4 February 2016 Global Footprint newsletter article , If an acre of forest burns up in flames, what’s the cost? Zero, was FEMA’s reply in 2013. The Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected California’s request for a federal “major disaster” declaration and funding after the devastating Rim Fire, because it only knew how to put a price tag on man-made structures. The 400 square miles of forests that had been reduced to ashes and charred stumps—including part of Yosemite National Park—couldn’t translate into dollar amounts.How times have changed. Two weeks ago, the state of California was named one of the 13 winners of the National Disaster Resilience Competition by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Rockefeller Foundation. California won more than $70 million to help fund several disaster preparedness projects in communities affected by the Rim Fire. What happened? As extreme weather events have become more frequent due to climate change, decision-makers are realizing that conventional project assessments won’t do, and that building strong, resilient communities requires drastically innovative approaches. In a first for a federal agency, the HUD Office of Economic Resilience, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation, mandated that nature be a key element in the design of development projects submitted to the $1 billion competition. HUD required all applicants to use a more complete benefit-cost analysis developed by Earth Economics, a close partner of Global Footprint Network. It is exactly the kind of approach that Global Footprint Network and Earth Economics called for in July in our State of the States Report, which found the United States demands twice the resources that its ecosystems can regenerate. It is also similar to the approach that Global Footprint Network piloted with the state of Maryland when developing our Net Present Value Plus tool. Read more here
Category Archives: PLEA Network
January 2016, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): With the release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) last fall, a debate has been growing over the so-called “trade” agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries. Should governments ratify the deal? Will it expand trade in a significant way? Who will be the winners and losers? But defining winners and losers only in trade terms will miss the much broader impacts of the TPP and hide the broader basis required for assessing its real impacts. In Canada, where IISD is headquartered, Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has initiated formal consultations on the TPP, promising it is open for full discussion. This is a welcome initiative. For IISD, this is a deal too far and its ratification should be rejected by the minister. In its place, there is a need to fundamentally re-consider the role that trade and investment agreements make to supporting inclusive and sustainable growth. This commentary summarizes IISD’s concerns with the TPP, and a follow up article will begin outlining solutions. Read More here
25 January 2016, New Scientist, US east coast snowstorms linked to slowdown of Atlantic current. The record snowfall that paralysed much of the east coast of the US on the weekend could be partly due to a slowing of the Atlantic currents that transport heat northwards towards Greenland and Europe. Winter storms like Jonas, as some are calling it, are caused when cold air from Canada collides with warm, moist air flowing up from the tropical Atlantic. Because the waters off the east coast are much warmer than normal for this time of year, the winds blowing onshore carried more moisture than usual, which is why the snowfalls were so high – breaking records in several places. New York’s JFK airport recorded 77 centimetres on 23 January, for instance, the most ever recorded on a single day. Nearly 30 deaths have been blamed on the storm, from car accidents to heart attacks while shovelling snow. Flooding risk The remnants of Jonas are now heading across the Atlantic to the UK, where it is feared they will cause yet more flooding. Global warming is the obvious explanation for the unusual warmth, and computer models are likely to show that storm Jonas was made much more likely because of climate change.The El Niño that helped push global temperatures to record-smashing levels last year may also have played a part. But there may be more to it. Read More here
15 January 2016, Common Dreams, Ultra-Rich ‘Philanthrocapitalist’ Class Undermining Global Democracy: Report. As foundations and wealthy individuals funnel money into global development, what “solutions” are they pursuing? From Warren Buffett to Bill Gates, it is no secret that the ultra-rich philanthropist class has an over-sized influence in shaping global politics and policies. And a study (pdf) just out from the Global Policy Forum, an international watchdog group, makes the case that powerful philanthropic foundations—under the control of wealthy individuals—are actively undermining governments and inappropriately setting the agenda for international bodies like the United Nations. The top 27 largest foundations together possess assets of over $360 billion, notes the study, authored by Jens Martens and Karolin Seitz. Nineteen of those foundations are based in the United States and, across the board, they are expanding their influence over the global south. And in so doing, they are undermining democracy and local sovereignty. Notably, foundation spending on global development is skyrocketing, jumping from $3 billion per year over a decade ago to $10 billion today. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation leads the way, giving $2.6 billion in 2012, the report notes. In addition, the Gates Foundation is the largest non-state funder of the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, many of the wealthiest people on the planet are individually jumping into the fray, with 137 billionaires from 14 countries last year pledging large sums to philanthropy. Some among them, like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Facebook CEOMark Zuckerberg, have been criticized for abusing their power and influence in pursuit of questionable policies. Read More here