Last week the BlueGreen Alliance, a collaboration begun in 2006 by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, convened in Washington, D.C. for its annual Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference. The conference, although packed with hopeful discussions and plenaries on greening up America's power grid, proceeded under the looming (and surprisingly undiscussed) reality of the unstoppable geyser of oil billowing into the Gulf of Mexico. And although a series of inspiring speakers from both environmentalist and Union perspectives talked about joining forces to bring clean energy jobs back to a new America, it was hard to believe the change they spoke of was anything close to what will be necessary to wean our culture from its greenhouse gas addiction.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke early on the first morning of the conference, kicking off the three days with crowd-pleasing lines. Met with cheers, Pelosi likened our current "Green Revolution" to the Technological Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. We have, Pelosi said, a "moral responsibility to protect God's planet."
But in a smaller talk later in the day, Dick Williams of Shell said in his thirty-year career with the company, he's never once been asked to do anything "immoral, unsafe or unethical" for the company. Obviously there is some difference of opinion on the morality of drilling for oil, and just what constitutes "protecting God's planet."
Williams has recently been appointed President of Shell Wind, but seemed to view it as a fledgling crutch designed solely to offset the carbon footprint of the rest of the company. And with only about 50 people on the payroll of Shell Wind, many of the Union workers in the audience were left frustrated, feeling that Green jobs in renewable industries remain somewhat elusive. A woman in the audience complained the industry has yet to welcome Union members. Others corroborated, saying the renewable industry too often hires contract workers and won't offer benefits or steady work. It still behooves workers to go to oil and gas jobs over green jobs.
But in part, the conference was designed precisely to bring attention to those hurdles. In a plenary session, Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers, spoke of the need to make Green Jobs more accessible and easier to get in the U.S. "What's the difference between having to rely on Chinese wind turbines versus Mideast oil?" Gerard asked.
The difference, of course, from an environmentalist's perspective, is that at least wind turbines are "clean" once they're working, no matter where they were manufactured. This distinction emphasized an interesting split between the environmental contingent and the Steelworker contingent. One side is motivated more by helping the planet, another by helping workers. During a smaller session, a representative from the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers said, "Historically, our biggest concern has been, what is this going to cost us?"
But perhaps motivations don't matter so much, when two factions share an end result.
Although the overall feeling of the conference was proactive and positive, the kinds of major shifts necessary -- and still possible, if industry and political leaders act quickly -- were not alluded to. Natural gas, nuclear, and even "clean coal" were included at different points in the conference with the rest of the "green" energies.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Experts Talk Climate at the Met
The PEN World Voices Festival of International Literature hosted a star-studded panel discussion last night at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, investigating the question that's on everyone's mind these days: what can we do about global warming? The program, titled "The Weather Report: What Can We Do?" featured leading scientists and writers such as James Hansen, Andrew Revkin and Bill McKibben. The discussion barreled past its posted 9:30 pm deadline and, judging by the excitement of the panelists, could have continued on into the night.
Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World and co-founder of the environmental Sophie Prize, began the evening. Gaarder posed a brilliant metaphor, comparing carbon in our atmosphere to a genie that has escaped from a lamp. Before the Industrial Revolution, Gaarder imagined, this "genie" screamed from inside the lamp, "Let me out!" Now the genie has escaped, and we are desperately trying to push him back inside.
James Hansen spoke next, with the dispassionate certainty of a scientist who has been looking at the causes and implications of global warming for over thirty years. Hansen, who recently published the book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity," advocates a tax on oil, gas and coal that would require the industry to pay for its own damages. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, he says, people will use them, a practice that unequivocally must be stopped.
Bill McKibben agreed with Hansen that a new way of thinking about energy production and use is long overdue. The global warming ship has sailed, he said, and since stopping its progress completely is impossible, we need to find ways to mitigate and adapt. We have made the earth "a different place already," McKibben said, "and it will get much different still."
Even so, McKibben is far from disillusioned. The interest and excitement generated from his international campaign 350.org ("350" being the parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere scientists say is a tipping point against stabilizing global warming) has reinforced his belief that the will exists to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.
Andrew Revkin, drawing from a long career as an environmental reporter, introduced some sobering statistics toward the end of the evening. People living in the United States, Revkin said, have a higher per capita carbon footprint than any other population in the world. Each U.S. citizen is responsible for about 20 tons of carbon annually, compared with 10 tons per person in Europe, and about 6 tons in India and China. Even if all countries agreed to either shrink or cap per capita carbon output at 6 tons, 2050's projected population of 9 billion people would still be spewing 54 billion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere. Although green technologies and political treaties are steps in the right direction, Revkin's math communicated the inevitable message that globally, we are facing this challenge together, and no one solution alone will do the trick.
Early in the evening, Bill McKibben called climate change the "greatest problem humans have ever faced by far." Sitting in the auditorium at the Met last night, it seemed possible that we are up to the challenge, and we will commit to real changes and solutions. But waking up this morning to news of oil gushing toward the coast off the Gulf of Mexico, and commuting through NYC's overstuffed shopping district in bumper-to-bumper traffic, those solutions seemed less possible, and the gravity of the task ahead more clear.
Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World and co-founder of the environmental Sophie Prize, began the evening. Gaarder posed a brilliant metaphor, comparing carbon in our atmosphere to a genie that has escaped from a lamp. Before the Industrial Revolution, Gaarder imagined, this "genie" screamed from inside the lamp, "Let me out!" Now the genie has escaped, and we are desperately trying to push him back inside.
James Hansen spoke next, with the dispassionate certainty of a scientist who has been looking at the causes and implications of global warming for over thirty years. Hansen, who recently published the book "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity," advocates a tax on oil, gas and coal that would require the industry to pay for its own damages. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, he says, people will use them, a practice that unequivocally must be stopped.
Bill McKibben agreed with Hansen that a new way of thinking about energy production and use is long overdue. The global warming ship has sailed, he said, and since stopping its progress completely is impossible, we need to find ways to mitigate and adapt. We have made the earth "a different place already," McKibben said, "and it will get much different still."
Even so, McKibben is far from disillusioned. The interest and excitement generated from his international campaign 350.org ("350" being the parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere scientists say is a tipping point against stabilizing global warming) has reinforced his belief that the will exists to put the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.
Andrew Revkin, drawing from a long career as an environmental reporter, introduced some sobering statistics toward the end of the evening. People living in the United States, Revkin said, have a higher per capita carbon footprint than any other population in the world. Each U.S. citizen is responsible for about 20 tons of carbon annually, compared with 10 tons per person in Europe, and about 6 tons in India and China. Even if all countries agreed to either shrink or cap per capita carbon output at 6 tons, 2050's projected population of 9 billion people would still be spewing 54 billion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere. Although green technologies and political treaties are steps in the right direction, Revkin's math communicated the inevitable message that globally, we are facing this challenge together, and no one solution alone will do the trick.
Early in the evening, Bill McKibben called climate change the "greatest problem humans have ever faced by far." Sitting in the auditorium at the Met last night, it seemed possible that we are up to the challenge, and we will commit to real changes and solutions. But waking up this morning to news of oil gushing toward the coast off the Gulf of Mexico, and commuting through NYC's overstuffed shopping district in bumper-to-bumper traffic, those solutions seemed less possible, and the gravity of the task ahead more clear.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Good News for the Green Economy
Two government studies tracking the progress of the nation's green economy show that, while still small, it is poised for growth.
Although the studies found green products and services only comprise one to two percent of the nation's overall private business economy, the Executive Summary of the report (out of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration) begins with an auspicious statement: "The Administration is committed to fostering the development of a clean and energy-efficient economy; that is, a "green economy." Check out the full report here.
As we grapple with a climate bill and face increasingly clear signals that fossil fuels can no longer be burned with impunity, an official commitment to green the economy is long overdue. It is, perhaps, the magic feather industry needs to forge ahead with green products, a clear signal that "green" is a sound investment and the inevitable way of the future.
However, as a nation at the precipice of an industrial makeover, a long journey remains. For instance, the report "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Intensities Over Time" measures emissions per dollar of economic output. While this measure, called "carbon intensity," has decreased over time, our total carbon output has actually increased. So while industry efficiency has gone up, production has grown even faster. Production per unit may be producing fewer emissions, but more production leads to more emissions. An overhaul of the current cycle of production, consumption and disposal will certainly play a large role in any national environmental improvement.
The reports also identified a shift in the sector producing the most emissions. While industry has gone greener, domestic emissions have grown. Weatherizing homes and buying efficient appliances are becoming mainstream activities, but many people remain bewildered by what exactly they can do to have the greatest positive effect. And inconsistent messages are no help -- a recent report out of the Government Accountability Office revealed that Energy Star labels are not nearly as stringent as they once were believed to be. The GAO easily got certification for fabricated and inappropriate products, and also found that once certified, manufacturers could download and print the Energy Star label with no further oversight. New rules and regulations for the Energy Star label were quickly promised, but there will no doubt be a backlash of consumer malaise and apathy stemming from the findings. Read another take on the findings on The Consumerist.
Overall, the Commerce Department's reports are good news, if for no other reason than they highlight investment in the green economy. It is also important -- and heartening-- to note that the findings were compiled using data from 2007. They do not measure improvements since the Obama Administration's commitment to green jobs.
Although the studies found green products and services only comprise one to two percent of the nation's overall private business economy, the Executive Summary of the report (out of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration) begins with an auspicious statement: "The Administration is committed to fostering the development of a clean and energy-efficient economy; that is, a "green economy." Check out the full report here.
As we grapple with a climate bill and face increasingly clear signals that fossil fuels can no longer be burned with impunity, an official commitment to green the economy is long overdue. It is, perhaps, the magic feather industry needs to forge ahead with green products, a clear signal that "green" is a sound investment and the inevitable way of the future.
However, as a nation at the precipice of an industrial makeover, a long journey remains. For instance, the report "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Intensities Over Time" measures emissions per dollar of economic output. While this measure, called "carbon intensity," has decreased over time, our total carbon output has actually increased. So while industry efficiency has gone up, production has grown even faster. Production per unit may be producing fewer emissions, but more production leads to more emissions. An overhaul of the current cycle of production, consumption and disposal will certainly play a large role in any national environmental improvement.
The reports also identified a shift in the sector producing the most emissions. While industry has gone greener, domestic emissions have grown. Weatherizing homes and buying efficient appliances are becoming mainstream activities, but many people remain bewildered by what exactly they can do to have the greatest positive effect. And inconsistent messages are no help -- a recent report out of the Government Accountability Office revealed that Energy Star labels are not nearly as stringent as they once were believed to be. The GAO easily got certification for fabricated and inappropriate products, and also found that once certified, manufacturers could download and print the Energy Star label with no further oversight. New rules and regulations for the Energy Star label were quickly promised, but there will no doubt be a backlash of consumer malaise and apathy stemming from the findings. Read another take on the findings on The Consumerist.
Overall, the Commerce Department's reports are good news, if for no other reason than they highlight investment in the green economy. It is also important -- and heartening-- to note that the findings were compiled using data from 2007. They do not measure improvements since the Obama Administration's commitment to green jobs.
Monday, April 26, 2010
EPIP: Day Three
Well things wrapped up very nicely in Denver. The last day of the conference featured Gara LaMarche, President and CEO, Atlantic Philanthropies, and Benjamin Todd
Jealous, President and CEO, NAACP. Because the three tracks throughout the conference were
Generational Change, Philanthropic Effectiveness and Social Justice Philanthropy, they were both really well poised to comment not only on these issues but also about the role of the emerging generation of philanthropists. In fact, LaMarche made a good observation that the word "emerging" may be a bit of a misconception, and that the field needs to look to young people as leaders not just in the future, but right now. I have been fortunate enough to hear Jealous twice in the past month (he spoke to our Board back in March, and I blogged about it here). But of course it was great to hear him again. One of the things that he mentioned that I found most relevant to the work of social justice philanthropy is that we are coming to a point where we are seeing the diminishing of a social class dominance, and eventually we will witness minorities becoming the majority. He pointed out that the Tea Party is a backlash against this kind of progress. Jealous also mentioned the importance of understanding who your allies are, and that they might not be who you think they are.
I really want to give a huge shout out to everyone who made the weekend possible, especially the folks at EPIP, Rusty Stahl and Rebecca Schumer in particular did so much hard work over the weekend. And thanks again to all the sponsors of the conference, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Levi Strauss Foundation, California Wellness Foundation and Council of Michigan Foundations. And a special thanks to the Knight Foundation, who sponsored the LiveFeed of the conference and DoGooder TV, which made it all possbile. Yesterday more than 2000 watched Benjamin Jealous from the NAACP!
And of course, I wasn't the only one who blogged about the conference and its participants. If you're interested in hearing what others thought about it, head on over the EPIP Blog, Epiphanies. Thanks again to all who participated, it was a great weekend.
If you want to follow the rest of the Council on Foundation's 2010 Conference via Twitter, the hashtag is #cof10 and they have a great list of live bloggers. I suggest checking out the Philanthropy411 blog for updates.
Jealous, President and CEO, NAACP. Because the three tracks throughout the conference were
Generational Change, Philanthropic Effectiveness and Social Justice Philanthropy, they were both really well poised to comment not only on these issues but also about the role of the emerging generation of philanthropists. In fact, LaMarche made a good observation that the word "emerging" may be a bit of a misconception, and that the field needs to look to young people as leaders not just in the future, but right now. I have been fortunate enough to hear Jealous twice in the past month (he spoke to our Board back in March, and I blogged about it here). But of course it was great to hear him again. One of the things that he mentioned that I found most relevant to the work of social justice philanthropy is that we are coming to a point where we are seeing the diminishing of a social class dominance, and eventually we will witness minorities becoming the majority. He pointed out that the Tea Party is a backlash against this kind of progress. Jealous also mentioned the importance of understanding who your allies are, and that they might not be who you think they are.
I really want to give a huge shout out to everyone who made the weekend possible, especially the folks at EPIP, Rusty Stahl and Rebecca Schumer in particular did so much hard work over the weekend. And thanks again to all the sponsors of the conference, the Marguerite Casey Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Levi Strauss Foundation, California Wellness Foundation and Council of Michigan Foundations. And a special thanks to the Knight Foundation, who sponsored the LiveFeed of the conference and DoGooder TV, which made it all possbile. Yesterday more than 2000 watched Benjamin Jealous from the NAACP!
And of course, I wasn't the only one who blogged about the conference and its participants. If you're interested in hearing what others thought about it, head on over the EPIP Blog, Epiphanies. Thanks again to all who participated, it was a great weekend.
If you want to follow the rest of the Council on Foundation's 2010 Conference via Twitter, the hashtag is #cof10 and they have a great list of live bloggers. I suggest checking out the Philanthropy411 blog for updates.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
EPIP: Day Two
Day Two of the 2010 EPIP Conference started off with a great observation from Steve Gunderson, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Foundations. Gunderson addressed the folks at the morning plenary by stating, “EPIP needs to change their tagline from the “next generation” of grantmakers to the NOW generation of grantmakers. The future is now.” I couldn’t agree more and know that everyone else in the room felt the same way.
Following Gunderson, we had the opportunity to hear from Bill Somerville, the President and Founder of Philanthropic Ventures Foundation. Somerville brings more than 50 years of experience to the non-profit sector and is nationally recognized as an expert on creative grantmaking. He really challenged the group to think about philanthropy in a variety of ways that we may not have. I can’t stop thinking about some of the ideas that he talks about. For example, he talks about paperless giving, and how this goes beyond just filing everything electronically. He also talked about the importance of having more failures. This may seem counterintuitive, but he argues, and I rightly agree, that the field of philanthropy can learn as much from its failures, if not more, than its successes. He even advocated for the non-profit sector to put out a book that discusses some of its failures in depth. I think Somerville is right when he says that if we aren’t willing to take risks, we may be afraid to think creatively. He also discussed the importance of building trust between organizations and sectors. He advocates for people to get out from behind their computers to really understand the work they are funding, and for people to get out of their comfort zone. Lastly, he talked about the dangers of “academic philanthropy” (I have to admit, this was the first time I’d heard that term mentioned), meaning that as we see a rise in things like strategic philanthropy, standardized program evaluations, performance metrics etc, that we need to really engage grantees in our partnerships, ask them how they measure the success of their programs etc.
The rest of the day featured some really great sessions centered on social justice philanthropy and allowed members to hear experience from those working in this area. I really appreciated the multigenerational panels and experienced foundation leaders that provided concrete suggestions for how grantmakers can advance social and racial justice philanthropy. Although I wasn’t able to attend every panel, the feedback I’ve heard from everyone has been extremely positive!
In the afternoon, EPIP and the Young Nonprofit Professionals Association held a concurrent workshop. Since both groups are here in Denver at the same time and are clearly interested in a lot of the same issues, I think it was really great to plan this session. Keynote speaker Barry Gaberman, Senior Vice President (Retired), of the Ford Foundation talked about the need for infrastructure to support talent in philanthropy and nonprofits.
Tomorrow marks the third and final (half) day of the conference, before the annual Council on Foundation’s 2010 Annual Conference officially kicks off. If you’ll be staying on after the EPIP conference is over, or if you’ll be participating remotely, be sure to follow the hashtag #cof10 for updates.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
EPIP Day One
The first day of the 2010 EPIP National Conference in Denver is over and it went great. The theme for this year’s conference is “Building a Movement, Making an Impact” and that’s exactly what over 100 young philanthropists are interested in doing. Even a little bit of snow in April couldn’t stop the excitement!
Yesterday marked the start of the conference and included a great opening session with Robby Rodriguez, the Executive Director of the Southwest Organizing Project and co-author of a book called Working Across Generations: Defining the Future of Nonprofit Leadership (all participants were lucky enough to get a free copy). In his talk Rodriguez talked about the issues within the non-profit sector with respect to leadership change and generational shifts between baby boomers, generation X and Millenials (like yours truly). I’m hoping that I can get a copy of his slides which goes into a bit more detail and if so I’ll be sure to provide a link to it. Probably my favorite quote from the session was “The world is seriously jacked up and we have to fix it.”
Following Rodriguez, we heard from Cynthia Gibson, who has more than 25 years of experience in the nonprofit sector as a consultant and senior staff person for national nonprofits and philanthropic institutions. Gibson talked a little bit about her new effort called the “Generational Change Initiative” which will examine these trends and how the definition of philanthropy and social justice will shift as we see dynamic changes in the workplace. Gibson also talked about what she called “a perfect storm of whiteness” when it comes to the lack of diversity amongst nonprofit leadership and what efforts must be made in order to combat this problem.
The rest of the weekend’s sessions will be featuring some great diverse and multi-generational speakers. There are various learning tracks on philanthropic effectiveness, generational change and social justice philanthropy, interactive workshops, free career counseling, and a joint afternoon session with the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network, who is also in town for their annual conference. Sunday’s keynote speakers include Benjamin Todd Jealous, President & CEO of the NAACP.
If you aren’t in Denver, don’t worry you are not out of luck and can still participate. Thanks to the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, EPIP is offering a free livestream of the conference content. You can check out the stream schedule, and join the conversation by chatting, tweeting, facebooking of blogging the conference from wherever you are. If you’re following the ocnversation or participating on Twitter, the hashtag is #epip10.
Yesterday marked the start of the conference and included a great opening session with Robby Rodriguez, the Executive Director of the Southwest Organizing Project and co-author of a book called Working Across Generations: Defining the Future of Nonprofit Leadership (all participants were lucky enough to get a free copy). In his talk Rodriguez talked about the issues within the non-profit sector with respect to leadership change and generational shifts between baby boomers, generation X and Millenials (like yours truly). I’m hoping that I can get a copy of his slides which goes into a bit more detail and if so I’ll be sure to provide a link to it. Probably my favorite quote from the session was “The world is seriously jacked up and we have to fix it.”
Following Rodriguez, we heard from Cynthia Gibson, who has more than 25 years of experience in the nonprofit sector as a consultant and senior staff person for national nonprofits and philanthropic institutions. Gibson talked a little bit about her new effort called the “Generational Change Initiative” which will examine these trends and how the definition of philanthropy and social justice will shift as we see dynamic changes in the workplace. Gibson also talked about what she called “a perfect storm of whiteness” when it comes to the lack of diversity amongst nonprofit leadership and what efforts must be made in order to combat this problem.
The rest of the weekend’s sessions will be featuring some great diverse and multi-generational speakers. There are various learning tracks on philanthropic effectiveness, generational change and social justice philanthropy, interactive workshops, free career counseling, and a joint afternoon session with the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network, who is also in town for their annual conference. Sunday’s keynote speakers include Benjamin Todd Jealous, President & CEO of the NAACP.
If you aren’t in Denver, don’t worry you are not out of luck and can still participate. Thanks to the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, EPIP is offering a free livestream of the conference content. You can check out the stream schedule, and join the conversation by chatting, tweeting, facebooking of blogging the conference from wherever you are. If you’re following the ocnversation or participating on Twitter, the hashtag is #epip10.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Earth Day: Looking Back and Looking Forward
As the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day approaches, the environmentally-minded are reflecting on the past, something we rarely have time to do when every new issue seems like the most important, the most time-sensitive, the one that will certainly lead to a torrent of unforeseen problems if not nipped immediately in the proverbial bud. Given this chance to take stock, it's heartening to recognize the legacy of a devoted, activist conservation movement. But looking back also brings up questions about the path we're on. Have we even come close to fulfilling promises made on the original Earth Day?
Click here for a May 1970 article from Earth Day originator Senator Gaylord Nelson's newsletter.
The May 1970 Gaylord Nelson Newsletter is full of hope and a sense of determination to turn over a new leaf for the environment. But it is sobering to recognize an all-too familiar rhetoric, a fed-up "this is it"attitude we continue to hear today, obviously fallen short of its bold intentions. For example, look at this passage:
"Scientists, ecologists, environmentalists, educators and political leaders warned darkly before massive gatherings and small meetings that time was running out for the world and that all men had a responsibility to themselves and to leave a legacy of life for their children."
Sound familiar? Environmentalists today often present the climate crisis as a moral issue, attempting to bring even the most obstinate skeptics on board. If you don't see the utility in acting now, the argument goes, then at least do something to make the world safe for your grandchildren. But this may not be the most effective approach. Author Bill McKibben, recently interviewed on The Leonard Lopate Show, says the "for our grandchildren" approach actually just postpones work that needed to be done years ago. If the looming threats to our planet won't take affect for another two generations, subscribers to this mode of thinking can more easily forget them.
Check out McKibben's blog and global environmental activist network at 350.org.
Click here for Earth Day activities going on in your area, or for information on a climate rally going on this Sunday in D.C.
Or check out Edward Hoagland's beautiful paean to a life well-lived in this month's issue of Harper's magazine, in which he regrets having to leave the planet while expressing a sense of foreboding as he looks at what lies ahead.
Hoagland writes:
Click here for a May 1970 article from Earth Day originator Senator Gaylord Nelson's newsletter.
The May 1970 Gaylord Nelson Newsletter is full of hope and a sense of determination to turn over a new leaf for the environment. But it is sobering to recognize an all-too familiar rhetoric, a fed-up "this is it"attitude we continue to hear today, obviously fallen short of its bold intentions. For example, look at this passage:
"Scientists, ecologists, environmentalists, educators and political leaders warned darkly before massive gatherings and small meetings that time was running out for the world and that all men had a responsibility to themselves and to leave a legacy of life for their children."
Sound familiar? Environmentalists today often present the climate crisis as a moral issue, attempting to bring even the most obstinate skeptics on board. If you don't see the utility in acting now, the argument goes, then at least do something to make the world safe for your grandchildren. But this may not be the most effective approach. Author Bill McKibben, recently interviewed on The Leonard Lopate Show, says the "for our grandchildren" approach actually just postpones work that needed to be done years ago. If the looming threats to our planet won't take affect for another two generations, subscribers to this mode of thinking can more easily forget them.
Check out McKibben's blog and global environmental activist network at 350.org.
Click here for Earth Day activities going on in your area, or for information on a climate rally going on this Sunday in D.C.
Or check out Edward Hoagland's beautiful paean to a life well-lived in this month's issue of Harper's magazine, in which he regrets having to leave the planet while expressing a sense of foreboding as he looks at what lies ahead.
Hoagland writes:
Bees, bats, amphibians, forest primates, meadow birds, pelagic fish, coral, and polar animals, at risk or worse—the upending of ecology, disequilibrium of meteorology and oceanography, desertification, extinctions at four thousand times paleontological rates, are not the sort of scale of change old grumps have previously objected to. Nature is being defenestrated in a fast-track snuffing out of half of Creation.
Amazingly late in the game, popes, presidents, and pundits began to tell us we were “stewards” of the earth. Earlier, mostly marginal or maverick figures had cared to touch on the topic, apart from a handful of well-heeled conservation charities that oversaw the status quo in our national parks, or of poster-suitable megafauna here and there... I’ve found the speed of alteration, the totality of havoc and sprawl accompanying the pole-axing of nature, undreamt of.
and:
Amazingly late in the game, popes, presidents, and pundits began to tell us we were “stewards” of the earth. Earlier, mostly marginal or maverick figures had cared to touch on the topic, apart from a handful of well-heeled conservation charities that oversaw the status quo in our national parks, or of poster-suitable megafauna here and there... I’ve found the speed of alteration, the totality of havoc and sprawl accompanying the pole-axing of nature, undreamt of.
Hoagland's Last call: Old age and the end of nature, if read well, could serve as the environmentalists' new rallying cry. Yes, we need to treat the planet well for our grandchildren, but they are not the only ones we're working for. In 2050, when those of us who are still around have passed through the next forty Earth Days, wouldn't it be nice to look back with accomplishment, as well as forward with peace of mind?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
2010 NTEN Recap
Well, I am back from Atlanta and I really enjoyed last week’s 2010 Nonprofit Technology Conference. If you didn’t check out the agenda for the conference when I posted it last week, it’s still up online. There were over 1450 people who came together from all over the non-profit sector. Although this was my first year attending the conference, I didn’t feel too overwhelmed mostly because of the great structure of the conference and how well organized it was.
Andrew Sullivan, journalist and blogger for The Atlantic gave a great keynote speech on Friday morning, in which he talked about the changing nature of technology, and what it means to be a blogger in the 21st century. Tech Soup has a great video with Sullivan from after his speech about what it’s like to take criticism that comes with putting yourself out in the public space on a daily basis. Once the full video from Sullivan’s talk becomes available I’ll be sure to put it up online.
I also attended some really great breakout sessions; two in particular that I thought were useful. The first was called “Got Gov? Why You Should Care About Technology Policy” and had speakers from both Free Press and ZeroDivide. The session focused on how media policy issues at the federal level will affect how nonprofits engage with technology in the future. It included both an overview of the key federal policy issues and how the world of nonprofits could be changed, depending on the outcomes of these policy initiatives. The other sessions was titled “Expanding Broadband Access and Adoption in Undeserved Communities” and focused on how organizations are building capacity of organizations to support community technology providers. We discussed capacity building work including some of the best practices and challenges for increasing technology and broadband adoption.
I also got a sneak preview of Beth Kanter and Allison Fine’s new book titled The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change. I’ve read the first chapter and can’t wait until the whole book comes out in June. I’ll be sure to blog about the book when it becomes available as well as my thoughts after reading it. I didn’t get a chance to attend their session, but if you’d like to follow up, here's a bit more about the session.
Andrew Sullivan, journalist and blogger for The Atlantic gave a great keynote speech on Friday morning, in which he talked about the changing nature of technology, and what it means to be a blogger in the 21st century. Tech Soup has a great video with Sullivan from after his speech about what it’s like to take criticism that comes with putting yourself out in the public space on a daily basis. Once the full video from Sullivan’s talk becomes available I’ll be sure to put it up online.
I also attended some really great breakout sessions; two in particular that I thought were useful. The first was called “Got Gov? Why You Should Care About Technology Policy” and had speakers from both Free Press and ZeroDivide. The session focused on how media policy issues at the federal level will affect how nonprofits engage with technology in the future. It included both an overview of the key federal policy issues and how the world of nonprofits could be changed, depending on the outcomes of these policy initiatives. The other sessions was titled “Expanding Broadband Access and Adoption in Undeserved Communities” and focused on how organizations are building capacity of organizations to support community technology providers. We discussed capacity building work including some of the best practices and challenges for increasing technology and broadband adoption.
I also got a sneak preview of Beth Kanter and Allison Fine’s new book titled The Networked Nonprofit: Connecting with Social Media to Drive Change. I’ve read the first chapter and can’t wait until the whole book comes out in June. I’ll be sure to blog about the book when it becomes available as well as my thoughts after reading it. I didn’t get a chance to attend their session, but if you’d like to follow up, here's a bit more about the session.
I was also glad to see that NTEN made a great effort to “Green the Conference”, cutting down on the printed size of the conference guide (the iPhone app was a great idea and kept me up to date on the schedule and speakers), and offering totebags made from recycled materials, to name just a few of their efforts.
The 2011 Conference is already scheduled so save the dates on your calendar! The event will take place March 17th -19th in Washington DC.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
2010 NTC Conference
I'm headed to Atlanta first thing tomorrow morning for 2010 Nonprofit Technology Conference which is taking place April 8th-10th, at the Omni Hotel at CNN Center. I'm really looking forward to it.
Click here to check out the very full agenda for the conference. There are also more breakout sessions that I know what to do with! You can also check out the list of whose coming (over 1400 people!). And, I downloaded my iPhone app which was put together for the conference so hopefully I'll be able to sort out where I'm supposed to be and when.
If you want to follow the conference on twitter, check out http://twitter.com/10ntc or search for the hashtag #10ntc. Since the conference is "all about connecting and learning so that you can transform technology into social change in your work and communities", I'm hoping to connect with as many people as possible and make the most of the experience. This is my first year attending the conference.
If you can't make it to Atlanta, don't fear! Check out what they are doing so you can participate remotely. Several cities are having remote gatherings and some sessions will be streamed live, and some will be presented as webinars. When I get back next week I'll do a mega blog post on my takeaways and thoughts from the two days. See everyone in Atlanta!
Oh, and if you just can't wait to see what goes on this week/weekend, click here to visit materials related to last year's conference out in San Francisco.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Conservation and the iPad
As most Americans who were not in line themselves have heard by now, Apple released its much anticipated iPad this weekend. The new (and slightly cryptic) device was met with requisite fervor following the iPhone release in 2007, with crowds camping outside Apple stores to be among the first to open the expertly packaged computer/tablet/e-reader/...what exactly is it? In fact, one of the most compelling features of an otherwise elusive iPad is its ability to convince over 300,000 people so far that its possession is absolutely necessary.
The New York Times quoted a devoted fan waiting outside the San Francisco Apple store at 4 a.m. Saturday. "It's beyond technology," the fan said. "It's a culture. It's a community."
From an environmentalist's perspective, the iPad release allows time for reflection on consumption and the American obsession with "stuff." (Hear all about that in Overbrook grantee Annie Leonard's web video The Story of Stuff.) If "stuff" becomes our culture and community, what are the implications for conservation? Will people care about the planet when their well-being is satisfied by portable screens and wireless transmission? Will iPad purchasers make the connection between resource use and the shiny tablet in their $500 box?
An Op-Ed piece yesterday, also in the Times, asks How Green Is My iPad? The piece, written by Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris, goes through a life-cycle assessment of an e-reader versus a traditional paper book. The assessment is thorough yet unavoidably confusing: while an e-reader requires the toxic extraction of metals that may or may not be responsibly recycled down the line, a traditional paper book comes with its own dirty footprint. The fossil fuels required to ship books hundreds of miles, to drive back and forth from the bookstore year in, year out, to power the nightlight on your bedside table, all must be taken into account to make a valid life-cycle comparison. In the end, Goleman and Norris mercifully just tell us what to do: "All in all," they conclude, "the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library."
In the end, people like gadgets, and it's not the iPad specifically that raises questions about the future of conservation. Rather, it's what the hype surrounding the iPad can tell us about the values of our culture. Check out a video of fan Greg Packer, who has no special allegiance to Apple but prides himself on being first in line for a whole slew of coveted products and events. Or think about first purchasers' descriptions of entering the Apple store, greeted with applause, as though by sitting in line for hours they owned some part of the pride inherent in creation. Is it the actual gadget people are excited about, or the feeling they get from having it?
For a funnier take: David Letterman's Top Ten List
The New York Times quoted a devoted fan waiting outside the San Francisco Apple store at 4 a.m. Saturday. "It's beyond technology," the fan said. "It's a culture. It's a community."
From an environmentalist's perspective, the iPad release allows time for reflection on consumption and the American obsession with "stuff." (Hear all about that in Overbrook grantee Annie Leonard's web video The Story of Stuff.) If "stuff" becomes our culture and community, what are the implications for conservation? Will people care about the planet when their well-being is satisfied by portable screens and wireless transmission? Will iPad purchasers make the connection between resource use and the shiny tablet in their $500 box?
An Op-Ed piece yesterday, also in the Times, asks How Green Is My iPad? The piece, written by Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris, goes through a life-cycle assessment of an e-reader versus a traditional paper book. The assessment is thorough yet unavoidably confusing: while an e-reader requires the toxic extraction of metals that may or may not be responsibly recycled down the line, a traditional paper book comes with its own dirty footprint. The fossil fuels required to ship books hundreds of miles, to drive back and forth from the bookstore year in, year out, to power the nightlight on your bedside table, all must be taken into account to make a valid life-cycle comparison. In the end, Goleman and Norris mercifully just tell us what to do: "All in all," they conclude, "the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library."
In the end, people like gadgets, and it's not the iPad specifically that raises questions about the future of conservation. Rather, it's what the hype surrounding the iPad can tell us about the values of our culture. Check out a video of fan Greg Packer, who has no special allegiance to Apple but prides himself on being first in line for a whole slew of coveted products and events. Or think about first purchasers' descriptions of entering the Apple store, greeted with applause, as though by sitting in line for hours they owned some part of the pride inherent in creation. Is it the actual gadget people are excited about, or the feeling they get from having it?
For a funnier take: David Letterman's Top Ten List
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Uncertain Migration for Marine Mammals
'Tis the season for gray whales to embark upon their annual 6,000 mile migration from the coast of Baja California to the Arctic. The species has been around for over a million years, making the north-south-north trek with the seasons and food supply. But scientists are starting to take a closer look at whale migration as an indicator of the state of the Arctic ecosystem, as atmospheric and ocean temperatures rise.
Arctic sea ice extent in the past three years has been lower than any other time in the past thirty years, when scientists started keeping track. Since life thrives on the sea ice edge, conditions change for larger marine animals when that ice edge recedes farther from the shore. Additionally, scientists are finding that the amount of marine life decreases as ice sheets shrink, a discovery that has grave implications for animals at all steps along the Arctic food chain. Whales, in particular, are having a tough time finding the fatty crustaceans they prefer and are resorting to larger amounts of krill and shrimp. It is not yet known exactly how shifts in the food chain due to warming will affect other Arctic animals, or the whales on a long term scale.
Scientists are feeling particularly pressed to speed their studies of Arctic biodiversity in the wake of President Obama's announcement that previously untouched coastal areas will be opened to oil drilling. The newly vulnerable areas will include coastlines off of northern Alaska, so scientists are scrambling to fill knowledge gaps about Arctic biodiversity before this begins.
Although Obama promised the drilling will just be a stepping stone to a greener economy, "part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy," even a small amount of drilling could reap horrific rewards on the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
Read about varying opinions of the Obama administration's announcement here.
Read Jonathan Hiskes' (Grist.org) take on "drill, baby, drill."
Arctic sea ice extent in the past three years has been lower than any other time in the past thirty years, when scientists started keeping track. Since life thrives on the sea ice edge, conditions change for larger marine animals when that ice edge recedes farther from the shore. Additionally, scientists are finding that the amount of marine life decreases as ice sheets shrink, a discovery that has grave implications for animals at all steps along the Arctic food chain. Whales, in particular, are having a tough time finding the fatty crustaceans they prefer and are resorting to larger amounts of krill and shrimp. It is not yet known exactly how shifts in the food chain due to warming will affect other Arctic animals, or the whales on a long term scale.
Scientists are feeling particularly pressed to speed their studies of Arctic biodiversity in the wake of President Obama's announcement that previously untouched coastal areas will be opened to oil drilling. The newly vulnerable areas will include coastlines off of northern Alaska, so scientists are scrambling to fill knowledge gaps about Arctic biodiversity before this begins.
Although Obama promised the drilling will just be a stepping stone to a greener economy, "part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy," even a small amount of drilling could reap horrific rewards on the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
Read about varying opinions of the Obama administration's announcement here.
Read Jonathan Hiskes' (Grist.org) take on "drill, baby, drill."
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Human Rights First Announces Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award
Yesterday, Human Rights First announced that Guatemalan indigenous rights activist and genocide survivor Jesus Tecu Osorio was recently selected to receive the prestigious 2010 Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award for international human rights defenders. Tecu was chosen from a pool of more than 50 extraordinary human rights activities from around the world. Human Rights First will bestow the Medal of Liberty on Tecu at a ceremony in New York City in May 2010.
“Jesus Tecu was only a child when he witnessed the murder of his family during a massacre that killed nearly everyone in his remote Guatemalan village. Instead of seeking revenge, Jesus channeled his energies into pursuing justice for the genocide in Guatemala and working to secure a more peaceful future there,” said Human Rights First President and CEO Elisa Massimino.
According to Human Rights First, Tecu is now a leading human rights activist seeking justice for the genocide in Guatemala and promoting the rights of indigenous Mayans. And even though he remains at extreme risk he remains undeterred in his fight for justice. In Rabinal, Baja Verapaz, Tecu has established three human rights organizations that provide critical services to indigenous Mayans: the New Hope Foundation, the Association for the Integral Development of the Victims of Violence, Maya-Achà (ADIVIMA) and Rabinal’s Community Legal Aid Clinic. He is also a witness in prosecutions against high level Guatemalan military officials taking place now in Guatemala and Spain, as well as in proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition to these activities, he has been a leading advocate in seeking accountability for damages to communities affected by the construction of the Chixoy hydroelectric dam.
The Medal of Liberty which Tecu will receive is named in honor of Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the International League for Human Rights. It is presented by Human Rights First every other year to a human rights organization or activist outside of the United States that has made a distinguished contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights. In alternate years the ACLU selects a U.S.-based winner.
For more information on Jesus Tecu click here. And if you’re interested in learning more about the Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty, you can do that here. You can also link to the original Human Rights First press release here which has more information about Tecu, his family and his background.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Two Overbrook Grantees in the News
Two Overbrook grantees are in the news, proving yet again that good ideas and persistence over time really work!
Late last week, the Product Policy Institute celebrated the nation's first "framework" product stewardship bill, signed into law by Maine's Governor John Baldacci. Although many voices contributed to the law's passage, PPI has been setting the stage for extended producer responsibility legislation throughout the country since its inception in 2003.
"Framework" legislation sets up a system of standards that applies to all products, leveling the playing field so producers have comprehensive guidelines for production and recovery, rather than a patchwork of regulations requiring new rules for for each individual market. Producer responsibility laws have been passed in 31 states, but thus far have focused on individual products such as TVs, computer monitors, printers and other electronics. Maine's new law is the most comprehensive in the country and will act as a template for a national framework. It also expands the reach of products traditionally targeted by producer take-back programs, including guidelines for products such as pharmaceuticals and house paints.
Bill Sheehan, PPI's Executive Director, thinks Maine's framework legislation will encourage other states to follow. "I think it's a real breakthrough. We're really excited to finally see it happening, and with business support," he said. "It's going to keep the momentum building."
Click here for PPI's explanation of extended producer responsibility framework legislation, and the importance of standardizing rules.
The other Overbrook grantee in the news today is Annie Leonard of the Story of Stuff (see my post from March 11). The Story of Stuff project launched its newest video early last week, the Story of Bottled Water, and in just a couple of days garnered over 120,000 viewers. As reported in today's New York Times, the International Bottled Water Association is fighting back with its own "true story" video, replete with footage of trickling streams and interviews with beverage industry people insisting on the virtues of their companies' environmental intentions. You be the judge and read the article here.
Late last week, the Product Policy Institute celebrated the nation's first "framework" product stewardship bill, signed into law by Maine's Governor John Baldacci. Although many voices contributed to the law's passage, PPI has been setting the stage for extended producer responsibility legislation throughout the country since its inception in 2003.
"Framework" legislation sets up a system of standards that applies to all products, leveling the playing field so producers have comprehensive guidelines for production and recovery, rather than a patchwork of regulations requiring new rules for for each individual market. Producer responsibility laws have been passed in 31 states, but thus far have focused on individual products such as TVs, computer monitors, printers and other electronics. Maine's new law is the most comprehensive in the country and will act as a template for a national framework. It also expands the reach of products traditionally targeted by producer take-back programs, including guidelines for products such as pharmaceuticals and house paints.
Bill Sheehan, PPI's Executive Director, thinks Maine's framework legislation will encourage other states to follow. "I think it's a real breakthrough. We're really excited to finally see it happening, and with business support," he said. "It's going to keep the momentum building."
Click here for PPI's explanation of extended producer responsibility framework legislation, and the importance of standardizing rules.
The other Overbrook grantee in the news today is Annie Leonard of the Story of Stuff (see my post from March 11). The Story of Stuff project launched its newest video early last week, the Story of Bottled Water, and in just a couple of days garnered over 120,000 viewers. As reported in today's New York Times, the International Bottled Water Association is fighting back with its own "true story" video, replete with footage of trickling streams and interviews with beverage industry people insisting on the virtues of their companies' environmental intentions. You be the judge and read the article here.
Friday, March 26, 2010
New American Media is Looking for Your Voice
New America Media, in partnership with COMCAST just launched its newest TV program, “New America Now," which debuted on March 20, 2010 (on COMCAST Hometown Network, Channel 104).
The show is anchored by Filipino-American broadcaster Odette Keeley. The show's format is that of a news magazine and it highlights the unique stories and perspectives of the country’s increasingly global society through the lens of the ethnic media that serve minority communities. From young activists moving the immigration reform movement; to the impacts of the recession on minority-owned businesses; to profiles of hometown heroes in your neighborhoods; and 1-on-1 with ethnic news outlets; reflections on the news of the day from leading thinkers --- New America Now can be your global-local news window.
The show is anchored by Filipino-American broadcaster Odette Keeley. The show's format is that of a news magazine and it highlights the unique stories and perspectives of the country’s increasingly global society through the lens of the ethnic media that serve minority communities. From young activists moving the immigration reform movement; to the impacts of the recession on minority-owned businesses; to profiles of hometown heroes in your neighborhoods; and 1-on-1 with ethnic news outlets; reflections on the news of the day from leading thinkers --- New America Now can be your global-local news window.
And New America Media wants your voice in the show! They are looking to highlight the stories of you and your communities. If you're interested, please send them any video reports, clips or leads for news you would like them to cover or feature on “New America Now.”
'New America Now" will air monthly until May and then twice a month starting June. The show also airs via COMCAST on Demand in the Public Affairs Section under COMCAST Hometown.
For further information or to get more involved please contact: Odette Keeley: okeeley@newamericamedia.org, 415-503-4170
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults
There’s a new report available from the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and Senior Action in a Gay Environment (SAGE). It’s titled “Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults” and it shows that contrary to stereotypes, “LGBT elders are more likely to live in poverty, face social and community isolation, and lack appropriate health care and long-term care.”The report examines the unique barriers and disparities faced by LGBT elders. It also offers detailed and practical solutions, providing a roadmap for LGBT and aging advocates, policymakers, and anyone interested in ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to age with dignity and respect.
According to the report’s abstract, in addition to the challenge that Americans face as they age, LGBT older adults also have the added burden of a lifetime of stigma; familial relationships that generally lack legal recognition under the law; and unequal treatment under laws, programs and services designed to support and protect older Americans. The report examines three areas of particular difficulty for LGBT elders (note: these are just the bullet points to read full details please download the entire report here).
- LGBT elders are less financially secure
- LGBT elders find it more difficult to achieve good health and healthcare
- LGBT elders are more likely to face social isolation
In addition to examining the challenges faced by LGBT elders, the report also provides very much needed detailed and comprehensive policy analysis and recommendations on how to best move forward to combat these problems.
The report was authored by both MAP and SAGE, in partnership with the American Society on Aging, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and the Center for American Progress, with a foreword from AARP. The report has received coverage from CNN.com, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, as well as other online media. With the release of the report, MAP is also creating a presence on Facebook and Twitter.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Honeybee Deaths Linked to Pesticides
Honeybee die-off got a little worse this year, according to an ongoing federal survey. Colony Collapse Disorder, the still unexplained plague that compels bees to abandon hives and fly off to die, is forging ahead full force with no solution in sight. Bee die-off likely has a mixture of causes, such as parasites, viruses, bacteria and poor nutrition. But outrageously increasing rates of honeybee disappearance points to pesticides as the main culprit.
Almost all food crops are grown with some sort of anti-insect agent. Even products labeled "organic" are likely grown with pesticides, although they must be derived from natural, never synthetic, ingredients. (Click here for a list of requirements and prohibitions for organic farmers.)
The massive bee die-off is concerning, first of all because it signifies something very wrong and off-balance with the planet's natural processes. More specifically and immediately, bees gone missing are not around to pollinate the crops we eat, crops that make up about one third of our diets. Commercial beekeepers reported record losses this year, and have found themselves unable to fill orders from farmers in need of pollinators. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, two federal agencies and regulators from California and Canada found high levels of synthetic chemicals both in pollen and in hives, hives described as "laden" with pesticides. On the heels of the Environmental Working Group's publication of the most pesticide-heavy fruits and vegetables, it seems evident, even without a federal study, that bees would be adversely affected by chemicals that are dangerous to human beings.
On the brighter side, at least pesticides have been targeted as a probable (and significant) cause of colony collapse disorder. And if a large-scale disappearance of honeybees is linked to an immediate loss of revenue in agriculture, chances are the bees' plight will get attention beyond the scientific and environmentalist communities.
And finally, just last week the New York City Board of Health repealed the ban on beekeeping in the city. A meetup group has already formed around spreading the knowledge and practice of urban beekeeping. The first line of the meetup invitation reads in all caps: "WE'RE LEGAL IN NYC!"
Almost all food crops are grown with some sort of anti-insect agent. Even products labeled "organic" are likely grown with pesticides, although they must be derived from natural, never synthetic, ingredients. (Click here for a list of requirements and prohibitions for organic farmers.)
The massive bee die-off is concerning, first of all because it signifies something very wrong and off-balance with the planet's natural processes. More specifically and immediately, bees gone missing are not around to pollinate the crops we eat, crops that make up about one third of our diets. Commercial beekeepers reported record losses this year, and have found themselves unable to fill orders from farmers in need of pollinators. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, two federal agencies and regulators from California and Canada found high levels of synthetic chemicals both in pollen and in hives, hives described as "laden" with pesticides. On the heels of the Environmental Working Group's publication of the most pesticide-heavy fruits and vegetables, it seems evident, even without a federal study, that bees would be adversely affected by chemicals that are dangerous to human beings.
On the brighter side, at least pesticides have been targeted as a probable (and significant) cause of colony collapse disorder. And if a large-scale disappearance of honeybees is linked to an immediate loss of revenue in agriculture, chances are the bees' plight will get attention beyond the scientific and environmentalist communities.
And finally, just last week the New York City Board of Health repealed the ban on beekeeping in the city. A meetup group has already formed around spreading the knowledge and practice of urban beekeeping. The first line of the meetup invitation reads in all caps: "WE'RE LEGAL IN NYC!"
Monday, March 22, 2010
New Future for Nuclear Waste?
The French nuclear energy company Areva announced it is developing a new technology that could answer the most common question posed by opponents of nuclear power: what do we do with the waste?
If the new technology is successful, fission-fusion reactors could permanently destroy the radioactive uranium isotopes produced during nuclear fission, drastically reducing the need to find geological repositories for nuclear waste. The waste would never be completely eliminated, but Areva says it could be reduced to the point at which one or two geological repositories could store all the world's waste, as opposed to the hundreds predicted if nuclear takes off as a major global energy source in coming decades.
Research on fission-fusion systems is nothing new, but the current greenhouse gas crisis is pushing nuclear forward as a possible front-runner in the quest for a coal and oil-free economy. President Obama recently announced eight billion dollars in federal loan guarantees for the first construction of new nuclear plants since the 1970s, and proposed up to $54 billion for nuclear in next year's budget. A recent Gallop poll shows 62 percent of Americans favor a resurgence of nuclear power, the highest percentage since polling began on this subject in 1994.
If a resurgence of nuclear power is inevitable as policymakers look for viable green technologies to replace coal and oil, then Areva's breakthrough is encouraging. But a large faction of environmentalists remain wary and unimpressed. Although the new fission-fusion reactors may greatly reduce the problem of waste disposal, they do nothing to address the great environmental and human health hazards associated with uranium mining. Read about it on the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research web site here.
And sadly, in the wake of former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall's death, we are reminded of generations of victims of cancer and respiratory disorders linked to uranium mining, victims Udall began advocating for as early as the 1970s. With the scramble to find carbon-free energy sources, many advocates are eager to use the new disposal technology as evidence that the nuclear record is clear. Udall's legacy, with any luck, will remind proponents that this story is far from over.
If the new technology is successful, fission-fusion reactors could permanently destroy the radioactive uranium isotopes produced during nuclear fission, drastically reducing the need to find geological repositories for nuclear waste. The waste would never be completely eliminated, but Areva says it could be reduced to the point at which one or two geological repositories could store all the world's waste, as opposed to the hundreds predicted if nuclear takes off as a major global energy source in coming decades.
Research on fission-fusion systems is nothing new, but the current greenhouse gas crisis is pushing nuclear forward as a possible front-runner in the quest for a coal and oil-free economy. President Obama recently announced eight billion dollars in federal loan guarantees for the first construction of new nuclear plants since the 1970s, and proposed up to $54 billion for nuclear in next year's budget. A recent Gallop poll shows 62 percent of Americans favor a resurgence of nuclear power, the highest percentage since polling began on this subject in 1994.
If a resurgence of nuclear power is inevitable as policymakers look for viable green technologies to replace coal and oil, then Areva's breakthrough is encouraging. But a large faction of environmentalists remain wary and unimpressed. Although the new fission-fusion reactors may greatly reduce the problem of waste disposal, they do nothing to address the great environmental and human health hazards associated with uranium mining. Read about it on the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research web site here.
And sadly, in the wake of former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall's death, we are reminded of generations of victims of cancer and respiratory disorders linked to uranium mining, victims Udall began advocating for as early as the 1970s. With the scramble to find carbon-free energy sources, many advocates are eager to use the new disposal technology as evidence that the nuclear record is clear. Udall's legacy, with any luck, will remind proponents that this story is far from over.
Friday, March 19, 2010
March 2010 Letter from Chair and President
The following is the March 2010 Letter From The Overbrook Foundation Chair and President. It is taken directly from our website.
In early 2009, the Foundation posted a letter from its Chair and President outlining steps being taken to address the impact of the global financial crisis on its grantmaking programs (Click here to read the 2009 letter). We are writing now to update you on Foundation plans for grantmaking in 2010 and over the next several years.
Our endowment experienced significant volatility in 2009 as financial markets continued their decline early in 2009 and then made a remarkable rebound. As of December 31, 2009, the endowment totaled $111.6 million as compared to $187.3 million just two years ago. (As of March 15, 2010 the endowment’s unaudited value is estimated at approximately $126 million.) We know that our grantees have experienced similar challenges; and, we are concerned about the implications for support for all nonprofits dependent on fundraising from government, foundations and individuals in 2010 and thereafter.
We seek to respond prudently to this very serious financial situation and change in our endowment, while at the same time remaining focused on the work of our grantees around critical concerns and the likely enormous opportunities in human rights and the environment in 2010 and over the next several years.
We will continue to play an activist leadership role in the philanthropic community. Our program officers are heavily involved in organizing and managing funder collaborative partnerships such as the U.S. Human Rights Fund and the Civil Marriage Collaborative; creating vital new non-profit organizations to advance change; e.g., Catalog Choice, www.catalogchoice.org, and assuming leadership roles in a variety of foundation associations such as the Sustainability Funders Work Group. Through these various efforts, the Foundation believes it is able to influence the direction of significant philanthropic resources to those issues most central to its human rights and environment mission. We will use all of these mechanisms moving forward to protect and strengthen the fields in which our grantees are active.
We believe that the impact of the financial crisis will be felt for some years to come and that as a consequence the Foundation’s grantmaking ability will also be reduced. This is despite a commitment by Directors to fund grantmaking in excess of the mandated 5% payout requirement. To effectively manage this reduced grantmaking ability, directors are committing the Foundation to a strategic review of its environment and human rights programs during 2010 with the objective of redefining its priorities for grantmaking over the next three to five years. We expect to announce the outcomes of that review by the end of the year.
Our expectation and our goal is that we will preserve the viability of the Foundation and continue to advance its mission as we work through these very difficult times. Despite these challenges, we look forward to working with you in the coming year to move forward a progressive agenda for change.
Sincerely,
Kathryn G. Graham, Chair
Stephen A. Foster, President and CEO
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Success for Voter Action and Washington State
I love getting to blog about successes! Here’s another one for you from a former grantee of the Foundation, Voter Action. With the close of the 2010 Legislative Session, Washington State had an effort to pass a dangerous online voting bill. However, the bill (HB 2483) was defeated! According to Voter Action, HB 2483 would have permitted military and overseas voters to fax and email voted ballots, without paper back up, putting our military and overseas voters ballots at risk as well as seriously undermining the security of our elections. Top experts in cybersecurity have agreed that online voting is fundamentally insecure and an actual risk to national security. Of course even though this bill was defeated, the idea of online voting remains very popular and the risks and ramifications are still widely misunderstood. As Voter Action points out, even the New York Times editorial said, internet voting is "still in beta." We agree that beta, or any testing phase, is not good enough for our elections!
Interested to know if internet, email or fax voting has been introduced in your state? Visit here to download resources on how to build a similar effort and replicate this success.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Victory for WITNESS and the Endorois People
Last week WITNESS sent out via e-mail its mid-year Performance Evaluation Dashboard. In its dashboard, you can find an overview of everything they have accomplished over the last six months – and it’s a lot!
But they were very proud of one victory in particular. Because the organization’s campaigns are aimed at creating systemic change, often a lot of work goes on behind the scenes before that change is realized. According to WITNESS, we just witnessed one of these landmark moments and that was the Endorois people’s victory reclaiming their ancestral lands in Lake Bogoria in Kenya.
The story goes something like this: in 1973 the Endorois were evicted from their lands to make room for a wildlife preserve. For decades, they tried unsuccessfully to persuade government and local authorities to let them return to their land and share the revenues generated by the reserve. In 2003, the Endorois' case was brought to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights; working with local partner CEMIRIDE, WITNESS provided video advocacy strategy and training to strengthen the Endorois' case with evidentiary videos, marking the first time video has been used as evidence by the African Commission.
After a fight for justice that spanned generations, the African Commission ruled that the eviction violated the Endorois' right to development compromising their rights to property, health, culture, religion, and natural resources. This February the African Union adopted that ruling and dictated that Kenya ought to take steps to return the land and compensate the Endorois within three months. This is a landmark decision with unprecedented and far-reaching implications for the rights of indigenous peoples across the African continent.
If you haven’t visited WITNESS’s The Hub, now would be a great time to do so. You can watch "Rightful Place: Endorois' Struggle for Justice.” Congratulations to all the hard work done by everyone at WITNESS to make this victory possible.
But they were very proud of one victory in particular. Because the organization’s campaigns are aimed at creating systemic change, often a lot of work goes on behind the scenes before that change is realized. According to WITNESS, we just witnessed one of these landmark moments and that was the Endorois people’s victory reclaiming their ancestral lands in Lake Bogoria in Kenya.
The story goes something like this: in 1973 the Endorois were evicted from their lands to make room for a wildlife preserve. For decades, they tried unsuccessfully to persuade government and local authorities to let them return to their land and share the revenues generated by the reserve. In 2003, the Endorois' case was brought to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights; working with local partner CEMIRIDE, WITNESS provided video advocacy strategy and training to strengthen the Endorois' case with evidentiary videos, marking the first time video has been used as evidence by the African Commission.
After a fight for justice that spanned generations, the African Commission ruled that the eviction violated the Endorois' right to development compromising their rights to property, health, culture, religion, and natural resources. This February the African Union adopted that ruling and dictated that Kenya ought to take steps to return the land and compensate the Endorois within three months. This is a landmark decision with unprecedented and far-reaching implications for the rights of indigenous peoples across the African continent.
If you haven’t visited WITNESS’s The Hub, now would be a great time to do so. You can watch "Rightful Place: Endorois' Struggle for Justice.” Congratulations to all the hard work done by everyone at WITNESS to make this victory possible.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous Addresses the Board
Last week during its Board Meeting, Benjamin Todd Jealous, President of the NAACP addressed the Foundation's Directors and staff. Jealous described current challenges facing the NAACP as it enters its second century of work. They include several of ongoing interest to the Foundation: sentencing of juveniles to life sentences without the possibility of parole, anti-trafficking, immigration reform and domestic criminal justice reform. He noted the role of the NAACP in building consensus around these issues which are particularly harmful to “black and brown” people and pointed out that they have led the NAACP and an emerging movement of advocates to call on the U.S. to address them as human rights violations.
Jealous noted that their resolution requires moving beyond currently guaranteed civil rights found in our constitution and instead requires that the U.S. be held accountable to human rights guarantees found in the charter of the U.N., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the various human rights conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory or should become one. He positions the NAACP as a human rights organization because it consistently seeks to advance solutions beyond those limited by focusing on civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. and instead seeks the much broader protections found in human rights treaties and agreements.
Lastly, he also talked about the need to rebuild the NAACP, after the setback following the lost of its most significant donor. His goal is to rebuild and revitalize it so that it can resume its role as a major moral force, both domestically and internationally; e.g., by opening an office in New York to work exclusively with the U.N. on human rights issues.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Story of Stuff Book Hot off the Press!
Overbrook grantee Annie Leonard's Story of Stuff video hit the mainstream long ago, and it's about to reach an even broader audience as a book! For those of us who longed for more after the end of the 20 minute movie, Story of Stuff the book is the answer. Click here to learn how to find it, buy it, and to listen to it online as Annie reads an excerpt.
While visiting New York on a book tour, Annie graced Christiane Amanpour's studio at CNN, spoke to a rapt audience at the 92nd Street Y, and even braved an interview on the Colbert Report. She did great! Check out Annie's interviews by clicking the links above, or check out the book (printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink.)
The Story of Stuff film was followed by The Story of Cap and Trade, and will soon be joined by The Story of Bottled Water and The Story of Electronics. As original project funders, it is certainly exciting to see where Annie and her team have taken it.
While visiting New York on a book tour, Annie graced Christiane Amanpour's studio at CNN, spoke to a rapt audience at the 92nd Street Y, and even braved an interview on the Colbert Report. She did great! Check out Annie's interviews by clicking the links above, or check out the book (printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink.)
The Story of Stuff film was followed by The Story of Cap and Trade, and will soon be joined by The Story of Bottled Water and The Story of Electronics. As original project funders, it is certainly exciting to see where Annie and her team have taken it.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Two New Studies Reaffirm Climate Change is All Too Real
An international team of researchers led by scientists at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks found a section of the Arctic ocean seafloor primed to release massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The methane, previously thought to be permanently sealed underground by frozen permafrost, is beginning to leach through cracks as the planet warms and the permafrost melts.
Methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and the recent research shows a faster acceleration toward climate change may be in our immediate future.
Co-leader of the research team, Natalia Shakhova, found that current levels of atmospheric methane hover around 1.85 parts per million, compared with the geological record high of .7 ppm. Current methane levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been in 400,000 years. This new research out of Fairbanks adds a previously absent component to climate models, and will likely shift scenarios of what our climate will look like.
Research out of the UK Met Office also points to accelerating climate change in our future. An international team of scientists analyzed over 100 papers published since the IPCC's last report in 2007. The team's findings support the IPCC's classification of human-caused global warming as "unequivocal." The review compared the expected natural shifts in climate with scenarios that take human influence into account. The atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and evidence of warming we've already seen are unprecedented.
Check out the Arctic methane story here.
Read about the new anthropogenic global warming study here.
Methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and the recent research shows a faster acceleration toward climate change may be in our immediate future.
Co-leader of the research team, Natalia Shakhova, found that current levels of atmospheric methane hover around 1.85 parts per million, compared with the geological record high of .7 ppm. Current methane levels in the atmosphere are the highest they've been in 400,000 years. This new research out of Fairbanks adds a previously absent component to climate models, and will likely shift scenarios of what our climate will look like.
Research out of the UK Met Office also points to accelerating climate change in our future. An international team of scientists analyzed over 100 papers published since the IPCC's last report in 2007. The team's findings support the IPCC's classification of human-caused global warming as "unequivocal." The review compared the expected natural shifts in climate with scenarios that take human influence into account. The atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases and evidence of warming we've already seen are unprecedented.
Check out the Arctic methane story here.
Read about the new anthropogenic global warming study here.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Climate Change Scientists On the Defensive
Climate Change science continues to face escalating attacks, despite increasing evidence in science journals, news media and the blogosphere that the planet is warming.
A recent post by Tom Yulsman in the CEJournal shows graphs from the National Snow and Ice Data Center tracing shrinking sea ice cover in the Arctic from 1979 to the present. Here is more data on the Arctic melt season from NASA.
At the same time, a story posted Monday by Kate Sheppard on Mother Jones details a new lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the Environmental Protection Agency, feared to be just the beginning of an onslaught of attacks on proposed environmental regulation, waged by business lobbies taking advantage of recent scandals involving the IPCC's credibility and the supposed "Climategate cover-ups."
The Chamber of Commerce lawsuit involves the EPA's endangerment finding classifying greenhouse gasses as dangerous to human health. Because of this finding, emissions can now be legally regulated under the Clean Air Act. Although the Chamber of Commerce does not have much legal ground to stand on, the suit will give them another chance to voice skeptical views of climate change, muddling the perceptions of factions of the public that are already on the fence about climate change.
Al Gore wrote a clear and compelling Op-Ed for the New York Times last Sunday, reiterating that gaps in scientific knowledge always exist, but overwhelming evidence points toward unequivocal anthropogenic global warming.
Unfortunately, as Don Braman of George Washington Law School said, "If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change, you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point." (See my post from last week.)
A recent post by Tom Yulsman in the CEJournal shows graphs from the National Snow and Ice Data Center tracing shrinking sea ice cover in the Arctic from 1979 to the present. Here is more data on the Arctic melt season from NASA.
At the same time, a story posted Monday by Kate Sheppard on Mother Jones details a new lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the Environmental Protection Agency, feared to be just the beginning of an onslaught of attacks on proposed environmental regulation, waged by business lobbies taking advantage of recent scandals involving the IPCC's credibility and the supposed "Climategate cover-ups."
The Chamber of Commerce lawsuit involves the EPA's endangerment finding classifying greenhouse gasses as dangerous to human health. Because of this finding, emissions can now be legally regulated under the Clean Air Act. Although the Chamber of Commerce does not have much legal ground to stand on, the suit will give them another chance to voice skeptical views of climate change, muddling the perceptions of factions of the public that are already on the fence about climate change.
Al Gore wrote a clear and compelling Op-Ed for the New York Times last Sunday, reiterating that gaps in scientific knowledge always exist, but overwhelming evidence points toward unequivocal anthropogenic global warming.
Unfortunately, as Don Braman of George Washington Law School said, "If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change, you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point." (See my post from last week.)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
DC to Legalize Gay Marriage?
Well it looks like my hometown of DC may take a step forward tomorrow when it comes to gay marriage! According to the office of Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), today makrs the end of the 30-day period that Congress would have to act in order to prevent the same-sex marriage bill from becoming legal. Twice last year the Washington, DC city council voted to recognize same-sex marriage in DC. According to the charter however, Congress has 30 legislative days to prevent this from happening by passing a resolution. Such a resolution (H.J. Res 72) was introduced by Rep. Jason Caffetz (R-UT), but the measure has stalled in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Since today is the 30th day in the countdown, we'll keep an eye out to see what happens today and tomorrow. Let's hope that there will not be Congressional Action and that gay marriage will become legal in our nation's capitals! If it is legal, the first marraige licenses can be issued to same-sex couples tomorrow and the first same-sex marriages could take place as soon as March 9th.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Future of Journalism and Foundations
On Tuesday, I attended a program at Philanthropy New York called American Journalism: Views on Reconstructing the Falling Industry. I wanted to post my thoughts earlier, but the Foundation has had quite a busy week with Committee Meetings and gathering together our Board Materials for an upcoming meeting.
Speakers on Tuesday's event were Michael Schudson, co-author of The Reconstruction of American Journalism and Professor of Communication at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and Calvin Sims, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation. Vincent Stehle moderated the discussion.
The discussion started off with a series of thoughts about the role that government should and could play in this crisis. While Schudson have several recommendations urging further government support for media (including expanding support for public media such as NPR and CPB, and funding for more local news). He laid out several justifications for this view, such as the fact that historically the government as played this role, and we do it in a lot of other capacities such as social sciences etc. Sims on the other hand, appeared a bit more cautious about the role of government. Although he did advocate for some role, he had more serious questions about what impact government support would have and how exactly it would play out. He advocated for more media education, media literacy and. He also discussed how competition invariably leads to better news production and said we need to look at media ownership issues to ensure there isn't increased media concentration, as well as developing new tools in the digital media landscape.
With respect to the role that foundations can play in this crisis. Both the speakers and participants realized that foundations will not be a panacea for this crisis, but there are ways in which they can help the industry as it is in transition. Some ideas including funding online investigative news organizations (although you must think about long term sustainability), funding collaboration, finding new models for reporting and disseminating journalism, keeping competition alive and studying the transition to an online media system.
It was a great event overall, and even though I couldn't stay for the whole thing, I found it to be quite helpful in thinking about what role foundations can play in revitalizing media. Philanthropy New York does a really great job of posting resources after each program, so if you missed the event, or just want to have a list of more resources that were mentioned on Tuesday, you can go here. It actually looks like the summary isn't up yet, but I'm sure it will be shortly.
Thanks to everyone involved, both speakers and other participants!
Speakers on Tuesday's event were Michael Schudson, co-author of The Reconstruction of American Journalism and Professor of Communication at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and Calvin Sims, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation. Vincent Stehle moderated the discussion.
The discussion started off with a series of thoughts about the role that government should and could play in this crisis. While Schudson have several recommendations urging further government support for media (including expanding support for public media such as NPR and CPB, and funding for more local news). He laid out several justifications for this view, such as the fact that historically the government as played this role, and we do it in a lot of other capacities such as social sciences etc. Sims on the other hand, appeared a bit more cautious about the role of government. Although he did advocate for some role, he had more serious questions about what impact government support would have and how exactly it would play out. He advocated for more media education, media literacy and. He also discussed how competition invariably leads to better news production and said we need to look at media ownership issues to ensure there isn't increased media concentration, as well as developing new tools in the digital media landscape.
With respect to the role that foundations can play in this crisis. Both the speakers and participants realized that foundations will not be a panacea for this crisis, but there are ways in which they can help the industry as it is in transition. Some ideas including funding online investigative news organizations (although you must think about long term sustainability), funding collaboration, finding new models for reporting and disseminating journalism, keeping competition alive and studying the transition to an online media system.
It was a great event overall, and even though I couldn't stay for the whole thing, I found it to be quite helpful in thinking about what role foundations can play in revitalizing media. Philanthropy New York does a really great job of posting resources after each program, so if you missed the event, or just want to have a list of more resources that were mentioned on Tuesday, you can go here. It actually looks like the summary isn't up yet, but I'm sure it will be shortly.
Thanks to everyone involved, both speakers and other participants!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Fish Farming Looking Better for the Future
Fish farming has gotten a bad rap recently, with horror stories of sewage and antibiotic dumping, water waste, overcrowded pens, and fast-spreading disease between farmed and wild fish pervading the media. But a new method of sustainable fish farming is gaining the confidence of producers and consumers.
The new method is RAS, which stands for Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In an RAS system, large scale production is possible with little to no water pollution. In fact, 99.75 percent of the water used is cleaned and recycled back into the tank it came from. Waste can be filtered and distributed as fertilizer on nearby farms, or the "used" water can be transferred to aquaponics systems, where plants naturally filter the water, which can be taken back to the RAS.
RAS solves the problems pen farms, or crowded offshore enclosures, currently cause. Pen farmers don't pay for water like RAS farmers, simply because they use ocean water that's already there. This system might save money in the short-term, but the environmental costs over the long term are extreme. Concentrated groups of fish result in the repeated release of concentrated waste around the pen, along with clouds of antibiotics and fertilizers used to keep the close-quartered fish free of disease.
RAS is expensive up front ( a 92,000 square foot system run by leading U.S. company Australis Aquaculture had a start-up cost of $15 million.) But with the conservation community starting to demand producer responsibility for messes made throughout production cycles, the early costs of RAS are starting to look not-so-bad. Steve Summerfelt, director of the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute, says despite trepidation in our current economy, investors are starting to support RAS.
The new method is RAS, which stands for Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In an RAS system, large scale production is possible with little to no water pollution. In fact, 99.75 percent of the water used is cleaned and recycled back into the tank it came from. Waste can be filtered and distributed as fertilizer on nearby farms, or the "used" water can be transferred to aquaponics systems, where plants naturally filter the water, which can be taken back to the RAS.
RAS solves the problems pen farms, or crowded offshore enclosures, currently cause. Pen farmers don't pay for water like RAS farmers, simply because they use ocean water that's already there. This system might save money in the short-term, but the environmental costs over the long term are extreme. Concentrated groups of fish result in the repeated release of concentrated waste around the pen, along with clouds of antibiotics and fertilizers used to keep the close-quartered fish free of disease.
RAS is expensive up front ( a 92,000 square foot system run by leading U.S. company Australis Aquaculture had a start-up cost of $15 million.) But with the conservation community starting to demand producer responsibility for messes made throughout production cycles, the early costs of RAS are starting to look not-so-bad. Steve Summerfelt, director of the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute, says despite trepidation in our current economy, investors are starting to support RAS.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Public Perception of Climate Change Not Always Based on Fact
A recent study out of the Cultural Cognition Project looks at the disconnect between climate change science and public perception. Although scientific evidence of AGW (anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming) becomes less refutable each year, polls show Americans' beliefs in the reality and threats of climate change are actually waning. The chart below, from a study by the Pew Research Center, displays the results of a 1500-person, nation-wide poll conducted in the fall of 2009.
Dan Kahan of Yale Law School, Donald Braman of George Washington Law School, and Hank Jenkins-Smith of the University of Oklahoma co-wrote the Cultural Cognition Project paper, looking at how cultural values shape public priorities and beliefs, as well as political movements and policy decisions.
Overwhelmingly, the study finds that people tend to accept information that best fits within their preconceived world view, regardless of any number of sound scientific studies that could shift their beliefs.
For example, the study found many people initially downplayed the connection between fossil-fuel industry and global warming. But when nuclear power was suggested as an alternative option, as an energy and economic "filler," many who originally diminished the threat of global warming changed their tunes.
The paper also explores the "messenger effect." It turns out that most people are more willing to accept information from the "messenger" who is most like them. Those who already lean toward the skeptic's side of the global warming spectrum are more likely to change their views on the science if it is delivered from someone considered to be already in their camp.
"If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change, you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point," said Don Braman.
Last week's Kansas City Star ran a story on religion and environmentalism, giving hope that communities traditionally critical of environmentalists might come around -- largely because the message of environmental stewardship is now being delivered by their pastors, people they already trust and identify with.
"The world doesn't listen to just scientists. Although science tells us the facts, the solutions are moral solutions. And people don't look to science for morality. They look to religion," said Carl Safina, an environmental scientist quoted in the article.
The environmental movement's next big challenge may not be finding the best renewable fuel or the best climate model. The movement ahead is shaping up to be one of communication and perception.
Dan Kahan of Yale Law School, Donald Braman of George Washington Law School, and Hank Jenkins-Smith of the University of Oklahoma co-wrote the Cultural Cognition Project paper, looking at how cultural values shape public priorities and beliefs, as well as political movements and policy decisions.Overwhelmingly, the study finds that people tend to accept information that best fits within their preconceived world view, regardless of any number of sound scientific studies that could shift their beliefs.
For example, the study found many people initially downplayed the connection between fossil-fuel industry and global warming. But when nuclear power was suggested as an alternative option, as an energy and economic "filler," many who originally diminished the threat of global warming changed their tunes.
The paper also explores the "messenger effect." It turns out that most people are more willing to accept information from the "messenger" who is most like them. Those who already lean toward the skeptic's side of the global warming spectrum are more likely to change their views on the science if it is delivered from someone considered to be already in their camp.
"If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change, you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point," said Don Braman.
Last week's Kansas City Star ran a story on religion and environmentalism, giving hope that communities traditionally critical of environmentalists might come around -- largely because the message of environmental stewardship is now being delivered by their pastors, people they already trust and identify with.
"The world doesn't listen to just scientists. Although science tells us the facts, the solutions are moral solutions. And people don't look to science for morality. They look to religion," said Carl Safina, an environmental scientist quoted in the article.
The environmental movement's next big challenge may not be finding the best renewable fuel or the best climate model. The movement ahead is shaping up to be one of communication and perception.
Friday, February 19, 2010
UN Study Shows Environmental Cost of Big Business
A United Nations study due for publication this summer calculated the environmental impact of 3,000 of the world's biggest companies, and came up with some troubling results.
Looking at greenhouse gas emissions, water use, toxic pollutants and more, the UN study found over one third of the companies' profits would be eaten up if they were forced to pay for the environmental damage their industries inflict. The price tag amounts to a combined damage of $2.2 trillion, with more than half of that amount attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
The true global cost is estimated to be even higher, since the initial study only took businesses into account without looking at government or individual energy consumption. The current study also overlooks the social impact on people worldwide who are affected by climate change, in the most extreme cases those labeled "environmental refugees," forced to pack up and move when their homelands are no longer habitable.
Now that the cat's out of the bag, industry leaders are taking a harder look at their environmental impacts, afraid of how their profits would be cut if they were forced to change practices or clean up their messes. But no significant producer responsibility legislation currently exists, and big business will only have to pay if policy makers quantify and demand responsibility on the production end.
Another big sign our current system needs an overhaul is the simple disappearance of basic resources the big polluters need to keep producing and polluting. For example, water shortages in California last year cost agriculture companies hundreds of millions of dollars and a loss of 20,000 jobs. This is just the first example of many resource shortages that will occur if big businesses don't trade in linear modes of production for closed loop systems.
Looking at greenhouse gas emissions, water use, toxic pollutants and more, the UN study found over one third of the companies' profits would be eaten up if they were forced to pay for the environmental damage their industries inflict. The price tag amounts to a combined damage of $2.2 trillion, with more than half of that amount attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.
The true global cost is estimated to be even higher, since the initial study only took businesses into account without looking at government or individual energy consumption. The current study also overlooks the social impact on people worldwide who are affected by climate change, in the most extreme cases those labeled "environmental refugees," forced to pack up and move when their homelands are no longer habitable.
Now that the cat's out of the bag, industry leaders are taking a harder look at their environmental impacts, afraid of how their profits would be cut if they were forced to change practices or clean up their messes. But no significant producer responsibility legislation currently exists, and big business will only have to pay if policy makers quantify and demand responsibility on the production end.
Another big sign our current system needs an overhaul is the simple disappearance of basic resources the big polluters need to keep producing and polluting. For example, water shortages in California last year cost agriculture companies hundreds of millions of dollars and a loss of 20,000 jobs. This is just the first example of many resource shortages that will occur if big businesses don't trade in linear modes of production for closed loop systems.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Philanthropy New York Takes a Look at Journalism
I’m very interested in the discussion around the future of journalism both from the perspective of a Foundation and also as a graduated student studying Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU. I blogged last week about an event I attended where Robert McChesney and John Nichols discussed their recent book, The Death and Life of American Journalism.
Well it’s clearly something that other funders are interested in as well. Next week on Tuesday, February 23rd, Philanthropy New York (formerly New York Regional Association of Grantmakers) is hosting an event, American Journalism: Views on Reconstructing the Falling Industry from 3:00-5:00pm.
Last year in May, Philanthropy New York hosted a session that framed the issues that have led to the collapse of so many print media companies. Yet they recognize that the problem still exists; every day community newspapers are downsizing, cutting staff, and even declaring bankruptcy. The program will address the fundamental question: Why does it matter?
Speakers for next Tuesday’s event include Michael Schudson, co-author of The Reconstruction of American Journalism and Professor of Communication at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and Calvin Sims, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation. Vincent Stehle will be moderating the discussion. I’m looking forward to hearing their views on “the role of government, the role of philanthropy, the role of professional journalists, and the changing role of the audience in reconstructing this falling industry.”
I’ll be attending the event Tuesday (at least until 4:30 when I’ll have to leave to run over to NYU for my digital media class) and will probably live tweet the event. I’ll also blog about it the day after. If you’re interested in attending you can RSVP directly to register@philanthropynewyork.org. The event is free for Philanthropy New York Members and open to non-members for $100.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
February 23rd Innocence Project Event
As a longtime supporter of the Innocence Project, we are pleased to host a breakfast and briefing for philanthropic leaders on Tuesday, February 23rd, 8:30-10:00 a.m. to highlight the IP’s important work. The breakfast will include an interactive discussion to be led by IP Executive Director Maddy deLone, and featuring DNA exoneree Steven Barnes.
Since the Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld at Cardozo School of Law, 250 people in the United States have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, including 17 who were on death row. The IP’s pioneering use of DNA technology to exonerate innocent people has reshaped the landscape of the criminal justice system, paving the way for the most significant reforms in over 40 years. Accordingly, the IP works with allies at the national, state and local levels to reveal the systemic flaws, enact meaningful reform, and protect innocent Americans from wrongful arrest and conviction.
The February 23rd briefing will include a discussion of how DNA exonerations have reframed the terms of the national debate about the death penalty, causing even staunch supporters to re-examine their position. Most recently, reports in 2009 revealed that Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting the fire that killed his three children. Due largely to the IP’s five-year effort to have the forensic evidence in the case examined, we now have the most convincing proof to date that an innocent man has been executed in the United States.
This breakfast will take place at the Overbrook Foundation offices. Space is extremely limited and is available on a first come first serve basis. If you're a philanthropic leader and you're interested in attending, please RSVP by contacting me (Elizabeth Miller) at 212.661.8710 or emiller@overbrook.org.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A Sustainable Future Discussed at Columbia University
Last night I attended a lecture and panel discussion sponsored by the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), an Overbrook grantee and part of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. The talk centered around Navarre, a region of Spain that has been particularly successful converting to a renewable energy economy. Although covering a small area and serving a population just over 600,000, Navarre has emerged as a global front-runner and example of success in merging sustainable energy with a sustainable economy.
Shahid Naeem, Director of Science at CERC, acted as moderator. Naeem began the evening by referring to the term "sustainable development" as "slippery," qualifying the night's discussion as a look at leadership in relation to sustainability, and how collaboration behind a strong vision worked in Navarre. Through projected graphs, Naeem showed how the use of the term "sustainability" spiked after its introduction in 1987, and yet with increasing use and discussion of the term, carbon emissions globally went up, and wealth and biodiversity decreased. Naeem suggested this juxtaposition could have been a result of poor leadership as opposed to a lack of understanding or ambition.
Miguel Sanz Sesma, President of Navarre in Spain, spoke first, stressing that sustainable development includes social responsibility, and vice versa. One cannot be achieved without the other. Sesma attributed the success in his region to a collaboration between private, public and government sectors. Achieving sustainable development in Navarre involved businesses, universities, politicians, and technical centers including both skilled and unskilled workers. Today, Navarre has one half the unemployment rate compared with the rest of Spain, a milestone Sesma connects directly to the government's involvement with renewables.
Esteban Morras Andres, former director of ACCIONA Energia spoke next. Andres sees our current energy, economic and climate crises as opportunities to overcome imbalances in the wealth and dependence of countries all over the world. Only some countries have oil or coal resources, Adres said, but all have equal access to renewables -- sun, wind, water or biofuel.
George Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, talked about the business community's lukewarm reaction to Copenhagen's lukewarm outcome. "We need to showcase solutions,"Kell said, such as the environmental and economic successes of Navarre, as a way to encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Kell also spoke about recent media criticism of the IPCC's scientific credibility. "We should never forget that the bulk of scientific evidence remains today stronger than it was six months ago. The fundamentals about climate change have unfortunately not changed," Kell said. Kell ended his remarks by emphasizing the need for businesses to move away from an "obsession with short-term returns," and look to examples such as those coming out of Navarre for inspiration to value long-term results over quick, unsustainable fixes.
Unfortunately, the panel's final speaker, Elke Weber, co-director of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, explained that humans are hard-wired to respond to short-term threats as opposed to those requiring long-term reactions. Basic human nature will inevitably be a piece of the puzzle when building a renewable economy, a shift that may require sacrifice in the short term for greater returns farther down the line. CRED recently published a downloadable guide, The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, that addresses some of these short-term/long-term disconnects.
President Sesma had the last word, explaining that most of Navarre's success in sustainable development is due to the willingness of business, government and the public to collaborate with a common goal. According to Sesma, a major help along the road to sustainability was the lack of lobbyists in Spain -- the government got on board, and that was that. The United States is of course much larger and our politicians are notoriously influenced by corporate lobbyists. We can only hope examples like Navarre's will trump the lobbyists' siren songs, and the sooner the better.
Shahid Naeem, Director of Science at CERC, acted as moderator. Naeem began the evening by referring to the term "sustainable development" as "slippery," qualifying the night's discussion as a look at leadership in relation to sustainability, and how collaboration behind a strong vision worked in Navarre. Through projected graphs, Naeem showed how the use of the term "sustainability" spiked after its introduction in 1987, and yet with increasing use and discussion of the term, carbon emissions globally went up, and wealth and biodiversity decreased. Naeem suggested this juxtaposition could have been a result of poor leadership as opposed to a lack of understanding or ambition.
Miguel Sanz Sesma, President of Navarre in Spain, spoke first, stressing that sustainable development includes social responsibility, and vice versa. One cannot be achieved without the other. Sesma attributed the success in his region to a collaboration between private, public and government sectors. Achieving sustainable development in Navarre involved businesses, universities, politicians, and technical centers including both skilled and unskilled workers. Today, Navarre has one half the unemployment rate compared with the rest of Spain, a milestone Sesma connects directly to the government's involvement with renewables.
Esteban Morras Andres, former director of ACCIONA Energia spoke next. Andres sees our current energy, economic and climate crises as opportunities to overcome imbalances in the wealth and dependence of countries all over the world. Only some countries have oil or coal resources, Adres said, but all have equal access to renewables -- sun, wind, water or biofuel.
George Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, talked about the business community's lukewarm reaction to Copenhagen's lukewarm outcome. "We need to showcase solutions,"Kell said, such as the environmental and economic successes of Navarre, as a way to encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Kell also spoke about recent media criticism of the IPCC's scientific credibility. "We should never forget that the bulk of scientific evidence remains today stronger than it was six months ago. The fundamentals about climate change have unfortunately not changed," Kell said. Kell ended his remarks by emphasizing the need for businesses to move away from an "obsession with short-term returns," and look to examples such as those coming out of Navarre for inspiration to value long-term results over quick, unsustainable fixes.
Unfortunately, the panel's final speaker, Elke Weber, co-director of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, explained that humans are hard-wired to respond to short-term threats as opposed to those requiring long-term reactions. Basic human nature will inevitably be a piece of the puzzle when building a renewable economy, a shift that may require sacrifice in the short term for greater returns farther down the line. CRED recently published a downloadable guide, The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, that addresses some of these short-term/long-term disconnects.
President Sesma had the last word, explaining that most of Navarre's success in sustainable development is due to the willingness of business, government and the public to collaborate with a common goal. According to Sesma, a major help along the road to sustainability was the lack of lobbyists in Spain -- the government got on board, and that was that. The United States is of course much larger and our politicians are notoriously influenced by corporate lobbyists. We can only hope examples like Navarre's will trump the lobbyists' siren songs, and the sooner the better.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Biofuels Get a Second Look
Last week the Obama administration announced a plan to ramp up the nation's production and use of corn-based ethanol, even as studies out of Europe show the life-cycle of biofuels yields a carbon footprint not significantly lower than gasoline's.
The United States' renewable standard requires alternative fuels to produce 20 percent less carbon emissions than gasoline (compared with Europe's 35 percent standard.) But this measurement gets tricky when the entire process of clearing land for crops, growing the crops and producing the fuel is taken into account. Burning biofuels may be less carbon intensive than gasoline, but the production process may cancel out this benefit.
The Obama administration is "selling" its biofuel idea as more of a jobs and economy plan than a climate action plan. Production of corn ethanol on U.S. soil, projected by the new plan to triple in the next twelve years, will add millions of American jobs and release us from our dependence on foreign oil. But environmentalists and climate scientists are saying a new dependence on corn-based ethanol will only add new problems. The administration is basing its assessments of ethanol's success on unprovable future projections of increased crop yields and production efficiency.
The Daily Climate quotes Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook grantee: "It seems a little far-fetched at first glance. You can kind of talk yourself into it, but in any case they make a lot of assumptions on what yield will look like, what the markets will look like."
But the administration is pushing forward with biofuels anyway, eliciting criticism that the EPA has caved in to the farm lobby.
At the same time, The New York Times reported yesterday that the European Commission may soon retract its original pro-biofuel stance. Looking at Indirect Land Use Change, (the impact of adding cropland, clearing natural vegetation and tilling carbon-rich soil), the benefits of biofuels over gasoline are difficult to reconcile.
The United States' renewable standard requires alternative fuels to produce 20 percent less carbon emissions than gasoline (compared with Europe's 35 percent standard.) But this measurement gets tricky when the entire process of clearing land for crops, growing the crops and producing the fuel is taken into account. Burning biofuels may be less carbon intensive than gasoline, but the production process may cancel out this benefit.
The Obama administration is "selling" its biofuel idea as more of a jobs and economy plan than a climate action plan. Production of corn ethanol on U.S. soil, projected by the new plan to triple in the next twelve years, will add millions of American jobs and release us from our dependence on foreign oil. But environmentalists and climate scientists are saying a new dependence on corn-based ethanol will only add new problems. The administration is basing its assessments of ethanol's success on unprovable future projections of increased crop yields and production efficiency.
The Daily Climate quotes Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook grantee: "It seems a little far-fetched at first glance. You can kind of talk yourself into it, but in any case they make a lot of assumptions on what yield will look like, what the markets will look like."
But the administration is pushing forward with biofuels anyway, eliciting criticism that the EPA has caved in to the farm lobby.
At the same time, The New York Times reported yesterday that the European Commission may soon retract its original pro-biofuel stance. Looking at Indirect Land Use Change, (the impact of adding cropland, clearing natural vegetation and tilling carbon-rich soil), the benefits of biofuels over gasoline are difficult to reconcile.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
IPCC's Future Questioned
With lingering disappointments from Copenhagen and frustrations over roadblocks to climate legislation in the Senate, a growing number of environmentalists, scientists and journalists are asking if our fundamental approach to connecting science and policy may be off track.
A story by Peter N. Spotts in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor asks, "Is it Time to Overhaul the IPCC?" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988 as an international, nonpartisan body charged with the task of reviewing and assessing science related to climate change, has recently suffered a slew of criticism ranging from balanced deliberations to excoriating harangues following climategate.
One of the more mild discussions centers around what is perceived as the IPCC's increasing rigidity even as new scientific developments reveal new uncertainties. Critics complain the Panel has become monolithic, issuing pronouncements as though it were the only legitimate voice at the table. The IPCC is increasingly perceived as unwilling to inform the public of all the steps it takes along the way to reach its conclusions. More damning criticisms come from climate change skeptics, who charge the IPCC has published and embellished faulty conclusions.
But despite the accusations and arguments, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the IPCC's basic conclusion remains sound: the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate, and human activity is largely to blame for it.
Click on these links to read more about the discussion: the CEJ Journal; a pre-Copenhagen take on science and policy from The Daily Climate; and a "let's get on with it" take from David King, former Chief Scientific Advisor of the U.K.
A story by Peter N. Spotts in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor asks, "Is it Time to Overhaul the IPCC?" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988 as an international, nonpartisan body charged with the task of reviewing and assessing science related to climate change, has recently suffered a slew of criticism ranging from balanced deliberations to excoriating harangues following climategate.
One of the more mild discussions centers around what is perceived as the IPCC's increasing rigidity even as new scientific developments reveal new uncertainties. Critics complain the Panel has become monolithic, issuing pronouncements as though it were the only legitimate voice at the table. The IPCC is increasingly perceived as unwilling to inform the public of all the steps it takes along the way to reach its conclusions. More damning criticisms come from climate change skeptics, who charge the IPCC has published and embellished faulty conclusions.
But despite the accusations and arguments, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the IPCC's basic conclusion remains sound: the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate, and human activity is largely to blame for it.
Click on these links to read more about the discussion: the CEJ Journal; a pre-Copenhagen take on science and policy from The Daily Climate; and a "let's get on with it" take from David King, former Chief Scientific Advisor of the U.K.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
