28/06/2018

A More Resilient World: The Role Of Population And Family Planning In Sustainable Development

Environmental Change and Security Program

Girls in Jigjiga, Jila Alu Kebele on their way to fetch water from the nearby water point, April 2016. Courtesy of UNICEF Ethiopia/Tesfaye
“Community mobilization, local capacity-building, and innovation are the cornerstones of successful development. And that for us includes resilience,” said Franklin Moore, Africare’s Chief of Programs, at a Wilson Center event on family planning and sustainable development.
As rapid population growth intersects with challenges like food insecurity and water scarcity, communities in developing countries need not only the capacity to absorb short-term shocks, they also need transformative capacity to address long-term challenges.
Tailored education campaigns can engender lasting change, said Moore. In the Sahel region, Africare’s “husband schools” teach men about the health and nutrition benefits of child-spacing.
Such efforts help communities “make some transitions and behavioral shifts and to adopt new innovations,” said Moore. “Transformative capacity is where we find the innovations and institutional reform, behavior shift, and cultural change.”

Securing Water to Ensure Stability
Water security means “providing water for a multiplicity of users to support life on this planet and to support human activities,” said Eric Viala, Director of the Sustainable Water Partnership. Water is essential for life, but also for public health, energy production, and agriculture.
 Each person in the developed world uses enough water to fill an Olympic swimming pool every year, said Viala—and as the world’s population grows, so will the total demand for water.
The ongoing water crisis in Pakistan, where the population is predicted to reach 300 million by 2050, “has brought the population issue also on to the table,” said Zeba Sathar of the Population Council, who spoke from Islamabad via Skype.
This conversation—“between people who work on water issues, food issues, and population issues [has been] largely absent,” she said. It is “the shortage of water that’s bringing home the crisis of both water shortages and, of course, population growth and unmet need.”



Changing Farms to Feed Families
“Seventy percent of water we use on this planet goes to food production,” said Viala. “If you don’t have the water to produce food, you can’t eat.” Severe droughts can lead to hunger, even famine; while too much water—floods—can swamp farmland.
Families in many developing countries depend on subsistence farming for both food and livelihoods. As families grow, “that family farm…will have to be divided—so if they are struggling with the plot of land they have now, they’re cutting it in half,” said Jason Bremner of Family Planning 2020. Due to population growth, “the hectares per family farm has declined over time,” he said, threatening food security and economic development.
To help communities adapt, Africare works with farmers to plant drought-resistant cowpea as well as forage sorghum, which can be used to feed livestock in times of drought.
Through its community-led food security and distribution groups, Africare provides information not only on farming, but also on nutrition, health, and family planning, which helps members to both “make changes that relate to child-spacing and changes in agricultural practices that increase the nutritious food they are producing both for mothers and pregnant women,” said Moore.

Seeking Shelter From the Storm
As population grows, so does the number of people affected by extreme weather—particularly in the most vulnerable parts of the world, including coastal areas, arid regions, and flood zones. For example, Nigeria—the most populous African country—is growing rapidly.
“There are 200 million today, and there are going to be around 400 million by 2050,”said Bremner. The severe drought in the Lake Chad region, combined with the ongoing violence from Boko Haram, has contributed to the country’s millions of internally displaced people, said Bremner, pushing some to leave the country: Nigeria was the largest origin country for migrants to Italy in 2016, he said.
In Pakistan, severe flooding in 2010 destroyed homes and livelihoods, forcing many residents along the Indus River to seek safety or employment elsewhere.
A unique study conducted by the Population Council found that women affected by the flooding not only increased female employment, but also increased access to family planning and maternal health care, due to the presence of international relief organizations.
 Women were “able to absorb new changes in behavior,” which manifested in “a sharp uptick in contraceptive use” and “greater involvement in economic work,” said Sathar.
 
Integrated Approaches for Interlinked Challenges
“Most leaders understand that population growth has a major impact on stability,” said Viala. The African Union, for example, has seen success “linking the reduction in fertility, and favorable birth spacing patterns, with a demographic dividend…with positive development outcomes,” said Sathar.
To build more resilient communities, “it is really critical that we understand these interlinked challenges and we find new ways of doing business, as business as usual—standard family planning programs, our standard efforts of reaching communities with water and environmental issues—are going to be further stressed,” said Bremner. “Until we find different ways of doing business, then we will continue to see interconnectedness as innovation, instead of interconnectedness as being the way of doing business.”

Links

Trump's Lasting Damage To The Environment

Deutsche Welle -  Dave Keating

A new report concludes that the damage already done by the Trump administration to the environment, and the US agency that regulates it, will result in 80,000 deaths each decade.

This week, it was announced that copper and cobalt mining will begin in the formerly protected federal US lands of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument of Utah. The mining is now possible after Donald Trump removed protection from 2.2 million acres of federal land in Utah - the largest elimination of protected areas in US history.
It is only a fraction of the protections Trump has removed from federal lands since taking office in January 2017 - part of a general campaign promise to dismantle American environmental law, which Trump says is stifling economic growth.
The promises were not only made in campaign stump speeches. They were also set in the official Republican Party Platform adopted at the party's convention in August 2016. "The environmental establishment has become a self-serving elite, stuck in the mindset of the 1970s," the platform stated. "Their approach is based on shoddy science, scare tactics, and centralized command-and-control regulation."
Now, 18 months into the Trump regime, experts have concluded that the changes already made to environmental law will cause damage that would be difficult for a future administration to undo, and could result in 80,000 extra health-related deaths in each of the next decades.
An analysis essay published in June by two Harvard University scientists, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici, looked specifically at the health impacts of changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policies on air pollutants and toxic chemicals. They came up with the 80,000 deaths figure by analyzing the EPA's own data. The deaths would result from increased diseases from bad air and water quality, and would be in addition to the deaths that would have resulted from those diseases anyway under the previous trajectory before Trump scrapped the protections.
"This sobering statistic captures only a small fraction of the cumulative public health damages associated with the full range of rollbacks and systemic actions proposed by the Trump Administration," they said. The EPA has responded by saying the essay is "not a scientific article, it's a political article".
According to an analysis by the New York Times using Harvard Law School's Environmental Regulation Rollback Tracker, which is keeping a running tally of the regulatory dismantling program, the Trump administration has so far initiated the reversal of 67 environmental laws.

Out, and on the way out
The EPA does not deny that it is dismantling US environmental regulations. Trump appointed Scott Pruitt, the agency's head, to do just that. As Oklahoma Attorney General, Pruitt was a fierce foe of the EPA and initiated several lawsuits against the agency to stop it putting into place environmental regulation. Pruitt, who has denied the existence of climate change in the past, believes the agency is a large bloated monster producing regulation for regulation's sake, stifling industry with red tape.
Last week, Pruitt moved to kill an Obama-era Clean Water Rule, watering it down in a way that environmentalists say make it completely toothless. The effort was launched last year but has had to overcome legal challenges. It is only the latest piece of regulation to be undone. According to the Regulation Rollback Tracker, 33 environmental rules have already been overturned outright, while 34 are in the process of being rolled back.
The most significant of these is the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. It sought to overcome Congressional inaction on climate change by giving the EPA the power to regulate carbon emissions by classifying it as a pollutant. With the plan rescinded, there will be no instrument for the US to lower emissions in line with its commitments under the Paris Agreement – which Trump has pledged to pull the US out of in 2020.
This week, Trump signed an executive order to revoke Obama-era protections for US oceans, coastlines and Great Lakes waters. The change will open these waters to energy extraction, fishing, trade and national security activities.
Also significant is the administration's move to scrap Obama-era emissions standards for cars. This could cause US automakers to fall behind in the clean vehicle innovation race with automakers in China and Europe, which both have such emissions standards.
Lukas Ross, a climate and energy campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, says the rollbacks at the EPA are part of a broader dismantling being undertaken across the administration.
"Trump filled his cabinet and government agencies with unqualified corporate cronies whose devastating impact on our environment cannot be understated," he told DW. "Appointees like Scott Pruitt at the EPA and Ryan Zinke at the Department of the Interior use their positions of power to hand our government over to the fossil fuel industry."
As well as rolling back policies that protect air and water, he highlighted decisions to open American national monuments for drilling and mining exploration.
"These attacks on environmental and public health protections will have a disastrous impact on generations of Americans," he said.
Out of the changes made so far, Ross says the opening up of public lands for drilling and mining and rolling back clean air and water protections would be the hardest moves to undo. "These changes will have real-world consequences that once done, cannot be undone," he said. "New pipelines and oil rigs can be shuttered by a different administration, but not the toxins and pollutants in our air, water and soil".

EPA in ruins
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is embroiled in a corruption scandal
Even more difficult, experts say, would be restoring the EPA to its previous health under a new administration. The agency has been hit with mass resignations and firings since Pruitt took control and began cutting departments and programs.
The administration has sent intimidating memos asking for the names of climate change experts used by federal agencies, looking for environmental sympathizers within policymaking, and silencing EPA scientists.
The agency has been staffed with Trump loyalists, right down to the media relations office. After an initial EPA media blackout, new press office personnel have allegedly focused on intimidating reporters. Jahan Wilcox, an EPA spokesperson, reportedly told a reporter for the Atlantic earlier this month, "you have a great day, you're a piece of trash," when she requested comment on the fact that four top EPA officials had resigned in a week.
Pruitt himself is surrounded by one of the most extensive corruption scandals in US political history, accused of using agency resources for personal gain. Despite the ongoing scandal, President Trump has refused to call for Pruitt's resignation.
"Trump continues to support a fundamentally corrupt man as the head of the institution," says Ross. "Pruitt has wasted millions in taxpayer dollars on his lavish lifestyle instead of protecting our environment."
Pundits in the US doubt that Pruitt can stick it out at the agency much longer given the enormity of the accusations against him. But Ross warns that even if he were replaced by someone who cut back on the deregulation agenda, the damage has already been done. Even a future administration would have difficulty restoring the gutted agency to its previous health and staffing levels any time soon.
"A new administration would need a truly environment-focused agenda to reverse much of Pruitt's damage," he says.

Links

Judge Tosses City Climate Change Lawsuits Against Big Oil

Bloomberg -  | 
  • San Francisco jurist says solution needed on ‘more vast scale’
  • BP, Exxon, Chevron backed by President Trump on dismissal bid

Fighting Climate Change, Without the U.S.

BP Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. escaped blame for the public costs of global warming when a U.S. judge ruled that lawsuits by cities against oil companies aren’t the answer to climate change.
“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote Monday in dismissing complaints by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California.
Litigation by local governments in the U.S. including New York City, Boulder, Colorado, and eight California cities and counties is a new front in the global fight against climate change. The suits thrown out Monday sought to recover the cost of infrastructure needed to protect against rising sea levels. ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell Plc were also among the defendants.
The judge said it’s “true” that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has contributed to global warming, but on the other hand, “development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal.”

Fossil Fuels
"All of us have benefited,” Alsup wrote. “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?"
The judge concluded in his 16-page ruling that the issue is best addressed by the government’s legislative and executive branches. The Trump administration made that argument in urging the judge to toss the suits, even while the administration has opposed efforts worldwide to fight climate change.
“While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches,” Alsup wrote.
A spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney said the office is reviewing the judge’s order and will decide next steps shortly.
“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is
no longer in dispute,” John Cote said in an emailed statement. “Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid.”
Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker said the city is weighing whether to appeal.
“Our lawsuit presents valid claims and these defendants must be held accountable for misleading the American people about the catastrophic risks to human beings and all forms of life on this planet caused by fossil fuel-driven global warming and sea level rise,” she said in an email.
A request by the oil companies for dismissal of the New York City case is pending in Manhattan federal court.
The cases are People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. 17-cv-06011 and 17-cv-06012, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Links

Here’s Why The Bay Area Lost Its Lawsuit Against Big Oil

Grist - 

REUTERS / Joshua Lott
The judge who famously convened a climate tutorial threw out a case against Big Oil on Tuesday. San Francisco and Oakland had sued BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell to help pay for the costs of building seawalls and other projects to adapt to climate change.
This decision dims hopes for those pursuing lawsuits against companies for damages tied to climate change. At least nine other cities and counties have brought similar lawsuits, including New York City, Boulder, Colorado, and King County, Washington.
From the beginning, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup took an expansive approach. He had each side fly in experts to give him a personal masterclass on climate change in his San Francisco courtroom. During that tutorial, he seemed sympathetic to the argument that oil companies have done real harm. You can glimpse that sympathy in his 16-page decision : “[T]his order accepts the science behind global warming. So do both sides. The dangers raised in the complaints are very real.”
So why throw out the lawsuit?
Well, Alsup sees a danger that worries him more than climate change — the danger of a single unelected judge deciding that countries around the world are better off without oil.
Alsup wrote that a ruling against Big Oil would trigger a cascade of other lawsuits, and eventually put petroleum producers out of business. And this, he argued, would trample on the policies of countries that are actively encouraging oil production. While the harms of fossil fuels are clear, so are the benefits, Alsup argued. “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible,” he wrote. “All of us have benefitted.”
San Francisco and Oakland’s lawsuit, Alsup wrote, is effectively asking the court to “conduct and control energy policy on foreign soil.” If any branch of government is going to do something as big as shutting down global oil production, Alsup reasons, it needs to be done by elected representatives, not one judge and jury making a decision for the entire world.
This isn’t the first time a lawsuit seeking climate-change damages has run afoul of the courts. In fact, Alsup wrote, “No plaintiff has ever succeeded” in this kind of case. The California cities could appeal to a higher court. But for the moment, their lawyers are taking heart in the fact that this case set a non-legal precedent, said John Cote, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, in a statement. “Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid.”
After hearing from all sides, Alsup concluded: “The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so.”
Now that we’ve got that sorted out, we can all move on to the most reasonable solutions, right? Right?

Links