A recent article in New York Times has highlighted the LGBT community’s ongoing struggle to legally recognize same-sex couples in the 2010 Census and other federal surveys. The U.S. Census Bureau plans to edit the 2010 Census responses of same-sex couples who are legally married in California, Massachusetts or any other state. The Bureau is responding to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates that have been recently proposed.  The LGBT community will be reported as "unmarried partners,'' rather than married spouses, in census tabulations.

The Census Bureau is required by the Constitution to conduct an inclusive count of the nation's residents every 10 years. The Census Bureau does not ask about sexual orientation, but it does ask people to describe their relationships to others in their household. If a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as their "husband/wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will automatically assign them to the "unmarried partner" category. Legally married same-sex couples will be indistinguishable in census data from those who chose "unmarried partner" to describe their relationship.

According to Martin O'Connell, chief of the Census Bureau's Fertility and Family Statistics Branch

"This has been a question we've been looking at for quite a long time.”It's not something the bureau could arbitrarily or casually decide to change on a whim, because our data is used by virtually every federal agency."

A report by David M. Smith and Gary Gates of the Urban Institute states:

To date, the U.S. Census Bureau has only released counts of gay and lesbian coupled households, but as more information is released, we will be able to determine the number of children living in these households, income, racial profile, home ownership and other important demographics. These facts will help us dispel stereotypes and present a fuller, more accurate picture of the gay and lesbian family in America

Even though the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households; 1,202,418 gay and lesbian partners in committed relationships, were counted.

Urban Institute’s key report findings may provide a different dynamic to conventional marriage to policy makers:

• 601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families and 297,061 lesbian families.
• In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 145,130 total gay and lesbian families. 81,343 male, and 63,787 female. The 2000 numbers represent a 314 percent increase.
• Gay and lesbian families live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States compared to 1990 when gay and lesbian families reported living in 52 percent of all counties. In 2000, only 22 of the 3,219 counties in the United States reported.
• The Human Rights Campaign estimates that the 2000 U.S. Census count of gay and lesbian families could be undercounted as much as 62 percent.

According to O'Connell,
“We're not destroying data; we are keeping that data,". "We are just showing the data published in a way that is consistent with the way every other agency publishes their data."

Any way the Bureau plans to handle counting gays in future census’ is vague at this point. P

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.

On October 2, 2008, the World Bank issued a report on how personal circumstances (race, gender, birthplace, a parent's educational level and their father's occupation) in Latin America affect children's access to running water, sanitation, electricity and basic education.  The World Bank report concluded that between one fourth and one half of income inequality in Latin America arises due to such factors.

In writing the report, the World Bank developed a new tool, the Human Opportunity Index (HOI) to measure whether children have access to the basic services needed for success in later life.  The HOI for education includes two indicators: completion of sixth grade on time and school attendance for ages 10-14. The HOI for housing includes three indicators: access to water, sanitation, and electricity. 

Using data representing some 200 million children and spanning the years 1995-2005, the researchers constructed a Human Opportunity Index for the 19 largest Latin American countries. The index ranges from 0 (total deprivation) to 100 (universality) for each of the education and housing indicators. 

After comparing the HOI scores to the personal circumstances (race, gender, etc.) of children in Latin America, the researchers determined that:

Between a quarter (Colombia) and half (Guatemala) of the income inequality that we observe among adults in Latin America is due to the circumstances they faced when they started out in life-at the very outset, through no fault of their own. And while their race, sex, and location all played a role, no circumstances were more powerful than their mothers' education and their fathers' incomes. In other words, Latinos are right to feel that they are condemned by a playing field that is not level-it is not.

In releasing the report, Pamela Cox, World Bank Vice-president for Latin America and the Caribbean:

 Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the most unequal regions in the world,  where  the richest 10 percent of the population captures 40 percent of total  income, while the poorest 10 percent receives a mere 1 percent. To a large extent, this can be attributed to the fact that not everybody has the same opportunities.  This has to change. The HOI is a new tool that will help governments assign budget allocations more efficiently, and generate opportunities for all.

The researchers concluded, based on their findings, that:

Early life interventions, from pregnancy monitoring and institutional births to toddlers' nutrition and neurological development, get a new sense of priority. So do preschool access (such as pre-kindergarten social interaction) and primary school achievement (such as reading and thinking ability). The physical security, reproductive education, mentoring, and talent screening of adolescents, all areas that are often overlooked, gain new relevance.

For the combined HOI (education and housing), Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, and Venezuela were ranked closest to universality. Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua were farthest from that target, both because of low coverage and because the existing coverage was not equitably distributed.

The HOI Index and its findings will be of interest to organizations working to improve economic and social conditions in Latin America. USAID alone spends $390 million a year on social programs in Latin America and the Caribbean, including programs to improve access to education, health care, drinking water and sanitation services.

The researchers hope to apply the HOI index to other region of the world, but the report emphasizes that "producing a methodology to measure human opportunity, and applying it across countries in one region, is just a first step...technical discussions and scientific vetting will continue and refinements will surely follow."

With the eyes of the nation riveted on the latest polls and financial indices, it's likely that the release last week of the Global Hunger Index received little attention in the national media.  Too bad.  For while the report showed some gains in addressing world hunger between 1990 and 2006-particularly in East Asia, the Near East, North Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean-the hunger situation in 33 nations in 2006 was still classified as "alarming" or "extremely alarming." And that doesn't take into account the impact of the severe jump in food prices that took place in 2007 and early 2008.

In releasing the report, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) described the GHI index as a look at the past, not the present.  The report stressed that, "In the context of higher food prices, prospects for improving food and nutrition security do not appear favorable, given that at least 800 million people were food insecure before the food price crisis hit.  Higher food prices cut into poor households' food budget, with particularly serious risks for undernourished infants and children."  The report also stressed the need for "complete and up-to-date monitoring of developments related to agriculture, food, and nutrition" at the regional and national levels.

IFPRI's report noted that the current food crisis has had "uneven effects" on developing nations, with food-importing countries generally facing the greatest threat. The countries at the bottom of the list-the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Burundi, Niger, Sierra Leone-all face a daunting challenge.  Between now and 2050, the population of each of these countries is projected to double or triple.  The population of Niger alone is projected to jump from 14.2 million in 2007 to 53.2 million by 2050. Feeding and meeting the nutritional needs of these larger populations will pose an enormous challenge.

Next month, on November 17, the Population Resource Center will be hosting a briefing ("Saving Niger:  the Long-Term Food Crisis in Northern sub-Saharan Africa").  To be held on Capitol Hill, the briefing will take a closer look at the long-term food security challenge facing Niger and other fast-growing countries in northern sub-Saharan Africa.  Speakers will include John May, a World Bank demographer who will have just returned from the region; Mark Rosegrant from IFPRI, an agricultural specialist who has written extensively on the food crisis in Africa; and Gary Eilerts from USAID's Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET).  The speakers will assess the long-term picture and policy options for Niger and other countries in the region.  Stay tuned for information regarding precise time and location of the briefing.

When it comes to global security, population change matters.  While much of the world's attention is squarely focused on the ups and downs of the financial markets, many administrators, scholars and policymakers-particularly those concerned about peace and security-are increasingly concerned about demographic trends and their implications.
 
The September/October edition of World Watch, a publication of the Worldwatch Institute, focuses on population change.  One of the articles, "Population and Security," looks at range of demographic trends and their implications, including migration, rapid population growth in many developing nations, and youthful population age structures.

The World Watch article notes that:

Youthful population age structures have also been linked to outbreaks of civil instability.  One study found that countries in which youth make up 35 percent of the total adult population face a risk of conflict 150 percent greater than those in which the ratio is more balanced.  In 2000, youth made up 35 percent or more of the adult population in 44 countries, including many in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

Earlier this year, General Michael Hayden, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, cited this population growth as one of three top destabilizing trends facing the world:
 

There are many poor, fragile states where governance is actually difficult today, where populations will grow rapidly: Afghanistan, Liberia, Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That group-the population is expected to triple by mid-century. The number of people in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Yemen is likely to more than double. Furthermore-just beyond the raw numbers-all those countries will therefore have, as a result of this, a large concentration of young people. If their basic freedoms and basic needs-food, housing, education, employment-are not met, they could be easily attracted to violence, civil unrest, and extremism.

But in many developed countries, policymakers and analysts are concerned about falling birthrates, the costs of supporting a booming elderly population, and projected population decline.  The World Watch article notes that, "...42 percent of the world's people live in countries in which the average family size is below the number needed to maintain a stable population level."

This past week, an article ("Behind the Bluster, Russia is Collapsing") in the Washington Post, raised concern about one of those countries:  Russia.  The article warns that high mortality rates, along with low fertility rates, are contributing to a destabilizing collapse in Russian population.  Describing conditions in Russia as a "tragedy of huge proportions," the author cites UN data showing that:

•  
  • Three times as many Russians die from heart-related illnesses as do Americans or Europeans, per each 100,000 people.
  • Tuberculosis deaths in Russia are about triple the World Health Organization's definition of an epidemic, which is based on a new-case rate of 50 cases per 100,000 people.
  • Average alcohol consumption per capita is double the rate the WHO considers dangerous to one's health.
  • About 1 million people in Russia have been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, according to WHO estimates.
  • Using mid-year figures, it's estimated that 25 percent more new HIV/AIDS cases will be recorded this year than were logged in 2007.

Certainly, demographic factors by themselves do not either cause or resolve violent conflict. Yet, in combination with other factors they can play a significant role in global security. Policymakers and policy administrators alike need to be better informed about all aspects of population change, including trends like migration and population distribution. 

In the weeks ahead, we will take a closer look at what policymakers, demographers and other scholars are saying about population change and its potential effect on failing, or potentially, failing states.

A few weeks ago, UK Chief Scientific Adviser Professor John Beddington, was quoted in The Guardian as describing the devastating potential of food shortages as an "elephant in the room" on par with climate change.  He argues that biofuel diversion (canola or palm oil-derived biodiesel and grain or sugar-derived ethanol) threatens the world’s food production and has the potential to affect the lives of billions of people.  Professor Beddington states that it is “very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food. The supply of food really isn't keeping up."

Apparently, the message is getting through.  Britain announced yesterday that it was stepping up its use of biofuels.  Starting April 15, 2008, 2.5 percent of all gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Britain must be derived from crops.

Meanwhile, the “elephant in the room” is getting larger. A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported that there have been riots over food prices recently in Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen. Also, rice export bans by rice-exporting nations like Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, and India, have raised world rice prices even more.  Rising prices and a growing fear of scarcity have prompted some of the world’s largest rice producers to announce drastic limits on the amount of rice they export.  Rice, a staple in the diets of almost half the world’s population, has nearly doubled in price over the last several months. That has stretched the budgets of many poor Asians and stoked fears of civil unrest. 

One of the best analyses written in recent months is a report released at the end of last year by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).  The World Food Situation:  New Driving Forces and Required Actions by Joachim von Braun warns that food shortages and high food costs have played a part in tensions and violence around the world in recent months, and the impact of growth, climate change, and biofuels have had an affect on food production and availability.  The report makes policy recommendations that it suggests would reduce these potential adverse impacts. 

Recent increases in oil prices have hit lower income countries hard, both because of the financial impact of more expensive oil and because of the affect of higher oil prices on imports of basic necessities and raw materials.  According to the von Braun report, "Surging demand for feed, food, and fuel have recently led to drastic price increases, which are not likely to fall in the foreseeable future, due to low stocks and slow-growing supplies of agricultural outputs.”

“Economic growth has helped to reduce hunger, particularly when it is equitable," added von Braun, "but unfortunately, growth does not always reach the poorest people."

According to von Braun, developing countries have seen a great deal of economic growth in recent years, which has changed those countries’ consumer preferences and spending habits.  Increasing wealth in China and India, for example, has led to consumers eating more meat; the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that Chinese imports of pork will double over the next 10 years.  An increase in meat consumption means that more grain is needed to feed farm animals. 

Climate change will also have a negative impact on food production, compounding the challenge of meeting global food demand, and potentially exacerbating hunger and malnutrition among the world's poorest people.  Global warming is expected to decrease world agricultural output significantly.  The impact will be much greater on developing countries, particularly Africa, which is vulnerable to climate change because of its high proportion of low-input, rainfed agriculture. 

The IFPRI report argues that investments need to be made to improve agricultural productivity and insurance be made available to compensate those in rural communities who are impacted by weather unsuitable for farming.

The Pew Research Center last week reported that if current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005.  How are we going to meet the energy needs of 438 million people, while also reducing carbon emissions by up to 80 percent? Good question.

Would you want your dream home built next to a nuclear power plant?  While you might expect most Americans to say "no," Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, claims that most Americans wouldn't really mind.  Moore cites a national survey conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with Quest Global Research Group that found 76 percent of Americans living in close proximity to nuclear power plants are willing to see a new reactor built near them.

On February 26, 2008, the Progressive Policy Institute held a forum to discuss the future of nuclear energy and its impact on climate change.  The discussion included Moore, Gwyneth Cavens, author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, Thomas B. Cochran, director of the Nuclear Program at the National Resources Defense Council, and Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch.  The discussion identified and examined some of the critical issues concerning man-made climate change and the potential of nuclear power as part of the solution.

Recent research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the EU in Ispra, showed that global emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases increased by 75% between 1970 and 2004 to about 45,000 megaton CO2-equivalents.  Their research shows:

Since 2006, China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production) have been larger than the emissions of the USA. With approximately 8% higher emissions than those of the USA, China now tops the list of CO2 emitting countries. In 2005, the CO2 emissions of China were still 2% below those of the USA. The EU-15, with a volume of emissions about half of that of China, occupies the third position, followed by Russia, India and Japan.

Meanwhile, fears of global warming haven't slowed demand for energy in the United States; in fact, experts project an increase in the US of 1.1 percent each year through 2030.  With growing oil prices and possibly more abundant coal reserves than in any other single country, coal energy would be an obvious alternative to oil in the U.S.  But some environmentalists argue that some of the 150 new coal-fired plants now proposed should be replaced by cleaner and more efficient nuclear plants.

At Tuesday's forum, Moore argued that nuclear power already provides 20 percent of the United States' electricity, and with demands for electricity expected to increase 30 percent nationally by 2030, the U.S. needs more nuclear energy if it wants to keep up with its energy needs.  Alternative renewable energy sources are important, but can only take us so far--wind and solar can be unreliable and the possible uses for geothermal energy are limited.  Moore noted that the other major sources of emission-free electricity are hydroelectric plants, which provide 6.6 percent of our nation's electricity; wind energy, which accounts for 0.4 percent; and solar energy, which accounts for 0.01 percent.  Moore also downplayed fears that nuclear energy plants' radiation poses a safety hazard by noting that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day has been shown to be 400 times more risky than living within close proximity to a nuclear power plant. 

Cavens cited CO2 emissions and their impact on the environment.  One of Cavens' main concerns was the impact of carbon emissions on the chemistry of the ocean.  When CO2 gas dissolves in the ocean it makes carbonic acid which can damage coral reefs corrode shellfish shells, disrupt coral formation, and interfere with oxygen supply.
Cavens also argued that France's accelerated increase of nuclear power capacity since 1974 should serve as a model for other countries seeking to reduce emissions and gain energy independence.  According to the World Nuclear Association:

France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe.  It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.  France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.  France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to it's very low cost of generation and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.  France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

Thomas B. Cochran talked about the pros and cons of turning to nuclear plants to decrease the impact of man-made climate change.  On one hand, he noted that nuclear energy is a reliable generator of electricity, a low-carbon generator, and a reliable and efficient source of fuel. On the other hand, the downsides of nuclear energy include the high cost of new plants, concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation (from uranium enrichment and reprocessing), reactor safety issues, problems associated with spent fuel and nuclear waste disposal, health and environmental issues (like those associated with uranium mining and milling), and the low health impact from routine plant emissions. 

The main issue Cochran stressed was that the issue is not whether nuclear is preferable to coal, but rather whether the federal government should subsidize new nuclear power plants.  Cochran believes that the government should focus on emissions cap or an emissions tax rather than subsidies for new plants.  Cochran argued this point in an article presented at the 2004 Western Governors' Association North American Energy Summit:

Assuming you believe in economic efficiency and a free market, you should be advocating a reduction in subsidies to energy companies for production of electricity by nuclear and fossil-fueled plants. Moreover, to level the playing field and allow all new innovations to compete, you should be advocating internalizing the environmental costs of these technologies. Therefore, you should support a cap on CO2 emissions to limit global warming or accomplish the same by placing a tax on carbon emissions.

Flavin believes that a diverse mix of energy, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear sources will serve us best in the future.  He argues that the financial cost of building and operating a nuclear plant cannot profitably be recouped by selling the electricity.  Flavin says the push for nuclear power must not be exaggerated and must allow for the growth of other technology.  Flavin expects renewable power to eventually surpass nuclear power, noting China's growing reliance on wind power, and India's extensive use of solar power.

U.S. population growth fosters manufacturing and need for energy.  As America's population steadily increases so will its need for more viable sources of energy. It is clear that there is no perfect source of energy, but which one is best suited to meet the demand of an estimated 438 million Americans in 2050?