Various Direct Links

05 May 2012

Praise: The Royal Society on Population

Late last month the Royal Society, a British and Commonwealth organization of scientists and engineers, published the People and the Planet Report.



This very careful report comes to some conclusions that environmental groups have shied away from for far too long. The report has the following Key Recommendations.
  1. The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.
  2. The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.
  3. Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.
  4. Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.
These recommendations are common sense if one has not been involved in politics, either within the environmental movement or government. The politics of "population control" is a bit complicated and, sadly, was embraced by racists as well as scientists.  As an example, the Sierra Club members voted in 1998 against consideration of immigration as part of population control and a squabble over control of the board of directors in 2004, which ended up steering that core environmental group away from consideration of population impact on our environment.  They were arguing over a single precondition to the causal end of the problem and ended up running from that larger cause to address symptoms.

The problem is that our population has continued growing despite human politics (and sometimes because of political decisions) and our population has a huge impact on our environment.  Yes, human migration affects our population growth in addition to affecting locations of population, but the degree of affect of migration is not sufficient to address our planet's burgeoning population.  The new report from the Royal Society does so.

One thing that gives this report some additional credibility is that it was not written in isolation.  Among the authors are biologists, climatologists, ecologists, economists, environmentalists, ethologists, sociologists, theologists, and zoologists.  There are professors and scientsts from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe.  Regarding the Sierra Club controversy, the report addresses migration in a way that makes sense from all of the included fields; from the Summary on page 7:
Population is not only about the growing numbers of people: changes in age structure, migration, urbanisation and population decline present both opportunities and challenges to human health, wellbeing and the environment. Migrants often provide benefits to their countries of origin, through remittances, and to their host countries by helping to offset a workforce gap in ageing populations. Current and future migration will be affected by environmental change, although lack of resources may mean that the most vulnerable to these changes are the least able to migrate. Policy makers should prepare for international migration and its consequences, for integration of migrants and for protection of their human rights.
Here are the nine Recommendations, as summarized on page 9 (all highlighting as in the original).
Recommendation 1
The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.
Recommendation 2
The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.
Recommendation 3
Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.
Recommendation 4
Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.
Recommendation 5
Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.
Recommendation 6
In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world’s young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.
Recommendation 7
Natural and social scientists need to increase their research efforts on the interactions between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of information for policy makers and the public.
Recommendation 8
National Governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement in natural asset accounting.
Recommendation 9
Collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish.
The report sees and addresses "two critical issues" (page 11), increasing human population and increasing per capita consumption.  Again, the impact of each on our environment should be obvious.  The combined impact is disastrous.  We need to move beyond debates over racism and over Rev. Malthus and focus on the science of what we are doing to our world.

For example, historically (at least since the writings of Rev. Mathus) we have been concerned with having sufficient food to sustain our growing population.  As it turns out, food has not been an insurmountable problem (the report does address food in Chapter 3 starting on page 52), although the politics of food distribution has resulted in large numbers of people suffering and starving.  Water, however, particularly fresh water, is a problem that we are going to face as our population continues to grow.  From page 49,
Over the last few centuries global aggregate water use has grown exponentially (MA 2005a) and has been closely linked to economic development and population growth. A fifteen-fold increase in global water withdrawals occurred between 1800 and 1980 (Lvovich and White 1990) when population increased by a factor of four (Haub 1994): a 3.5 fold increase in average per capita consumption. Since 1980 per capita water use rate has dropped a little from 700 to 600 cubic meters per year although the aggregate global withdrawal continues to increase (Shiklomanov and Rodda 2003). Between 1960 and 2000 world water use doubled from about 1800 to 3600 km3 per year (MA 2005a). Water use is dominated by agriculture (roughly 70% of withdrawals are for agricultural use (FAO 2010b), followed by industrial (19%) and then municipal (including domestic) applications (11%).
A child born in the developed world consumes 30 to 50 times as much water as one born in the developing world (UNESCO 2003). In 2008 it was estimated that 884 million people were still without access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion were without access to basic sanitation (WHO and UNESCO 2006) exposing them to preventable infectious diseases. The fresh water requirements for meeting basic human needs gives a total demand of 50 litres per day, which equals 18 m3 per capita per year (Gleick 1996). This is based on a minimum drinking water requirement, basic requirements for sanitation, bathing and food preparation (Gleick 1996).
The world’s natural water resources are distributed unevenly around the world. Among inhabited areas, at the continental level America has the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45%, followed by Asia with 28%, Europe with 15.5% and Africa with 9% (FAO 2003). Central Asia has just 0.6% of the world’s total freshwater resources. There is therefore wide variability in the total renewable freshwater resources available between countries; for example Kuwait has 10m3 per inhabitant while Canada has more than 100,000m3 per inhabitant (FAO 2003).
Even where the phrase "renewable freshwater resources" is used, it should be kept in mind that our aquifers require time to generate fresh water.  In many cases we are depleting our aquifers faster than they can recharge.  We are polluting our groundwater.  The number of superfund sites in the United States is appalling.

There is an explanation of some of the debates over population and consumption on page 60.
The sustainable development debate has, over recent years, been typified by those who argue that population growth is the source of current unsustainable trends, and those who believe that consumption is the primary culprit. This artificial distinction is unhelpful as it can lead to argument over whether policy should focus on reducing population growth or on improving the sustainability of consumption, while both are clearly important.
Continuing on page 62.
Consumption and demography are closely inter-twined. Every person must consume, and each additional person on the planet will add to total consumption levels. Other than population size, demographic factors such as ageing or urbanisation can also influence consumption levels. Policies should not treat population and consumption as separate issues.
The nature of our closed ecosphere is discussed quite well in chapter 4, including a discussion of how finite our resources are in section 4.5.  This should be required reading for students.  The politics of healthcare, currently a huge issue in the United States, is part of the discussion in 5.4.  Family planning is crucial to getting human population under control.  A bit from chapter 6, page 101:
[H]uman impact on the earth raises serious concerns. This report has explored the interactions between population, consumption and the environment. Humans are consuming resources and producing waste at an unprecedented rate. Population and consumption are both important: what matters is the combination of increasing population and increasing per capita consumption. Both global population and global consumption continue to rise and signs of unwanted impacts, interactions and feedback are growing – for example climate change reducing crop yields in some areas – and of irreversible changes – for example the increased rate of species extinction.
If you can make the time, read the Report on People and the Planet.  This is extremely important.

03 May 2012

Praise: EEOC on Transgender Discrimination

Around 20 April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a decision stating that discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.  The decision allows transgendered individuals to file workplace discrimination charges with the EEOC.
Joanna Grossman provides an excellent analysis at Justia.  In part, she wrote
In a recent adjudication, the EEOC concluded that discrimination against a transgendered individual is sex discrimination.  To many readers, this conclusion may seem obvious, but in fact, most courts that have considered the anti-discrimination rights of transgendered employees have taken a narrower approach.
Under that narrower approach, transgender discrimination is only actionable if the employer acted on sex stereotypes to punish gender non-conformity.  But the EEOC takes the position that any sort of transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, because it inherently involves taking gender—and therefore sex—into account.  This is true even if the employer takes an action that simply reflects animus against transgender individuals or a desire to exclude them from the workplace, rather than a concern, specifically, about gender non-conformity.
In her article, Ms. Grossman gives a good description of the case.
The case that led the EEOC to reach its result is that of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who worked as a police detective in Phoenix.  In 2010, she relocated to San Francisco and began seeking employment.  At the time of the move, Mia was still presenting as a man, but had plans to transition to a female identity.  Her supervisor in Phoenix told her that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had an opening for a ballistics expert in a crime laboratory near San Francisco, for which she was well-qualified.
Macy spoke with the Director in that office by telephone around January 2011 about her credentials for the position, as well as the position’s salary and benefits.  According to Macy, the Director told Macy that she would get the position so long as no problems were identified in her background check, and that the position would be filled via a staffing firm, Aspen of DC.  After that initial conversation, there were a variety of back-and-forths among Macy, the Director, and Aspen, during which time her background check was underway.
On March 29, 2011, Macy informed Aspen via e-mail that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female and asked Aspen to share this information with the Director.  On April 3, Aspen informed Macy that the information about her gender transition had been passed along to the Director.  Five days later, Macy received an e-mail from the staffing firm stating that, due to federal budget reductions, the position in the ATF lab was no longer available.
On May 10, 2011, Macy contacted an EEO counselor within the federal government to discuss her concerns.  The counselor revealed that, in fact, the lab had not cut the position, but instead had filled it with someone else.
On June 13, 2011, Macy filed a formal discrimination complaint with the federal agency at issue, ATF.  On a preprinted form, she checked off “sex” and “female,” and typed in “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis for the complaint.  In a narrative portion of the form, she wrote that she was not hired on the basis of “my sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping.”
So this discrimination is complicated with lies and an apparent attempt to bury the discrimination in time and paperwork.  Not a big surprise, but still disappointing in the twenty-first century.  Also not a surprise is backlash from the usual bigots.  Fox News quotes one notorious hater.
Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the EEOC's decision is misinterpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
"Those who are discriminated against because they are transgender are not discriminated because they are male or female, it is because they are pretending to be the opposite of what they really are, which is quite a different matter," he said.
Mr. Sprigg is, no surprise at all, wrong when he characterizes those who are transgender as "pretending to be the opposite of what they really are."  To understand what transgender people are, let's look at the glossary of the 2011 edition of Transgender Standards of Care.
Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth (Bockting, 1999).
There is nothing about pretending in this description.  One's identity is not what one pretends to be but who one intrinsically is.  If the discussion was of actors, then Mr. Sprigg would have a valid point.  It is not.

And we also have a response from prolific liar Eugene Delgaudio, via e-mail.
A major plank in the Gay Bill of Special Rights has just been enacted by Federal bureaucratic decree!
That’s right -- the Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution and the U.S. Congress to give special employments privileges to transsexuals.
Just a few days ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to redefine the rules already on the books to make it nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person.
Of course there is no "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and there are no "special employments privileges to transsexuals" and it is not "nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person."

In particular, someone who is transgender (what Mr. Delgaudio calls transsexual) can be fired for cause.  Being transgender is not cause.

The EEOC has taken an important step.  While no one is ever guaranteed employment, who one is should not be a deciding factor.  On the home page for the EEOC, the categories for discrimination are:
Still missing is protection by the EEOC from discrimination because of sexual orientation.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do.
Organizations like Mr. Sprigg's Family Research Council and Mr. Delgaudio's Public Advocate are working on the federal, state, and local levels against laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.  It is important that we raise all American citizens to first class status by barring such discrimination.

02 May 2012

FollowUp 27: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Another followup on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's complaint about big money pouring into the recall election from out of stateChannel 3000 has a short article about some of Mr. Walker's big donors, many from out of state.
They've come up big for the embattled governor as he faces recall this spring, helping him shatter Wisconsin's political fundraising record. Campaign finance reports filed Monday show Walker raised a record $13.1 million between Jan. 18 and last week.
Among his chief benefactors were Diane M. Hendricks, founder of Beloit-based American Builders and Contractors Supply Co.; Sheldon Adelson, chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Sands casino; and Richard DeVos, owner of the Orlando Magic basketball team and co-founder of the Amway Corp., a direct-sales company.

Five others handed him $100,000 each.
The first one, Ms. Hendricks, is in private equity (same profession that Mitt Romney was prior to being a politician) and is based in Wisconsin.  The rest of those listed are from outside of Wisconsin.  Mr. Adelson, famous for funding much of Newt Gingrich's SuperPAC from Nevada, jumps out as notable.  This is a lot of out of state money.



The hypocrisy from the Governor is fairly blatant at the start of this clip from Channel 3000. Whether the Democrats choose Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett or former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk to run in June, the money is distinctly lopsided.

In terms of the Republican Primary, Arthur Kohl-Riggs has raised about two thousand dollars to go up against the Governor's millions.

Of course, the attention in Wisconsin will be on the Democratic Primary on 8 May for another week.  Then the spotlight can return to the lies from Governor Walker and a state in crisis that Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, campaigning for Governor Walker, is blaming on "a narrow group of citizens."

Sorry, Mr. Christie, but the labor movement is not a narrow group of citizens.  The labor movement is at the heart of society and the core of the middle class.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.

6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

30 April 2012

30 April 2012: Marriage News Watch



Links:  American Foundation for Equal Rights, Marriage News Watch.

23 January 2012: Marriage News Watch.
30 January 2012: Marriage News Watch.
6 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
13 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
20 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
21 February 2012: Marriage News Watch Special Episode.
27 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
12 March 2012: Marriage News Watch.
19 March 2012: Marriage News Watch.
26 March 2012: Marriage News Watch.
2 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
5 April 2012: Marriage News Watch, Surprise Advance.
16 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
23 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.

7 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
10 May 2012: Marriage News Watch, 2012's Biggest Marriage Milestones So Far.
14 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
21 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
28 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
4 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
5 June 2012: Marriage News Watch, Prop 8 Rehearing Denied.
11 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
18 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
25 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
2 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.
10 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.
16 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.

Praise: Zach Wahls for Equality



Some of you may recall a three minute video featuring Mr. Wahls that went viral last year.  That was a short speech to the Iowa House of Representatives defending his family.  The defense of family is now extended to his new book, released last week, My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength, and What Makes a Family.

An impressive young man.  I'm looking forward to reading his book.

29 April 2012

FollowUp 26: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

About a week ago, I wrote about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker complaining about big money being spent against him in the recall effort.  With the recall primary just one week away, a couple of news articles are germane.

The Duluth News Tribune reports that unions are about to spend $1 million in ads on behalf of Kathleen Falk, who is currently polling behind Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in the Democratic primary race.
A group supported by the statewide teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, as well as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees announced it was buying $1 million of television, cable and online advertising time beginning Friday and running through May 7, the day before the primary.
The teachers' union is having an internal debate over this because while Mr. Barrett has not been a union friendly in his role as Mayor of Milwaukee as the unions would like he is polling considerably better than Ms. Falk.  The union wants to back a winner and wants to defeat Governor Walker.
Falk won union support after promising to veto any state budget that doesn't restore collective bargaining rights. Barrett refused to make such a pledge.
Barrett spokesman Phil Walzak said despite the barrage of negative ads, “the polls show Tom is the consensus favorite of the people to take on Scott Walker.”
Falk and representatives of numerous unions — including WEAC, AFSCME, the Sierra Club, Emily's List and the American Federation of Teachers — said they would get out the vote through phone banks, mailings and word of mouth to deliver a victory. Wisconsin For Falk said it was using its 18 field offices across the state to drive voter turnout.
It should be noted that Mayor Barrett lost to then Milwaukee County Executive Walker in the last gubernatorial race.  So, big money is being spent as Mr. Walker claimed.  But, based on a report in the Republic, an Indiana newspaper, there appears to be more money flowing toward the Governor than his opponents.
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin's leading business lobbying group says it has purchased $2 million worth of television air time to run a spot in support of Republican Gov. Scott Walker starting Monday.
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce vice president James Buchen says the spot running statewide does not mention any of the Democrats seeking to take on Walker. Instead, Buchen says the spot is designed to make the case that Walker's policies are improving the state.
The ads from Scott Walker, against Tom Barrett and against Kathleen Falk, are decidedly not what WMC is going to run.  It is likely that the WMC will run something like what the Stop the Recall folks did previously.

So, where is the money?  Everywhere it seems.  Despite his whining about money on the other side, Mr. Walker seems to be more than well funded.  We'll really see things heat up after 8 May (the primary).

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.

2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.