate Service will have to be approved by Congress.
NOAA Climate Services will act as a balance to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thus far the definitive global voice for climate change science. The idea is that skeptics and critics of the IPCC will be able to turn to the NOAA portal for raw data, explanations, and the latest updates in climate change science. The Climate Service will be run as an open source flow of official research, intended by the Obama administration to act as a double-check, or barrier, against skeptics' claims and attacks. Credible science requires peer review and skepticism, but many attempts to discredit the IPCC have been based on politics rather than science. These attacks may be baseless, yet they remain influential to the public and politicians when it comes to forming opinions and making plans for action (or not.)
Check out the NOAA Climate Services page here.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Death and Life of American Journalism
On Friday afternoon I attended a talk by well-known media scholars and activists Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols. They discussed their new book The Death and Life of American Journalism (Nation Books, 2010). The program was sponsored by Fordham University’s Donald McGannon Communications Research Center and the Bernard L. Schwartz Center for Media, Public Policy and Education.
During the speech, the two proposed a bold strategy for saving journalism. First, Nichols began by reminding many of us what we already know: journalism is in serious crisis. It’s not just the demise of newspapers themselves; it’s a crisis of information. He laid out some pretty bleak statistics about the crisis in 2009: 140 newspapers closed last year; nearly 1,000 news-related jobs are lost per month. And although the internet has been very promising in terms of creating a robust blogosphere, it has not been able to fill the gap as credible news organizations fail to inform our citizenry and the model of commercial-supported advertising crumbles. They also reflected on ensuring free press protection with respect to the First Amendment and reminded us that there were many subsidies to the burgeoning print press of this country’s young nation under our Founding Fathers.
But it wasn’t all depressing! They did provide ideas that can help us overcome this problem, all of which are further outlined in the book which I definitely recommend reading. Some of the ideas mention include a national NewsCorps program (similar to AmericaCorps), and the hybrid L3C (low-profit limited liability company) model. For a more in-depth analysis of what that model entails, click here. All of these will take public subsidies, the two approximate that these could total $30 billion a year. It may seem like a high number, but the cost of losing an informing citizenry is too high not to at least further investigate their idea. The future of our democracy may depend on it.
It was an interesting mix of people, although given the location; I’d guess that at least ¾ of the audience was journalism students, from Fordham, Columbia, NYU and CUNY. Also, there were many supporters of Free Press there, McChesney and Nichols founded the national media reform organization, in 2002/2003 to further investigate this crisis. No doubt they will be extremely active as they pursue some of these national reforms over the upcoming months.
During the speech, the two proposed a bold strategy for saving journalism. First, Nichols began by reminding many of us what we already know: journalism is in serious crisis. It’s not just the demise of newspapers themselves; it’s a crisis of information. He laid out some pretty bleak statistics about the crisis in 2009: 140 newspapers closed last year; nearly 1,000 news-related jobs are lost per month. And although the internet has been very promising in terms of creating a robust blogosphere, it has not been able to fill the gap as credible news organizations fail to inform our citizenry and the model of commercial-supported advertising crumbles. They also reflected on ensuring free press protection with respect to the First Amendment and reminded us that there were many subsidies to the burgeoning print press of this country’s young nation under our Founding Fathers.
But it wasn’t all depressing! They did provide ideas that can help us overcome this problem, all of which are further outlined in the book which I definitely recommend reading. Some of the ideas mention include a national NewsCorps program (similar to AmericaCorps), and the hybrid L3C (low-profit limited liability company) model. For a more in-depth analysis of what that model entails, click here. All of these will take public subsidies, the two approximate that these could total $30 billion a year. It may seem like a high number, but the cost of losing an informing citizenry is too high not to at least further investigate their idea. The future of our democracy may depend on it.
It was an interesting mix of people, although given the location; I’d guess that at least ¾ of the audience was journalism students, from Fordham, Columbia, NYU and CUNY. Also, there were many supporters of Free Press there, McChesney and Nichols founded the national media reform organization, in 2002/2003 to further investigate this crisis. No doubt they will be extremely active as they pursue some of these national reforms over the upcoming months.
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Milestone for The Innocence Project
It’s a landmark worth celebrating for the Innocence Project. Yesterday, Freddie Peacock was the 250th DNA exoneration nationwide. Peacock, from Rochester, New York, was wrongfully convicted of rape 33 years ago was exonerated yesterday. He was sentenced to up to 20 years in prison and released on parole in 1982. He tried to remain on parole because he thought he would never be able to clear his name if he was released from state supervision. For the last 28 years since he left prison, he has fought to prove his innocence even though he was no longer incarcerated. For background on the Peacock case, click here.
Coinciding with this announcement, the Innocence Project released a report today titled "250 Exonerated: Too Many Wrongfully Convicted," which details each one of the exoneration cases and includes statistics on common causes of the wrongful convictions.Among the report's key findings:
• There have been DNA exonerations in 33 states and the District of Columbia.
• The top three states for DNA exonerations are New York (with 25), Texas (with 40) and Illinois (with 29).
• 70% of the 250 people exonerated are people of color (60% are black; nearly 9% are Latino; 29% are white).
The first DNA exoneration in the United States was in 1989. Peter Neufeld, Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Innocence Project said "It's important to remember that DNA exonerations do not solve the problem - they provide scientific proof of its existence, and they illuminate the need for reform."
To check out many of the reforms enacted as well as pending legislation, you can check out this report. Congratulations to everyone involved in the accomplishments of The Innocence Project over the years.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Foundations and Transparency
It's been a pretty busy week for anyone who is interested in foundations and transparency. The Foundation Center launched a new web portal, Glasspockets, which is dedicated to showcasing and promoting foundation transparency.
I was also lucky enough to post my thoughts on the subject courtesy of The Communications Network. What follows is a copy of my post. There was also an interesting follow up post titled What Constitutes Transparency? by Michael Hamill Remaley, the President of Hamill Remaley Communications. If any of these issues interest you, be sure to check out the Foundation Center's new website and these two posts.
Going Beyond Transparency
by Elizabeth Miller
When I think about communications in the context of the work that I do for The Overbrook Foundation, I’m generally focused on how the foundation communicates its goals, processes and awards to “the public.” To me, this effort revolves around the answer to two questions:
- How can the foundation go beyond doing the minimum of filing out tax forms and reporting our activities to the IRS?
How can we best communicate our efforts and provide information that is necessary to complete our grantmaking objectives?
Those questions take on added importance as we grapple with ways to use new social media tools alongside the customary practices of press releases, regular updates to our Web sites, and informal communication. Given that there’s been so much interest in using Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, tagging and social bookmarking, and social media tools more generally (for example, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to name a few), it’s hardly surprising that I’ve attended several conferences, lectures, and panel discussions about how to best incorporate these various new media strategies as part of our external communications program.
Increasingly, discussion inside the foundation has focused on how we at Overbrook can best adopt these tools for our own use, as well as how our grantees can also make use of them, and for what benefit. Still, the importance of effective communication is clearly (and should be) more than just the adoption of new specific new method of technology. I’d argue that the goal of using technology (as either a primary or supplementary method of communication) is to provide audiences more comprehensive information about the work that we do and how we do it, to distribute that information more widely as possible, to inform new (and often younger) audiences and potential grant seekers about what we do, and to make our work at Overbrook more open and transparent. I’d say strategizing about having open communications and understanding its importance is one of the most responsible things that a foundations can do.
Of course, transparency and openness doesn't come naturally to every foundation. Typically the fear of releasing some of the power of that information (for example who you fund, how much you award in grants, and the process by which this gets done) is something that many foundations have been reluctant to do. But since we’re already operating in such a saturation of information and openness thanks to the internet, it should be up to each foundation to make sure that information gets communicated in such a way that it advances the foundations goals at the same time it spreads the message and purpose of our grantmaking.
Of course, transparency and openness doesn't come naturally to every foundation. Typically the fear of releasing some of the power of that information (for example who you fund, how much you award in grants, and the process by which this gets done) is something that many foundations have been reluctant to do. But since we’re already operating in such a saturation of information and openness thanks to the internet, it should be up to each foundation to make sure that information gets communicated in such a way that it advances the foundations goals at the same time it spreads the message and purpose of our grantmaking.
The way in which foundations can engage in external communication will vary and there is certainly no one size fits all model. It may be as simple as having a Web site that explains the process by which organizations can seek grant awards or that explains your primary areas of focus. It also may be having a newsletter that talks about the work of your grantees; or a blog that highlights discussions at conferences foundation staff attend, accomplishments of grantees, or that features daily observations that draw on a foundation's area of expertise. I’d stress that the method by which you communicate is not necessarily as important as the amount of information you give out, and the clarity by which you do it. A large number of foundations, whether they are private, family, or public foundations, regardless of the issue areas that they support or the total size of their assets, have already begun to recognize the importance of these kinds of external communications.
In the end, I think the long-term success of grantmaking depends on how well we communicate with those we are trying to serve, as well as those who want to understand how we do our work. Adopting the use of social media will inevitably allow us to reach bigger audiences, and will provide us with an efficient and effective channel of communication. But there are ‘"different strokes for different folks’" and so before launching a sophisticated communications program that goes beyond simply being more transparent, we have to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish, whom are we trying to reach, and what (and why) we want to tell them or promote.
One final note: throughout this post I’ve stressed the importance of external communication. I also think you cannot overlook the importance of internal communication. In fact, honest and clear communication among staff, trustees, and board members, is certainly just as important. And of course, to effectively reach out you have to make sure there is a consensus on what that message is and why.
If you don’t understand your efforts clearly and are unable to communicate them, there is little hope that anyone else will be able to either.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Americans Less Concerned about Global Warming
A new joint study out of Yale and George Mason University found a marked decrease in numbers of Americans who say they are even somewhat concerned about global warming. Only 51 percent even believe it is happening, down 14 points since the last study of its kind in the fall of 2008. Of that 51 percent, only half believe global warming is caused by humans. The study, "Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in January 2010," can be accessed here.
"The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human caused and a serious threat to communities across America," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason. "The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue."
This disregard of mounting scientific evidence and drop in concern about climate change coincides with a growing distrust of public figures, the survey found. The distrust appears to be non-partisan -- 65 percent surveyed distrust Sarah Palin while 53 percent distrust former Vice President Al Gore. But the most troubling aspect of the survey results is not necessarily who is trusted less, but the question of how scientists will get their increasingly important message across as attention spans and respect wane.
From a grassroots perspective, apolitical, local movements are now needed more than ever. Many environmental groups were disappointed with President Obama's State of the Union speech last night, in which he promised more nuclear, "clean" coal and offshore drilling options. With a less-than-promising climate bill in the works, (and many believing it will not happen at all), support for independent environmental organizations is crucial. If Americans no longer trust our leaders at the top, perhaps they will turn their ears to voices in their own communities.
"The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human caused and a serious threat to communities across America," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason. "The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue."
This disregard of mounting scientific evidence and drop in concern about climate change coincides with a growing distrust of public figures, the survey found. The distrust appears to be non-partisan -- 65 percent surveyed distrust Sarah Palin while 53 percent distrust former Vice President Al Gore. But the most troubling aspect of the survey results is not necessarily who is trusted less, but the question of how scientists will get their increasingly important message across as attention spans and respect wane.
From a grassroots perspective, apolitical, local movements are now needed more than ever. Many environmental groups were disappointed with President Obama's State of the Union speech last night, in which he promised more nuclear, "clean" coal and offshore drilling options. With a less-than-promising climate bill in the works, (and many believing it will not happen at all), support for independent environmental organizations is crucial. If Americans no longer trust our leaders at the top, perhaps they will turn their ears to voices in their own communities.
Monday, January 25, 2010
New "Plantbottle" Raises Questions
Is "green" truly green when it's used as a tool to sell more stuff?
Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Coke, the biggest drink maker in the world, is introducing a new bottle with a reduced plastic content. The new design incorporates sugar cane ethanol with petroleum to create the bottle, ostensibly making it more eco-friendly. According to Coke, the "plantbottle" is a step in a cleaner, greener direction, since it is only 70 percent petroleum-based. At the same time, Nestle is working on a reduced-plastic eco-bottle, and PepsiCo is using a corn-based bag for Sun Chips.
It's heartening that large companies are at least thinking about their impact on the planet, but when a new eco-design is implemented to placate consumers and sell more product, is it truly green? Coke hopes to sell two billion "plantbottle" drinks by the end of this year. Environmental groups are saying it's a slight improvement, but the biggest problem here is consumer behavior. No matter what the bottles are made of, not nearly enough consumers recycle the containers they drink out of. Another issue is ethanol itself. When the impact of growing the sugar cane and converting it to ethanol is assessed, not to mention transporting the bottles all over the world, is the "plantbottle" truly an eco-option?
The best option for consumers who want to tread lightly remains the same as it has always been, despite new advances in bottle design: consume less. Fears about tap water safety can be assuaged with a simple in-home faucet filter and a reusable bottle.
Click here for a Treehugger assessment of the five best in-home water filters.
Click here for water safety information from the Environmental Working Group.
Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Coke, the biggest drink maker in the world, is introducing a new bottle with a reduced plastic content. The new design incorporates sugar cane ethanol with petroleum to create the bottle, ostensibly making it more eco-friendly. According to Coke, the "plantbottle" is a step in a cleaner, greener direction, since it is only 70 percent petroleum-based. At the same time, Nestle is working on a reduced-plastic eco-bottle, and PepsiCo is using a corn-based bag for Sun Chips.
It's heartening that large companies are at least thinking about their impact on the planet, but when a new eco-design is implemented to placate consumers and sell more product, is it truly green? Coke hopes to sell two billion "plantbottle" drinks by the end of this year. Environmental groups are saying it's a slight improvement, but the biggest problem here is consumer behavior. No matter what the bottles are made of, not nearly enough consumers recycle the containers they drink out of. Another issue is ethanol itself. When the impact of growing the sugar cane and converting it to ethanol is assessed, not to mention transporting the bottles all over the world, is the "plantbottle" truly an eco-option?
The best option for consumers who want to tread lightly remains the same as it has always been, despite new advances in bottle design: consume less. Fears about tap water safety can be assuaged with a simple in-home faucet filter and a reusable bottle.
Click here for a Treehugger assessment of the five best in-home water filters.
Click here for water safety information from the Environmental Working Group.
Friday, January 22, 2010
True Spin Conference: Day Two
Well it’s the end of the second and last day here at the conference. The keynote speech by Rashal Robinson of GLAAD was really great and so were a second day of workshops. I attended Jed Alpert’s section on Mobile Advocacy/Engagement, in which the issues of how cell phones can be a part of advocacy work were discussed. According to Alpert, as well as many of the active participants in the room, we’ve already reached the era of campaigns putting mobile phones to use, as a method of informing, engaging, and mobilizing people. In turn we discussed how this strategy often attracts more media attention, and how to continue using this strategy in future campaigns and goals.
Today I also did something rather shocking for anyone who knows me. I did not attend the session titled “Real-Life Success with Twitter.” Of course, I love Twitter and I am obviously a huge advocate of the tool, but instead I ventured to a session titled “How to Pitch to the Disappearing Mainstream Media.” Although working for a Foundation I’m not involved in pitching stories to the media, I am interested in how non-profit organizations are able to get their messages heard. Particularly as we see the homogenization of the mainstream media, and organizations look towards alternative and ethnic media to be heard. The session was very interesting and involved a discussion about building relationships with mainstream newspapers, emphasis on local TV news, better research and other tactics to reach mainstream reporters.
The last workshop of the day I attended was almost a nice combination of both of the morning sessions, and involved a conversation about tradition and new media. The panel allowed for the opportunity to hear strategies on how to balance a multi-platform approach to messaging in the new media environment, recognizing that traditional methods of communication still is a constant in the changing landscape of communications. The participants were encouraged to use these traditional kinds of communication and evaluate each strategies strengths and weaknesses.
Thanks to all who made the past two days such a great success!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
True Spin Conference: Day One
Today has been a great first day at the 2010 True Spin Conference so far. I attended some really great informative panels including one hosted by Dean Hollander, the leader of Fenton Communication’s Interactive and New Media Communications Division. This session reviewed ways in which different people and organizations are talking about a wide range of progressive issues online. He also presented an overview of how to use these kinds of tools and insights to develop more effective and engaging content. It was great to hear from Hollander because I think he helped put some of the new media strategies into perspective, without overwhelming organizations that may be slower to adopt these new kinds of technologies.
Following this first session, I stopped briefly into two different sessions; the first a session on the power of advocacy networks and a second session on how to measure social media which had a very interesting discussion on how to make sure your organization isn’t wasting staff time and resources and how to improve your social media “Return on Investments” (ROI).
We’re just finishing up lunch and both Reverend Billy, and Andy Goodman, of the Goodman Institute (and author of some great books such as Why Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes) were dynamic speakers who are able to engage the audience in very different ways.
Shortly I’ll be heading to this afternoon workshops, and plan to attend Heather Mansfield and Rashad Robinson’s session, titled “Real-Life Success with Facebook.” The session will investigate how groups are accomplishing their goals and objectives using Facebook, as well as hopefully give us the opportunity to hear stories of how progressive organizations use the tool to score media coverage with more traditional media outlets. I think it’ll be interesting to learn about how younger generations in particular are engaging these tools, and seeing as how the younger generation is more progressive, understanding how to take advantage of these kinds of tools.
Following this first session, I stopped briefly into two different sessions; the first a session on the power of advocacy networks and a second session on how to measure social media which had a very interesting discussion on how to make sure your organization isn’t wasting staff time and resources and how to improve your social media “Return on Investments” (ROI).
We’re just finishing up lunch and both Reverend Billy, and Andy Goodman, of the Goodman Institute (and author of some great books such as Why Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes) were dynamic speakers who are able to engage the audience in very different ways.
Shortly I’ll be heading to this afternoon workshops, and plan to attend Heather Mansfield and Rashad Robinson’s session, titled “Real-Life Success with Facebook.” The session will investigate how groups are accomplishing their goals and objectives using Facebook, as well as hopefully give us the opportunity to hear stories of how progressive organizations use the tool to score media coverage with more traditional media outlets. I think it’ll be interesting to learn about how younger generations in particular are engaging these tools, and seeing as how the younger generation is more progressive, understanding how to take advantage of these kinds of tools.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
True Spin Conference: A Preview
Tomorrow and Friday and I’ll be in Denver, Colorado for the 2010 True Spin Conference a national conference on communications for progressives. The conference brings together some of America’s best progressive PR practitioners for two days of panels, practical workshops, networking and fun. It’s a unique opportunity for progressive advocacy groups from around the country to exchange ideas and learn new and creative public relations tactics.
Although this is my first year attending the conference it was first held back in 2006. Currently, the conference is held every two years, with the most recent conference being held in 2008, where it brought together over 225 people. For a list of past registrants and speakers, as well as audio recordings of workshops and panels from 2006 and 2008 you can check them out here.
Some great speakers for this year’s conference include Karl Frisch, of Media Matters for America, Martin Kearns of Green Media Toolshed, Rashad Robinson of GLAAD, and David Sirota, author of Hostile Takeover. To check out all the speakers and their bios, click here. You can also find a partial list of participants by going to the True Spin Conference home page. It’s interesting to note the wide range of people that will be attending, from Foundations to non-profit executives, to public relations professionals and media executives. I think this speaks to the importance of having targeted progressive communications strategies for the broad range of issues that are represented here at the conference, from the environment to human rights.
Not planning on making the trip to Denver but interested in checking out the full list of workshops and schedules? Click here. Tomorrow’s program includes an introduction and keynote speech by Holly Minch, titled “Common Challenges, Uncommon Solutions”, followed by a series of interesting panels including “The Power of Advocacy Networks”, “Evaluating Communications in the Nonprofit World” and “Crisis Communications: How to Respond to Unwanted Media Attention”, just to name a few. Later on in the week, I’ll be interested in attending the panel on “Mobile Advocacy/Engagement”, and “Real-Life Success with Twitter.” It’s great to see that this conference is taking such an active interest in learning how mobile strategies and new Web 2.0 technologies can aid in progressive causes. I really do think that this is the way of the future. Both as someone who works for a foundation, and as graduate student in media and communication, I’ll be very interested in learning how organizations are able to take advantage of the tools that are available to them in order to foster their advocacy work.
If you want to follow the conference on online via Twitter, you can find it at @TrueSpinner. If you’re here in Denver and tweeting from the event, be sure to use the hashtag #truespin. And of course, a very special thanks to Effect Communications, a Denver based communication firm that is sponsoring the two-day event. Also, be sure to sign up for the free Progressive PR newsletter by visiting www.truespinconference.com/jobs. I’m looking forward to the next few days!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Obama Admin Considers Aquaculture in Federal Waters
Within the next five to seven months, the Obama administration is expected to come up with new rules for aquaculture operations in federal waters.
Today, fish farms are confined to operating within three miles off United States' shorelines. In 2005 the Bush administration proposed extending aquaculture to federal waters beyond that three-mile radius, but Congress voted against it due to fears of waste pollution, antibiotics and pesticides commonly used in fish farming.
These environmental concerns still exist, but Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat of Santa Barbara, has introduced legislation that would establish new environmental regulations allowing safe aquaculture in federal waters. Capps and supporters believe the economic opportunities for the U.S., a country that imports over 80 percent of its seafood and over half of that from fish farms, are too great to pass up. With a new set of enforceable regulations, aquaculture can be developed responsibly and sustainably on larger scales off U.S. shores. Under Capps' plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would establish a new office that would deal only with aquaculture -- determining which fish are appropriate to farm in which waters, giving ten-year permits and regulating them through environmental impact studies.
As good as this sounds, aquaculture still remains highly controversial. Environmental groups point to public health risks posed by water pollution, as well as to diseases introduced to wild populations already threatened by overfishing.
Ted Dunn, a long-time commercial fisherman interviewed in November by the San Diego News Network said of aquaculture, "I don't know of anything else. Instead of environmental groups fighting it head on, I think people should come together and find out how to do it." Read the entire San Diego News Network article on aquaculture here.
Jonathan Safran Foer's newest book, Eating Animals, includes a chapter on fish farming he calls "Our Underwater Sadism." Check out Foer's book here.
Wherever you fall on the aquaculture spectrum, the debate in the next several months promises to be a heated one. We can only hope any new regulations are made with science, environmental stewardship and public health as priorities over immediate economic benefit, and not the other way around.
Today, fish farms are confined to operating within three miles off United States' shorelines. In 2005 the Bush administration proposed extending aquaculture to federal waters beyond that three-mile radius, but Congress voted against it due to fears of waste pollution, antibiotics and pesticides commonly used in fish farming.
These environmental concerns still exist, but Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat of Santa Barbara, has introduced legislation that would establish new environmental regulations allowing safe aquaculture in federal waters. Capps and supporters believe the economic opportunities for the U.S., a country that imports over 80 percent of its seafood and over half of that from fish farms, are too great to pass up. With a new set of enforceable regulations, aquaculture can be developed responsibly and sustainably on larger scales off U.S. shores. Under Capps' plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would establish a new office that would deal only with aquaculture -- determining which fish are appropriate to farm in which waters, giving ten-year permits and regulating them through environmental impact studies.
As good as this sounds, aquaculture still remains highly controversial. Environmental groups point to public health risks posed by water pollution, as well as to diseases introduced to wild populations already threatened by overfishing.
Ted Dunn, a long-time commercial fisherman interviewed in November by the San Diego News Network said of aquaculture, "I don't know of anything else. Instead of environmental groups fighting it head on, I think people should come together and find out how to do it." Read the entire San Diego News Network article on aquaculture here.
Jonathan Safran Foer's newest book, Eating Animals, includes a chapter on fish farming he calls "Our Underwater Sadism." Check out Foer's book here.
Wherever you fall on the aquaculture spectrum, the debate in the next several months promises to be a heated one. We can only hope any new regulations are made with science, environmental stewardship and public health as priorities over immediate economic benefit, and not the other way around.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Women's Health Care: Not Under the Bus
If you’ve been following the great work of The Women’s Media Center lately, you may already know about their campaign for women’s health care called Not Under The Bus. Launched by WMC last year, NotUnderTheBus.com aims to amplify the voices of women and organizations that are devoted to a health care reform that is fair to women, by using the full power of old and new media. It calls on all women and men who support women’s equality to take the initiative and start “driving the bus” right down to the White House to get their voices heard. Its goal is to pass health reform that makes women’s health care fair, safe and covered for all.
This new campaign and website aim to serve as a platform for a unified media message that supports and defends women’s rights in the national health care reform debate. To watch a brief video about the campaign, click here.
The site provides some great news and commentary. Yesterday was the “Not Under the Bus Action Day”. To see a sampling of what the media, the blogs and other organizations say about their work, click here. The site also provides great information on where you can go to sign petitions on this issue, petitions organized by groups like NARAL, Feminist Majority, and the ACLU.
If you want to join Not Under The Bus and tell Congress to stop turning the clock back on women’s rights, sign their petition and spread the word to your family, friends and co-workers. Be sure to also check out their timeline which details the important dates and issues in the health care reform debate. They also have a great list of links to like minded organizations so you can check out what other great groups are up to, as well as tips on how to write-op-eds and blog posts to share your own voice and views.
This new campaign and website aim to serve as a platform for a unified media message that supports and defends women’s rights in the national health care reform debate. To watch a brief video about the campaign, click here.
The site provides some great news and commentary. Yesterday was the “Not Under the Bus Action Day”. To see a sampling of what the media, the blogs and other organizations say about their work, click here. The site also provides great information on where you can go to sign petitions on this issue, petitions organized by groups like NARAL, Feminist Majority, and the ACLU.
If you want to join Not Under The Bus and tell Congress to stop turning the clock back on women’s rights, sign their petition and spread the word to your family, friends and co-workers. Be sure to also check out their timeline which details the important dates and issues in the health care reform debate. They also have a great list of links to like minded organizations so you can check out what other great groups are up to, as well as tips on how to write-op-eds and blog posts to share your own voice and views.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Debate on the Future of Renewable Energy
With an inconclusive end to the Copenhagen conference and grumblings that the U.S. Senate is dragging its heels on climate legislation, the country's energy future is in the news.
Yesterday's New York Times published a series of short responses on the future of renewable energy, which has been creating somewhat of a divide between environmentalists -- some of whom push for solar and wind power as an antidote to greenhouse-gas producing coal, and some of whom fear vast solar plants and wind farms will just create new problems by destroying natural habitat.
The Times' "Green Civil War: Projects vs. Preservation" covers a range of opinions on the direction the country's new energy future should take. One thing all contributors can agree on: we are on the brink of forging a new relationship to energy. What remains undecided it just what that new relationship will look like.
Energy analyst Randy Udall starts the dialogue with a pragmatic outlook. Americans, he writes, "insist on consuming our body weight in petroleum each week, but god forbid we see an oil well." Using already threatened natural habitats for new solar and wind farms is an unfortunate trade-off, according to Udall, but the alternative is continuing the one-way path of carbon emissions, peak oil and climate change. One way or the other we have to make some sort of sacrifice to maintain our current lifestyles.
David Roberts of Grist, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has a somewhat more visionary and optimistic view. Why stick to the idea that energy has to come from one, monolithic, centralized company? Why not create a new model in which solar panels pave every parking lot and roof? Why not have small wind turbines on bridges or backyards? According to Roberts' vision, energy production will redistribute social and economic systems so communities can control their own production and use. "'Consumers' become producers, managers and innovators," Roberts writes.
Ileene Anderson, a biologist and public lands desert director of the Center for Biological Diversity has a similar view. Let's throw out the utility-centric model, she writes, and create a system in which energy production is distributed. Protected lands need not be used for solar panels or wind farms. Anderson believes the conflict arising among environmentalists (whether to use natural habitats for renewable energy) is only a result of poor planning, and easily resolved. Let's use parking lots, rooftops, brownfields and former agricultural lands, not wildlife corridors or endangered species habitat.
Winona LaDuke, program director of the Honor the Earth Fund, looks at renewable energy plans as having great potential for Native America. LaDuke claims tribal lands hold more than 535 billion kwh per year in wind power potential, and over 17,000 billion kwh per year in solar energy potential. Renewable projects on reservations would provide a significant piece of the national energy puzzle, create jobs and bring wealth to Native communities and reservations.
Read the dialogue, readers' responses or contribute yourself here.
Yesterday's New York Times published a series of short responses on the future of renewable energy, which has been creating somewhat of a divide between environmentalists -- some of whom push for solar and wind power as an antidote to greenhouse-gas producing coal, and some of whom fear vast solar plants and wind farms will just create new problems by destroying natural habitat.
The Times' "Green Civil War: Projects vs. Preservation" covers a range of opinions on the direction the country's new energy future should take. One thing all contributors can agree on: we are on the brink of forging a new relationship to energy. What remains undecided it just what that new relationship will look like.
Energy analyst Randy Udall starts the dialogue with a pragmatic outlook. Americans, he writes, "insist on consuming our body weight in petroleum each week, but god forbid we see an oil well." Using already threatened natural habitats for new solar and wind farms is an unfortunate trade-off, according to Udall, but the alternative is continuing the one-way path of carbon emissions, peak oil and climate change. One way or the other we have to make some sort of sacrifice to maintain our current lifestyles.
David Roberts of Grist, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has a somewhat more visionary and optimistic view. Why stick to the idea that energy has to come from one, monolithic, centralized company? Why not create a new model in which solar panels pave every parking lot and roof? Why not have small wind turbines on bridges or backyards? According to Roberts' vision, energy production will redistribute social and economic systems so communities can control their own production and use. "'Consumers' become producers, managers and innovators," Roberts writes.
Ileene Anderson, a biologist and public lands desert director of the Center for Biological Diversity has a similar view. Let's throw out the utility-centric model, she writes, and create a system in which energy production is distributed. Protected lands need not be used for solar panels or wind farms. Anderson believes the conflict arising among environmentalists (whether to use natural habitats for renewable energy) is only a result of poor planning, and easily resolved. Let's use parking lots, rooftops, brownfields and former agricultural lands, not wildlife corridors or endangered species habitat.
Winona LaDuke, program director of the Honor the Earth Fund, looks at renewable energy plans as having great potential for Native America. LaDuke claims tribal lands hold more than 535 billion kwh per year in wind power potential, and over 17,000 billion kwh per year in solar energy potential. Renewable projects on reservations would provide a significant piece of the national energy puzzle, create jobs and bring wealth to Native communities and reservations.
Read the dialogue, readers' responses or contribute yourself here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
2009: A Terrible Year for Free Speech Online
Although it was hailed as the year that social media revolutionized the online world, it turns out 2009 was a terrible year for free speech online. At least, according to Clothilde Le Coz, the Washington director of Reporters Without Borders. In a recent article, Le Coz, the current Washington director for Reporters Without Borders, and whose current role is now to get the message out for readers and politicians to be aware of the constant threat journalists are submitted to in many countries, 2009 was an unprecedented year for online repression.
This might seem surprising, since people often refer to the internet as a point of liberation for journalists, bloggers and citizen activists and laud it as a vehicle for free expression. Unfortunately there are currently 100 bloggers and “cyber-dissidents” imprisoned worldwide as a result of posting their opinions online. Also alarming, the number of countries pursuing online censorship doubled this past year.
One of the worst offenders? China, which lead Internet censorship in 2009. Other countries such as Tunisia, Thailand, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan also blocked websites and blogs, and engaged in surveillance of online expression. Iran saw the most violence, during its elections this past summer, there were more than 100 arrests and many prison sentences were handed down. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran, which is on it’s “Enemies of The Internet List”, also deployed a sophisticated system of Internet filtering and monitoring, especially in recent months.
It’s not exactly surprising that the above countries have been some of the worst offenders to online expression. But democratic countries have also enacted online censorships. Some European nations are working on new stops to control the Internet, and Australia is also planning to set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression. To read the rest of Le Coz article, click here.
We hope that 2010 will be a better year for freedom of the press online. The Foundation looks forward to continuing to support freedom of the press both domestically and abroad.
This might seem surprising, since people often refer to the internet as a point of liberation for journalists, bloggers and citizen activists and laud it as a vehicle for free expression. Unfortunately there are currently 100 bloggers and “cyber-dissidents” imprisoned worldwide as a result of posting their opinions online. Also alarming, the number of countries pursuing online censorship doubled this past year.
One of the worst offenders? China, which lead Internet censorship in 2009. Other countries such as Tunisia, Thailand, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan also blocked websites and blogs, and engaged in surveillance of online expression. Iran saw the most violence, during its elections this past summer, there were more than 100 arrests and many prison sentences were handed down. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran, which is on it’s “Enemies of The Internet List”, also deployed a sophisticated system of Internet filtering and monitoring, especially in recent months.
It’s not exactly surprising that the above countries have been some of the worst offenders to online expression. But democratic countries have also enacted online censorships. Some European nations are working on new stops to control the Internet, and Australia is also planning to set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression. To read the rest of Le Coz article, click here.
We hope that 2010 will be a better year for freedom of the press online. The Foundation looks forward to continuing to support freedom of the press both domestically and abroad.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
"Rewilding the World" Excerpt in Scientific American
Scientific American's website posted an excerpt earlier this week from Caroline Fraser's new book "Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution."
Fraser's book comes at on opportune time as we kick-off the International Year of Biodiversity (see my post from 1/5.) She explores the concept of "rewilding" as antidote to the Sixth Great Extinction, a period of burgeoning loss of plant and animal life that scientists and conservationists warn is upon us. But instead of doom and gloom, Fraser has a positive outlook, seeming to trust in education and the ability of rewilding to improve not just the environment, but also the economy and society.
Fraser references the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, and writes about the "global experiment" humans are currently engaged in -- one in which we upset wildlife corridors, destroy natural habitat and separate systems that have evolved interdependently.
One way to reverse the current extinction rate, (now estimated to be more than 1,000 times greater than it would be without human influence), is to implement this idea of rewilding, described in Fraser's book. Conservation biologists Michael Soule and Reed Noss originally fleshed out the idea in a 1998 paper, dividing "rewilding"into three categories: Cores, Corridors and Carnivores. Fraser's book looks at those three in depth, but the basic idea is to preserve natural areas (cores), connect them (corridors), and maintain populations of predators (carnivores) that naturally evolved to keep ecosystems in balance.
Fraser writes with a surprisingly positive outlook, despite the sobering news. As we move forward, human disciplines will have to meld along with the natural corridors we are working to reconnect. Conservation biologists increasingly find themselves working with environmentalists, who are working more with grassroots groups and governments. Environmental stewardship is becoming an accepted link to economic well-being, job security, public health and overall quality of life.
Check out Caroline Fraser's book here.
Fraser's book comes at on opportune time as we kick-off the International Year of Biodiversity (see my post from 1/5.) She explores the concept of "rewilding" as antidote to the Sixth Great Extinction, a period of burgeoning loss of plant and animal life that scientists and conservationists warn is upon us. But instead of doom and gloom, Fraser has a positive outlook, seeming to trust in education and the ability of rewilding to improve not just the environment, but also the economy and society.
Fraser references the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, and writes about the "global experiment" humans are currently engaged in -- one in which we upset wildlife corridors, destroy natural habitat and separate systems that have evolved interdependently.
One way to reverse the current extinction rate, (now estimated to be more than 1,000 times greater than it would be without human influence), is to implement this idea of rewilding, described in Fraser's book. Conservation biologists Michael Soule and Reed Noss originally fleshed out the idea in a 1998 paper, dividing "rewilding"into three categories: Cores, Corridors and Carnivores. Fraser's book looks at those three in depth, but the basic idea is to preserve natural areas (cores), connect them (corridors), and maintain populations of predators (carnivores) that naturally evolved to keep ecosystems in balance.
Fraser writes with a surprisingly positive outlook, despite the sobering news. As we move forward, human disciplines will have to meld along with the natural corridors we are working to reconnect. Conservation biologists increasingly find themselves working with environmentalists, who are working more with grassroots groups and governments. Environmental stewardship is becoming an accepted link to economic well-being, job security, public health and overall quality of life.
Check out Caroline Fraser's book here.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
International Gay Rights Update
Over the past few months it seems the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage has been on the forefront of not just the domestic news, but the international news as well.
On December 21st, Mexico City became the Latin America’s first law recognizes gay marriage. The law, which was approved by city legislators will take effect this March. It will also allow same sex couples to legally adopt children. Same-sex civil unions are already legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, and some states in Mexico and Brazil, but this is the first time that gay marriage itself has been recognized.
Although there are clear victories for gay marriage, particularly in Latin America, there are other serious concerns about how homosexuality is treated in other parts of the world. For example, on Monday, The New York Times carried this article, titled “Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push” by Jeffrey Gettleman. The article describes the efforts in Uganda to criminalize and punish by death homosexual conduct. It points out the direct connection between the proposed anti-gay legislation and U.S. evangelical preachers in proselytizing in Uganda with anti-gay messages.
An Overbrook grantee, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is very active in the efforts to fight this legislation by developing international opposition to its adoption. IGLHRC, a leading international organization dedicated to human rights advocacy on behalf of people who experience discrimination or abuse on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, has been very effective in making the US fundamentalist connection visible and in calling out conservative US Congressmen who haven’t spoken up in opposition to the legislation. And of course, the issue of the criminality of homosexuality abroad is not limited to Uganda. For a recent post from IGLHRC on the status of a law criminalizing homosexuality in Rwanda, click here.
We often blog about gay marriage issues here in the United States, but will definitely be more diligent in following how these issues are being dealt with around the world as well.
On December 21st, Mexico City became the Latin America’s first law recognizes gay marriage. The law, which was approved by city legislators will take effect this March. It will also allow same sex couples to legally adopt children. Same-sex civil unions are already legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, and some states in Mexico and Brazil, but this is the first time that gay marriage itself has been recognized.
Although there are clear victories for gay marriage, particularly in Latin America, there are other serious concerns about how homosexuality is treated in other parts of the world. For example, on Monday, The New York Times carried this article, titled “Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push” by Jeffrey Gettleman. The article describes the efforts in Uganda to criminalize and punish by death homosexual conduct. It points out the direct connection between the proposed anti-gay legislation and U.S. evangelical preachers in proselytizing in Uganda with anti-gay messages.
An Overbrook grantee, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is very active in the efforts to fight this legislation by developing international opposition to its adoption. IGLHRC, a leading international organization dedicated to human rights advocacy on behalf of people who experience discrimination or abuse on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, has been very effective in making the US fundamentalist connection visible and in calling out conservative US Congressmen who haven’t spoken up in opposition to the legislation. And of course, the issue of the criminality of homosexuality abroad is not limited to Uganda. For a recent post from IGLHRC on the status of a law criminalizing homosexuality in Rwanda, click here.
We often blog about gay marriage issues here in the United States, but will definitely be more diligent in following how these issues are being dealt with around the world as well.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A New Year for Biodiversity Conservation?
When the ball dropped at 12:00 am on Friday, the International Year of Biodiversity began, in line with the United Nations' goal of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 (Target 2 of Millennium Development Goal 7.) If you were watching Times Square revelers on television, any regard to biodiversity conservation may have seemed ludicrous -- although this year's ball was designed with LED bulbs and only used the power of "two traditional home ovens," it descended in the midst of what is likely one of the most wasteful five-block radii in the world.
Any prominence environmental issues can gain in the media is good news, and declaring 2010 the year in which the international community will "halt" biodiversity loss is definitely worth celebrating. But on the heels of Copenhagen, it is difficult to believe a series of celebrations and talks will result in concrete legislation or change. Education and community involvement are always positive steps, but environmentalists disappointed with the nonbinding outcome of Copenhagen are justifiably skeptical.
A story in yesterday's New York Times addressed just this frustration, referring to the Copenhagen aftermath as a "vast legal tangle." The Copenhagen Accord, a document drafted in the waning hours of the conference, is ambitious yet legally unbinding. Critics are disappointed, viewing it as nothing more than four pages of suggestions for combating global warming.
At the same time, the Accord has supporters who see it as a great symbolic step, marking the first time ever that all major carbon emitters of the world have mutually agreed to cut their emissions. The Accord also calls on nations to declare their emissions targets to the UN (due at the end of this month), and states the necessity for the UN to monitor and enforce those commitments. The problem with these agreements is they remain unbinding, and plans for how the Accord will be implemented remain to be seen.
In the meantime, we can set our sights at home on the climate bill in the Senate which, despite rumors of postponement, is still expected to pass in some form in 2010.
Any prominence environmental issues can gain in the media is good news, and declaring 2010 the year in which the international community will "halt" biodiversity loss is definitely worth celebrating. But on the heels of Copenhagen, it is difficult to believe a series of celebrations and talks will result in concrete legislation or change. Education and community involvement are always positive steps, but environmentalists disappointed with the nonbinding outcome of Copenhagen are justifiably skeptical.
A story in yesterday's New York Times addressed just this frustration, referring to the Copenhagen aftermath as a "vast legal tangle." The Copenhagen Accord, a document drafted in the waning hours of the conference, is ambitious yet legally unbinding. Critics are disappointed, viewing it as nothing more than four pages of suggestions for combating global warming.
At the same time, the Accord has supporters who see it as a great symbolic step, marking the first time ever that all major carbon emitters of the world have mutually agreed to cut their emissions. The Accord also calls on nations to declare their emissions targets to the UN (due at the end of this month), and states the necessity for the UN to monitor and enforce those commitments. The problem with these agreements is they remain unbinding, and plans for how the Accord will be implemented remain to be seen.
In the meantime, we can set our sights at home on the climate bill in the Senate which, despite rumors of postponement, is still expected to pass in some form in 2010.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Lifted HIV Travel Ban Effective Today
Happy New Year! With the ushering in of a new year marks the end of a 22-year-old policy that was not only discriminatory and homophobic, but detrimental to public health. Of course we're referencing the HIV/AIDS travel ban. Since 1987, people from foreign countries with HIV/AIDS were not allowed to enter the United States. It also prevented the United States from effectively hosting conferences on international HIV/AIDS, since people living with HIV/AIDS were just about universally excluded and stopped at their home airports.
But not anymore! In October of last year President Obama announced that he would lift the HIV travel ban. Although the move comes over 20 years too late, it marks the first step in sending an important notice to the world that the U.S. is moving in the direction of fighting this global epidemic without fighting the people who have HIV/AIDS.
When announcing the lifting of the ban last year, President Obama said the ban was "rooted in fear rather than fact." In moving to end the HIV travel ban, the U.S. can also move forward with plans to host a 2012 international conference on HIV/AIDS. Immigration Equality, a group that worked tirelessly to lobby the White House to overturn the HIV travel ban, said that the original ban was pointless, and an irresponsible move to deal with HIV/AIDS in the 1980s.
Last year the United States was only one of a dozen countries that still barred the entry of people with HIV. Physicians for Human Rights, which shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to ban landmines, described the policy change as "monumental."
Friday, December 18, 2009
REDD Controversial Among Indigenous Groups
Hailed by some as the one solid triumph likely to come out of Copenhagen, REDD, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plan, is garnering the ire of indigenous activist groups and environmentalists.
According to an article in Investigate West, opponents are calling REDD "a new form of colonialism," in which large corporations from developed countries could buy and sell indigenous lands as commodities, getting richer off of far-away lands "preserved" in exchange for unmitigated carbon emissions at home. There is no provision to ensure forests are maintained in their natural state, giving companies carbon offset credits for planting anything -- even a monoculture tree plantation in place of a mature, thriving ecosystem.
In Uruguay, for example, activists complained of a Pacific Northwest timber company that planted acres of pine and eucalyptus in an indigenous plains area. The natural ecosystem was not suited for forest, and indigenous people who were no longer able to survive in their native landscape were forced to move to towns and cities.
Activists are hoping their concerns about REDD and cap and trade will be heard and addressed. In the meantime, negotiations appear to be moving forward, and the agreement has generally been met with optimism.
Click here for a REDD cost and emissions reduction analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Click here for Brazil's answer to REDD: adding a provision so developed countries can only offset a small portion of their emissions through the program.
Click here for a Science Daily article that explores both sides of the REDD issue.
According to an article in Investigate West, opponents are calling REDD "a new form of colonialism," in which large corporations from developed countries could buy and sell indigenous lands as commodities, getting richer off of far-away lands "preserved" in exchange for unmitigated carbon emissions at home. There is no provision to ensure forests are maintained in their natural state, giving companies carbon offset credits for planting anything -- even a monoculture tree plantation in place of a mature, thriving ecosystem.
In Uruguay, for example, activists complained of a Pacific Northwest timber company that planted acres of pine and eucalyptus in an indigenous plains area. The natural ecosystem was not suited for forest, and indigenous people who were no longer able to survive in their native landscape were forced to move to towns and cities.
Activists are hoping their concerns about REDD and cap and trade will be heard and addressed. In the meantime, negotiations appear to be moving forward, and the agreement has generally been met with optimism.
Click here for a REDD cost and emissions reduction analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Click here for Brazil's answer to REDD: adding a provision so developed countries can only offset a small portion of their emissions through the program.
Click here for a Science Daily article that explores both sides of the REDD issue.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Victory for Low-Power FM Radio
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Local Community Radio Act (S. 592), which was sponsored by Sens. Maria Cantwell and John McCain. Its next hurdle will be facing the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the bill would allow for the creation of hundreds of new, low power FM radio stations dedicate to broadcasting community news and local perspectives to neighborhoods throughout the country. A full-Senate vote has yet to be scheduled, but it would represent the final step for the expansion of low power FM radio to become law. The passing of the bill in the House is a significant victory by media activists groups who have worked hard over the last few years to reach this point.
But, we’re not there yet. If you want to tell your senators to act now and support local radio, click here to sign the petition.
Of course, low-power FM radio isn’t the only battle the media reform movement is facing. Those in the movement are working particularly hard to ensure continued network neutrality. If you’re interested in learning more about network neutrality, specifically, in finding out where your House member stands on the issue, check out this new online tool, which allows you to map lawmakers’ views by state via a database searchable zip code.
As a reminder, network neutrality’s aim is to “preserve an Internet in which service providers cannot offer varying levels of quality depending on such variables as whether a content provider pays to be placed in a higher service tier.” There’s nothing more crucial to ensuring the continued access of information in the 21st century than this issue.
But, we’re not there yet. If you want to tell your senators to act now and support local radio, click here to sign the petition.
Of course, low-power FM radio isn’t the only battle the media reform movement is facing. Those in the movement are working particularly hard to ensure continued network neutrality. If you’re interested in learning more about network neutrality, specifically, in finding out where your House member stands on the issue, check out this new online tool, which allows you to map lawmakers’ views by state via a database searchable zip code.
As a reminder, network neutrality’s aim is to “preserve an Internet in which service providers cannot offer varying levels of quality depending on such variables as whether a content provider pays to be placed in a higher service tier.” There’s nothing more crucial to ensuring the continued access of information in the 21st century than this issue.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Forests Get Attention at Copenhagen
With only two more days left in the COP15 schedule, participants, protesters and observers from all over the globe are worried that nothing substantive will be decided. Yvo De Boer arrived at the talks yesterday with a life-preserver in tow, sending a stark signal to those who still may not get it: we are in a state of emergency, and something has to change.
One piece of good news and possible consensus is the agreement on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.) Under this program, countries would be compensated for preserving natural landscapes that, if not preserved, would result in even more emissions. Rainforest destruction is now estimated to account for about 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and peat bogs also act as large carbon sinks. The idea is that poor countries would be paid for preserving these carbon-holding landscapes, and more developed countries could gain carbon credits. (For example, a factory in the U.S. could earn the right to more emissions by investing in land preservation programs overseas.)
Some issues have yet to be resolved, like agreement on what exactly constitutes a "forest," and what exactly defines the land rights of indigenous people. Concern has also been voiced that oceans, which store vast amounts of carbon and are approaching dangerous levels of acidification, are exempt from the plan. But for now, REDD seems like a likely triumph in an otherwise inconclusive meeting.
The Environmental Grantmakers Association held a conference call today, live from Copenhagen. On the call, there was consensus that REDD is one of the quickest, easiest, and least expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If passed as expected, REDD would mark a step forward from Kyoto, (which the United States under the Bush administration infamously refused to sign.) The focus under Kyoto was emissions reduction, with no compensation given for preserving landscapes that naturally store carbon.
Shaun Paul, Executive Director of the EcoLogic Development Fund, participated in the call. Paul said because of governmental resistance to broad environmental legislation, now is the time to prove, through pilot projects, that sustainability works. Paul emphasized that small grants and philanthropy are particularly important and influential now, and through the projects they make possible could be the last push governments need to feel secure in signing climate legislation.
Sarah Christiansen of the Solidago Foundation, another participant on the call, said one positive outcome of Copenhagen has been the tremendous outpouring of grassroots support. Christiansen said that despite media attention to violent protest, overall protesters have been peaceful, and grassroots activists from all economic and cultural backgrounds have bonded over a common cause.
Rachel Leon of EGA called COP15 an "unprecedented event."
If nothing concrete aside from REDD comes out of Copenhagen, at least we can say that voices were heard, frustrations released and connections made for future work. The problem is, our window of future opportunity grows smaller by the minute.
One piece of good news and possible consensus is the agreement on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.) Under this program, countries would be compensated for preserving natural landscapes that, if not preserved, would result in even more emissions. Rainforest destruction is now estimated to account for about 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and peat bogs also act as large carbon sinks. The idea is that poor countries would be paid for preserving these carbon-holding landscapes, and more developed countries could gain carbon credits. (For example, a factory in the U.S. could earn the right to more emissions by investing in land preservation programs overseas.)
Some issues have yet to be resolved, like agreement on what exactly constitutes a "forest," and what exactly defines the land rights of indigenous people. Concern has also been voiced that oceans, which store vast amounts of carbon and are approaching dangerous levels of acidification, are exempt from the plan. But for now, REDD seems like a likely triumph in an otherwise inconclusive meeting.
The Environmental Grantmakers Association held a conference call today, live from Copenhagen. On the call, there was consensus that REDD is one of the quickest, easiest, and least expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If passed as expected, REDD would mark a step forward from Kyoto, (which the United States under the Bush administration infamously refused to sign.) The focus under Kyoto was emissions reduction, with no compensation given for preserving landscapes that naturally store carbon.
Shaun Paul, Executive Director of the EcoLogic Development Fund, participated in the call. Paul said because of governmental resistance to broad environmental legislation, now is the time to prove, through pilot projects, that sustainability works. Paul emphasized that small grants and philanthropy are particularly important and influential now, and through the projects they make possible could be the last push governments need to feel secure in signing climate legislation.
Sarah Christiansen of the Solidago Foundation, another participant on the call, said one positive outcome of Copenhagen has been the tremendous outpouring of grassroots support. Christiansen said that despite media attention to violent protest, overall protesters have been peaceful, and grassroots activists from all economic and cultural backgrounds have bonded over a common cause.
Rachel Leon of EGA called COP15 an "unprecedented event."
If nothing concrete aside from REDD comes out of Copenhagen, at least we can say that voices were heard, frustrations released and connections made for future work. The problem is, our window of future opportunity grows smaller by the minute.
Department of State Creates a New Website for Human Rights
In an important step for domestic human rights yesterday the Department of State created a new website in connection with its participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process. This process involves a review of the human rights records of each of the 192 UN Member States once every four years. The United States own human rights record will be reviewed in December of next year based on a report that the government will submit, as well as input from various civil society organizations.
To check out the website created, click here. An important feature of the new website will be a standard “inbox” in which ideas, comments and analysis from civil society on issues relating to human rights can be sent. They are also committed to an outreach process to engage with organizations, including not-profits, citizens groups and grassroots organizations.
The Department of State hopes that “this website will facilitate communication between civil society and the United States government before, during, and after the preparation of the U.S. report to the UN Human Rights Council.”
The creation of this website shows signs of a real dedication around the issues of human rights both here at home in the United States and abroad. It also is promising that they are engaging the communities that are involved in this issue and inviting them to be a part of the process. Let’s hope that it remains as transparent a process as possible, and that it is only the first of many steps in creating a framework of a domestic human rights agenda.
To check out the website created, click here. An important feature of the new website will be a standard “inbox” in which ideas, comments and analysis from civil society on issues relating to human rights can be sent. They are also committed to an outreach process to engage with organizations, including not-profits, citizens groups and grassroots organizations.
The Department of State hopes that “this website will facilitate communication between civil society and the United States government before, during, and after the preparation of the U.S. report to the UN Human Rights Council.”
The creation of this website shows signs of a real dedication around the issues of human rights both here at home in the United States and abroad. It also is promising that they are engaging the communities that are involved in this issue and inviting them to be a part of the process. Let’s hope that it remains as transparent a process as possible, and that it is only the first of many steps in creating a framework of a domestic human rights agenda.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Urban Agenda presents the Green-Collar Jobs Roadmap
Urban Agenda and the Center for American Progress presented their New York City Green Collar Jobs Roadmap this morning at Philanthropy New York, facilitating a discussion between grantmakers, educators, and representatives from community groups and NGOs.
The Roadmap is the product of the Green-Collar Jobs Roundtable, an advisory board of over 170 organizations, including labor unions, job training programs and businesses. Led by Urban Agenda, the Roundtable compiled data on the current status of green jobs in New York City, and used that data to develop over 30 recommendations for an efficient path into a greener economy. Joanne Derwin, co-founder and executive director of Urban Agenda, explained that a main goal of the Roundtable, and the resulting Roadmap, is to implement real change without just adding another study to a shelf.
J. Mijin Cha, Director of Campaign Research, led the meeting with Derwin and emphasized an important new distinction in the green jobs discussion: green jobs are no longer just jobs that have something to do with environmental sustainability. From now on, green jobs must also be good jobs -- with standards such as benefits, occupational safety and health, opportunity for training and growth, and the inclusion of marginalized communities held as imperatives for the green collar economy to succeed. According to the Roundtable, from now on environmental sustainability includes human sustainability.
So where does the Roadmap go from here? One important step is to make sure Plan 2030, New York City's plan to reduce emissions 30 percent by 2030, uses green job creation as a marker of success. Another step is to include environmental education into the New York City public school systems. A final and essential goal is to shift the thinking of labor unions, businesses and the workforce in such a way that green-collar jobs and sustainability are viewed as essential components of economic development, and necessary steps to pulling the city out of recession.
Click here for an article on the environment/economy link in Social Europe Journal.
Click here for the full New York City Green Collar Jobs Roadmap.
The Roadmap is the product of the Green-Collar Jobs Roundtable, an advisory board of over 170 organizations, including labor unions, job training programs and businesses. Led by Urban Agenda, the Roundtable compiled data on the current status of green jobs in New York City, and used that data to develop over 30 recommendations for an efficient path into a greener economy. Joanne Derwin, co-founder and executive director of Urban Agenda, explained that a main goal of the Roundtable, and the resulting Roadmap, is to implement real change without just adding another study to a shelf.
J. Mijin Cha, Director of Campaign Research, led the meeting with Derwin and emphasized an important new distinction in the green jobs discussion: green jobs are no longer just jobs that have something to do with environmental sustainability. From now on, green jobs must also be good jobs -- with standards such as benefits, occupational safety and health, opportunity for training and growth, and the inclusion of marginalized communities held as imperatives for the green collar economy to succeed. According to the Roundtable, from now on environmental sustainability includes human sustainability.
So where does the Roadmap go from here? One important step is to make sure Plan 2030, New York City's plan to reduce emissions 30 percent by 2030, uses green job creation as a marker of success. Another step is to include environmental education into the New York City public school systems. A final and essential goal is to shift the thinking of labor unions, businesses and the workforce in such a way that green-collar jobs and sustainability are viewed as essential components of economic development, and necessary steps to pulling the city out of recession.
Click here for an article on the environment/economy link in Social Europe Journal.
Click here for the full New York City Green Collar Jobs Roadmap.
Houston Elects Gay Mayor
Over the weekend, Houston, TX became the largest city to elect an openly gay mayor as city controller. Annise Parker, an open lesbian, claimed a solid victory over her rival; Parker had 53 per cent of the vote and her opponent Gene Locke (who is also a Democrat) had 47 per cent. Hardly surprising, throughout her campaign she enjoyed the support of gay and lesbian political organizations nationwide. Parker has worked in Houston as a city administrator for the past 1 years, both on the city council and as city controller. Parker will take office in January 2010; she will replace Bill White who could not run because of term limits.
This is not just a victory for gay rights, but also for women's rights as well. Her election also made her the second woman to become mayor of Houston. It will interesting to see what affect her election will have on the issue of gay rights in the state. A few years ago, Houston rejected a referendum to offer benefits to same-sex partners of city workers. Also, in the state of Texas, gay marriage is against the law.
Smaller cities in the United States, such as Portland, Oregon, Providence, Rhode Island, and Cambridge Massachusetts also have openly gay mayors.
This is not just a victory for gay rights, but also for women's rights as well. Her election also made her the second woman to become mayor of Houston. It will interesting to see what affect her election will have on the issue of gay rights in the state. A few years ago, Houston rejected a referendum to offer benefits to same-sex partners of city workers. Also, in the state of Texas, gay marriage is against the law.
Smaller cities in the United States, such as Portland, Oregon, Providence, Rhode Island, and Cambridge Massachusetts also have openly gay mayors.
Congratulations to Parker for becoming the first openly gay woman to be mayor of a major American city!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
New Jersey and DC on Gay Marriage
We followed the civil marriage debate in last week’s New York State Senate pretty closely. And obviously we were disappointed by the outcome. However, there may be a chance for New Jersey to take an important step forward on this issue later this week. A bill that would allow same-sex marriages in the state appears to be headed to its state Senate for a vote on Thursday after it was released by a committee on Monday morning. It was narrowly approved (7-6) after over eight hours of debate and testimony.
The bill includes an amendment to clarify that religious organizations would not be forced to sanction or participate in a marriage that they “disagreed with.”
It’s unclear whether or not this bill will pass in the Senate tomorrow. It has serious opponents that are organizing to block the measure. For example, The New Jersey Catholic Conference recently delivered more than 150,000 signatures asking legislators to enforce civil union law instead of approving a same-sex marriage bill.
It would be great if New Jersey passes the bill tomorrow, especially after the two significant setbacks of New York last week and Maine earlier this fall. If it does in fact pass, it would join five other states that allow gay couples to wed. Advocates hope to pass the bill in the legislature so Governor Jon Corzine (who supports the bill) can sign it into law before he leaves office next month. The timing is crucial because Republic Chris Christie, who defeated Corzine and will take over as Governor said that he would veto any gay marriage legislation.
There is also some other good news to report out of Washington D.C. Its city council voted 11-2 earlier this month to approve the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The United States Congress will have 30 days to take action on the act. Congress can choose to either vote on the bill, or they can choose to let it go into law as it is. If they decide not to act then same sex couples would be allowed to marry in Washington D.C.
The bill includes an amendment to clarify that religious organizations would not be forced to sanction or participate in a marriage that they “disagreed with.”
It’s unclear whether or not this bill will pass in the Senate tomorrow. It has serious opponents that are organizing to block the measure. For example, The New Jersey Catholic Conference recently delivered more than 150,000 signatures asking legislators to enforce civil union law instead of approving a same-sex marriage bill.
It would be great if New Jersey passes the bill tomorrow, especially after the two significant setbacks of New York last week and Maine earlier this fall. If it does in fact pass, it would join five other states that allow gay couples to wed. Advocates hope to pass the bill in the legislature so Governor Jon Corzine (who supports the bill) can sign it into law before he leaves office next month. The timing is crucial because Republic Chris Christie, who defeated Corzine and will take over as Governor said that he would veto any gay marriage legislation.
There is also some other good news to report out of Washington D.C. Its city council voted 11-2 earlier this month to approve the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The United States Congress will have 30 days to take action on the act. Congress can choose to either vote on the bill, or they can choose to let it go into law as it is. If they decide not to act then same sex couples would be allowed to marry in Washington D.C.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
New York Senate Rejects Same-Sex Marriage
For some time here in New York, gay rights advocates and their supporters have been pushing lawmakers to take up the gay marriage question. While our state already recognizes same-sex marriages that have been performed in other states, it does not currently allow same-sex marriage at home. So it was an extremely disappointing decision yesterday when the New York State Senate rejected the Marriage Equality Bill (S4401) by a vote of 38 to 24. Although New York Governor David Paterson supported the bill, and the state Assembly had already passed it, it clearly didn’t have enough support to pass the marriage law. Not surprisingly, not one Republic voted “Yes” for the bill, and several democrats voted against it. For a full list of how the Senate voted, click here.
Same sex couples can legally marry in five states, four of them in the northeast. Now that New York has unfortunately missed this opportunity, we’ll be keeping our eye on New Jersey, where the legislature is expected to vote on gay marriage in the next month or so. Yesterday, over two hundred New Jersey democrats, including lawmakers, lobbyists and activists, issued a letter calling for the gay marriage vote. It’ll be close; a recent poll showed that voters there support legalizing same-sex marriage by a mere four point margin. Unfortunately newly-elected Republic Governor Chris Christie said he would veto any such bill.
It’s obviously disheartening that our state missed this opportunity to take a stand for equality and put an end to gender discrimination. It’s tough to deal with set backs like yesterdays, and like the ones recently in California and Maine, but those working in the equality movement will continue to persevere. The fight is just beginning.
Same sex couples can legally marry in five states, four of them in the northeast. Now that New York has unfortunately missed this opportunity, we’ll be keeping our eye on New Jersey, where the legislature is expected to vote on gay marriage in the next month or so. Yesterday, over two hundred New Jersey democrats, including lawmakers, lobbyists and activists, issued a letter calling for the gay marriage vote. It’ll be close; a recent poll showed that voters there support legalizing same-sex marriage by a mere four point margin. Unfortunately newly-elected Republic Governor Chris Christie said he would veto any such bill.
It’s obviously disheartening that our state missed this opportunity to take a stand for equality and put an end to gender discrimination. It’s tough to deal with set backs like yesterdays, and like the ones recently in California and Maine, but those working in the equality movement will continue to persevere. The fight is just beginning.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Copenhagen Predictions
Predicting the outcome of next week's UN climate summit at Copenhagen is almost as difficult as predicting global warming trends decades down the line. Things are looking up, though, as more world leaders than originally expected are committing to attend the conference. Ninety-eight of 192 UN member nations will send representatives to the conference, up from an expected 65 only one month ago.
The Independent published a "Copenhagen summit at a glance" today, listing the main goals and topics of discussion. A few highlights include:
1) The Copenhagen agreement, a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol ending on the last day of 2012, will attempt to hold global temperatures at 2 degrees Celcius above the pre-industrial level. Developed countries will be urged to cut their emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
2) It is expected that developing countries will not be held to such a strict standard, but will be required to show they are moving away from "business as usual" and are taking measures to grow their economies responsibly.
3) The new agreement is also expected to include provisions to halt deforestation.
It remains to be seen if these and a host of additional recommendations will be accepted by the global community. Scientists warn that meaningful policy changes to hold temperatures at or below the 2 degree rise are imperative, and any agreement resulting in less will be disastrous to human society. At the same time, constituents who have the power to influence policy have thus far been apathetic.
Perhaps because global warming progresses slowly and is not immediately apparent, people fail to see it as an imminent and prominent threat. But this lack of appreciation seems to be changing, if slowly. We don't know what the political outcome of Copenhagen will be, but if nothing else it is bringing renewed prominence to the issue.
Click to see a new art exhibition at the Royal Academy in London, showcasing thirty international artists' responses to global climate change.
The Independent published a "Copenhagen summit at a glance" today, listing the main goals and topics of discussion. A few highlights include:
1) The Copenhagen agreement, a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol ending on the last day of 2012, will attempt to hold global temperatures at 2 degrees Celcius above the pre-industrial level. Developed countries will be urged to cut their emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
2) It is expected that developing countries will not be held to such a strict standard, but will be required to show they are moving away from "business as usual" and are taking measures to grow their economies responsibly.
3) The new agreement is also expected to include provisions to halt deforestation.
It remains to be seen if these and a host of additional recommendations will be accepted by the global community. Scientists warn that meaningful policy changes to hold temperatures at or below the 2 degree rise are imperative, and any agreement resulting in less will be disastrous to human society. At the same time, constituents who have the power to influence policy have thus far been apathetic.
Perhaps because global warming progresses slowly and is not immediately apparent, people fail to see it as an imminent and prominent threat. But this lack of appreciation seems to be changing, if slowly. We don't know what the political outcome of Copenhagen will be, but if nothing else it is bringing renewed prominence to the issue.
Click to see a new art exhibition at the Royal Academy in London, showcasing thirty international artists' responses to global climate change.
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.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
