|
Wednesday, January 28. 2009
In assessing America's energy future, it's impossible to ignore the role that projected population growth and population distribution will play. U.S. population, currently 306 million, is projected to rise to 373 million by 2030 and to 438 million by 2050, with much of that growth expected to occur in the West and the South. Currently, the United States is the world's leading consumer of oil at 20.6 million barrels per day and the second highest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Given U.S. population projections and consumption patterns, how realistic is it to talk of eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil in the next few decades or reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050? That was the topic of a Capitol Hill roundtable that the Pension Rights Center hosted on January 13, 2009, and the answers were sobering, if not alarming, particularly with respect to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Jeff Stewart, the Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, gave a PowerPoint presentation that showed U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, given current population and consumption patterns, are expected to increase by 25% to 8 Gt (gigatons) per year by 2030, and by 2050, population growth drives projected carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 9.19 Gt per year. Stewart's analysis indicated that to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, as many have suggested, would require revolutionary changes to each energy producing and end use sector. In one scenario he illustrated the magnitude of changes that would need to take place, doubling auto efficiency and mpg, vastly improved power plant efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all coal-fired plants, tripling the number of nuclear power plants to 300, capturing the equivalent of the entire wind energy potential of North Dakota, and a massive conversion of automobiles to hydrogen fuel. On the question of U.S energy dependence, Paul Holtberg, representing the Energy Information Agency, unveiled the government's latest revised energy projections for 2030. According to EIA's latest forecast, even with a very substantial increase in biofuels, the U.S. will remain heavily dependent on foreign oil by 2030, with foreign oil still providing 41 percent of our total liquid fuel consumption. Robert Hirsch, a "peak oil" expert with MISI, painted an even more alarming picture of America's energy future, suggesting that global oil production has peaked, or will soon peak at about 87 million barrels per day and will begin, in a few years, a gradual decline of up five percent a year. If Hirsch's peak oil analysis is even close to being accurate, it suggests that America's energy future is substantially bleaker than the government estimates provided by EIA and it increases the challenge faced by lawmakers as they attempt to meet the energy needs of an expanding U.S. population. Another presenter, Robert Gramlich of the American Wind Energy Association, suggested that wind could make a major contribution to meeting future U.S. energy needs, but realizing the potential of wind energy will require more than windmills. Much of the wind power that will be generated in the decades ahead will occur in rural parts of the West, far from the fast growing urban centers in places like California, Arizona, and Florida. To make use of wind power, America will have to make a major investment in new transmission lines to get the power to where it needs to go. Nate Gorence, of the National Commission on Energy Policy, gave the audience an overview of the energy legislation likely to be debated in the new Congress, everything from new fuel economy standards, to energy tax subsidies, to investments in "green energy" technology. If Members of Congress do nothing else in this Congress but debate and act on energy-related legislation, it looks like it could be a very full legislative calendar. That makes it all the more imperative that Members of Congress look down the barrel of America's energy future before proceeding any further. It's not an encouraging picture. [For each of the presenters at our January 13, 2009 energy roundtable, PowerPoint presentations are available].
Tuesday, January 27. 2009
On February 11, I will join my CARE colleague, Cynthia Awuor, and demographers Alex de Sherbinin and Susana Adamo to give a briefing on Capitol Hill about the human face of climate change. I am looking forward to the opportunity to help members of Congress and their staff better understand not only the challenge we face, but also how policymakers can address this challenge and how humanitarian organizations are already adapting the way we do business in light of the realities of climate change. Until recently, climate change science has been, for the most part, defined by top-down, model- and climate-scenario based impact assessments, which attempt to project the expected level of impact of unmitigated climate change on human and ecological systems using biophysical indicators, such as water stress, agricultural output, and infectious disease distribution. Very few studies to date have looked at biophysical risk together with social, economic, and political vulnerability. The most climate change insecure populations will be those with the highest biophysical risks and the greatest social, economic, and political vulnerability. Take Zimbabwe for example. The country is prone to climate-related hazards, such as droughts and cyclones. It will likely experience water scarcity and a decline in agricultural production as a result of climate change. On top of these biophysical risks, however, Zimbabwe is also currently dealing with political and financial crises as well as an HIV/AIDS crisis. The HIV/AIDS crisis alone has left many women widowed and struggling to survive. And because they are women, they do not by law have access to land tenure, they have been excluded from disaster risk reduction efforts, and they have not benefited from improved agricultural technologies and water resource management techniques. Their livelihoods will become even more insecure in the face of climate change. At the briefing, which is being co-sponsored by the Population Resource Center, I will present a report CARE and UNOCHA released last year on the humanitarian implications of climate change. The report is exciting because it does something new. It lays existing data about social, economic and political vulnerability on top of climate projection data about specific hazards associated with climate change – floods, cyclones and drought. When we look at social, economic and political vulnerability together with climate projection data, we can begin to more carefully identify and pinpoint hotspots of high humanitarian risk under changing climate conditions. And this helps us target our resources more effectively – to those who need it most. In the end, though, what matters most is not the climate models, projections and reports. What really matters is how people in the world’s poorest communities, who already struggle to survive without having to deal with the harsh realities of climate change, are affected by and facing this new challenge – in concrete and real life terms. My CARE colleague, Cynthia, a native of Kenya, will help put a human face on climate change by talking about what she is seeing and hearing, on the ground, about the impact of climate change on people living in extreme poverty. Together we hope to expand members’ and staff’s view of the impact of climate change to include its dire consequences on the world’s most vulnerable people. We look forward to a fruitful discussion about how we can work together – as policymakers, NGOs, and local communities – to face and overcome the humanitarian challenge of climate change. For Members of Congress and staff who want to learn more about the specific humanitarian impacts of climate change in these regions – and about how CARE is using the findings from this report to change the way we plan and do our business – please join us on February 11. The CARE/UNOCHA report on the humanitarian implications of climate change is also available on our CARE climate change website: www.careclimatechange.org. To learn more about CARE and the work we do more broadly around the world, visit www.care.org. 
Christina Chan currently serves as Senior Policy Analyst for CARE USA.
Wednesday, January 21. 2009
The swearing-in yesterday of President Obama signals, no doubt, a major shift in U.S. policy on international family planning. It's widely believed that the President will act swiftly to repeal the Mexico City "gag rule" that was re-imposed by President George W. Bush eight years ago. Less certain is what the Administration will do with respect to funding for U.S. international family planning assistance. As a Senator last year, Obama supported efforts to boost funding to $1 billion in FY 2009, up sharply from the $450 million appropriated in FY 2008. Based upon his prior support for international family planning assistance, it's been widely anticipated that the new Administration would support a major boost in funding in the FY2010 budget. But with a ballooning federal deficit and an urgent need for economic stimuli, it's possible that family planning could be accorded a lower than expected priority. Last week, however, five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a strong appeal for increased U.S. support for international family planning. Noting that U.S. support for family planning has diminished, in real dollar terms, since 1995, they released a report ("Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance") that argued that it is time to "reverse the decline." After noting that USAID over the past four decades has been a "leader in efforts to both improve maternal and child health around the world and reduce high population growth rates," the authors recommended a "FY 2010 appropriation of $1.205 billion for international family planning assistance, rising gradually to $1.5 billion by 2014." The report also urged the Obama Administration to "reassert U.S. leadership in family planning" and work more closely with UNFPA and other international agencies. Support from the five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program (J. Joseph Speidel, (1978-83), Steven Sinding (1983-86), Duff Gillespie (1986-93), Elizabeth Maguire (1993-99), and Margaret Neuse (2000-06)) is expected to bolster Congressional support for international family planning assistance. The authors argued that USAID continues to have a "technically strong core of professionals" and the capacity to rapidly scale up its operations. Later this year, the Population Resource Center will be conducting a series of briefings for Congress on the status of U.S. support for international family planning assistance. The briefings will look at this report and others that have attempted to quantify the unmet demand in developing countries for modern methods of birth control.
Tuesday, January 20. 2009
A study ("Does Watching Sex on Television Predict Teen Pregnancy? Findings from a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth") released recently by the RAND Corporation reports an increasing correlation with exposure to sexual content on television and sexual attitudes and behavior in today’s youth. Shows like Gossip Girl, The Hills, and 90210, which are targeted to young men and women; may help create the perception that there is little risk to engaging in sex without the use of contraceptives. Television’s casual portrayal of sex may create new social mores and may influence reproductive health outcomes. Most importantly, the study showed a link to teen pregnancy. According to the report
“Of the 718 boys and girls who said they were sexually active, 58 girls reported becoming pregnant over the course of the study. And 33 boys reported that they had gotten a girl pregnant during this period. Those who were in the 90th percentile, in terms of the amount of exposure they had to sexually explicit shows, were nearly twice as likely as those in the 10th percentile to have gotten pregnant — or gotten someone else pregnant.”
Anita Chandra, a behavioral scientist at RAND and lead author of the study, says
"The amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years, and there is little representation of safer sex practices in those portrayals."
The RAND study comes at a time of growing concern about teen pregnancy. In December of 2007, the Centers for Disease Control reported the first increase in the teen pregnancy rate since 1991. The teen birth rate for ages 15-19 rose three percent between 2005 and 2006. That followed a 14-year downward trend in which the teen birth rate fell by 34 percent from its all-time peak of 61.8 births per 1,000 in 1991.
Monday, January 12. 2009
Tomorrow, PRC is hosting an exciting and informative Capitol Hill Roundtable on one of America's greatest challenges: energy. Come join us! Between now and 2030, U.S. population is projected to rise by nearly 60 million, a jump of almost 20 percent. While per capita energy consumption may be gradually declining, total U.S. energy consumption is continuing to rise. What does that mean for America's energy future? Given the rising U.S. demand for energy, is it possible to eliminate, or even reduce, U.S. dependence on foreign oil? Can the U.S. successfully reduce carbon emissions? Can "green energy" fill the void? Will fast-growing states in the South and the West be able to meet the rising demand for electricity from renewable sources? These and other questions will be explored tomorrow by a group of experts that will give us a wide range of perspectives on America's energy future. 2030: Looking Down the Barrel of America's Energy Future Tuesday--January 13, 2009, 2168 Rayburn House Office Building (Gold Room) , 10:30am-12:15pm Panelists: Mr. Paul Holtberg, Representative of the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy Dr. Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Advisor, MISI Mr. Robert Gramlich, Policy Director, American Wind Energy Association Mr. Nate Gorence, Policy Analyst, National Commission on Energy Policy Mr. Jeffrey Stewart, Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Friday, January 9. 2009
Over the last five years, I’ve traveled to India annually for personal and professional reasons. Every year, I notice things changing in the country. As an emerging economy embracing economic liberalization, India has experienced rapid growth in industry, infrastructure, social change, and migration. Changes are also happening with respect to family planning and reproductive health. Just five years ago, the city of Bengaluru displayed no public signs of sex education; today, Kamasutra brand condoms are advertised on national television. With a population of over one billion and projections predicting that by 2030, India will be even more populous than its neighbor, China, demographic challenges within India are numerous. Last year, a Population Reference Bureau report projected that India’s population could reach the 1.8 billion mark by mid-century and might exceed 2 billion by 2101, unless fertility rates decline more sharply in Northern India. Currently, nearly 200 million married couples in India are of reproductive age, yet only over half of them report contraceptive use. Projections indicate that population stabilization can take up to fifty years in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Coupled with historical stigmas about sex, contraception, domestic violence, son selection, sexual assault and rape, and gender roles, many parts of the country possess few methods for men and women to learn more about voluntary family planning, women’s well-being, and reproductive health in a private, unbiased fashion. Recently, however, the Jansankhya Sthirata Kosh (National Population Stabilization Fund) has launched an innovative, confidential call center devoted specifically to disseminating information on topics related to population and reproductive health. Receiving calls mainly from rural parts of the country, call center operators answer a variety of questions regarding sex, fertility, infant and maternal health, and contraceptive use and availability from information provided by five Indian medical hospitals. Armed with local knowledge, awareness of social norms regarding population issues, and the ability to build a comfortable rapport with callers, call center operators are providing one-of-a-kind services to the Indian public.
Thursday, January 8. 2009
The next decennial census is now less than 16 months away and preparations are well underway, but questions still linger whether Congress is providing enough funding for the 2010 Census. Obama's transition team reportedly has given the 2010 Census a high priority, but the New York Times editorial board and others have expressed concern about whether the incoming Obama Administration will move swiftly enough to appoint a Census Bureau director. Given the vital importance of the decennial census, in the next few weeks we will be taking a look at what's at stake. While there are many reasons while a full and accurate census is important to the country, reapportionment is the one that strikes closest to home for many Members of Congress. The data collected by the 2010 Census will be used to adjust the number of House seats that each state is entitled to. Last month, Election Data Services released a report indicating that population shifts last year could shift more seats between four states than what was reported by EDS in 2007. EDS reported that: The states of Michigan and New Jersey have lost or not gained as much population as earlier in the decade, and now have lost a congressional seat in the new study. The two seats shift to Missouri (to eliminate their loss reported last year) and Texas (which now would be adding three seats to their delegation). Overall, the new 2008 estimates show that eight congressional seats in 14 states have already changed at this point in the decade, if a new apportionment was made with the updated numbers. Five states-Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah-would each gain a seat and Texas would gain three seats if the U.S. House of Representatives were reapportioned with census population estimates for July 1, 2008, according to Election Data Services' analysis. Eight states would lose seats-Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Let's hope that Members of Congress from these states and others are paying attention: The Census is coming.
|
