Career Planning Involves Thinking Outside the Box

Responsible Careers | Cynthia Stringer | Tuesday 9th February 2010

President Obama announced in February that the federal government would spend $8 billion developing a nationwide high-speed train system in the United States. This investment the White House says is needed to help create more jobs and develop long-term economic growth. What do you think? Having worked for Amtrak doing a training engagement for two years I know the importance of the rail system and

Leading News and Opinion

	Obama setting some standards for US sustainability Sustainable Development \| Sara Wolcott \| Monday 8th February 2010 OOOOOOhhhh, did you notice it? Big news, but a lot of newsie types are not covering it. It was on the Justmeans board. That's where I found out about it. Obama is setting a new bar for the fed gov't. He issues an Executive Order - on energy constraints. It calls for each federal agency to embark on a concerted program of sustainability over the next decade. This is big.He might have received a lot of flack for not being more supportive for climate change but this is giving him greater credibility - and making a significant contribution to reducing the carbon emissions of the country's largest polluter, the federal government. For the first time, agencies will have to figure out what their carbon foot print is, report it, and make plans to reduce it. I bet many, many companies are going to start to line up to help the big beast of the Fed think about what it is doing to the planet and put it on paper (and eventually, online). I'm also looking forward to what some branches of the US government come up with - what is the US military, for example, going to do to reduce their carbon footprint and aim towards sustainable development? Will the military lead the way in sun-powered fighter jets? I'm amused at the thought. Somehow, I doubt that this look at 'sustainability' is going to include a 'triple bottom line approach' and that either the military or the secret service arms of the US Fed are going to have to think about their human rights violations. Still, its a great start. The impacts aren't just going to be in the US - this will impact sustainable development the world over. It will force thousands of civil servants to start thinking about their carbon foot print - and many of those civil servants will be in various international capacities. It might impact other federal governments. Afterall, one of the best ways to influence change is to be that change - and that work more often than not starts at home. Sustainable development is very often a home-grown process.

	M-health collaborations for global health Health \| Ano Lobb \| Monday 8th February 2010 You've probably heard the term "E-health," used in this forum and elsewhere to refer to things such as electronic health records, but a possibly more interesting advancement from a public health standpoint is the burgeoning area of M-health. M-health is the use of mobile hand-held devices, especially text and web-enabled cell phones, for the delivery of health information and messaging. Some 3.3 billion people, one of every two people on the planet, owns at least one cell phone. In the rural and developing world, cell phones are the fastest growing means of communication. Market penetration in the developed world is around 90 percent, and in the developing world about one-third of that, and growing. Even among the poor, the cell pone is becoming ubiquitous. M-health collaborations are occurring in numerous countries, addressing a multitude of health conditions. Often they provide reminders about healthy activities, sources for disease-specific information. While high quality assessments of their effectiveness are still forthcoming, there is reason to be hopeful based on the limited data on outcomes and process that are available. For example, Project Masiluleke in South Africa sends out 1 million text messages a day encouraging people to be tested for HIV, and providing a phone number to call for more information. In the first five months of the program, the number of calls to the South African National AIDS Helpline quadrupled. The collaborations that are emerging around this technology development are also fascinating, with the potential to build technological and economic capacity as well as healthier populations. Coded in Country, for example, is a project that encourages local programmers to develop software solutions for local projects. "The closer the developers of solutions are to where the problems are, the more effective the solutions become and the more transferable they become to similar environments." Writes Walter Curioso, MPH, who studies m-health as part of his PhD research. "In many cases, local development is leading to more rapid trial and error with a goal of faster and greater success." Coded in Country was initiated by DataDyne, a non-profit sustainable information technology company, who now collaborate with non-profit D-Tree International, and the health care technology company Dimagi. Of course informatics giants such as Google are also involved, often bringing their substantial expertise and resources to the assistance of those local developers who understand their specific social, cultural and health contexts the best. Cell phones are also being explored as a means of tracking patient wellbeing or compliance with treatments, and for disaster preparedness-warning a population of an impending tsunami, for example. Hand-held devices of the "PDA" variety also hold promise for practicing health professionals that may not have access to large medical libraries, specialist consultancies, or other networks to provide informational assistance.

	EPA Investigates One Town's Public Health Mystery Health \| Sara Libby \| Monday 8th February 2010 The term "public health scare" is usually trotted out to refer to disease outbreaks like the recent pandemic of H1N1, or to food-related issues like when E. coli is found in mass-produced foods like spinach or peanut butter. But one small town in California is seeing a public health scare manifest itself in a much different, perhaps scarier way: a spate of birth defects. The small town of about 1,500 residents has had at least six children born between 2007 and 2008 with facial deformities, and other birth defects, including brain damage. About half of those children have died. Recently, the federal Environmental Protection Agency waded into the issue, touring the town and hoping to determine what is causing the problems - and taking a look in particular at a nearby landfill that is one of the largest toxic waste dumping sites west of the Mississippi. Officials were urged to act on the public health crisis after California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other health agencies called on the government to investigate. The incident has re-introduced the concept of environmental justice, and how race and income factor into public health. Kettleman City is an overwhelmingly Hispanic community, and that fact has many activists wondering whether a mostly white city would ever have to deal with the health threats posed by the waste facility. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made promoting environmental justice one of her key priorities. Now, the appointee to head the organization's efforts in the Pacific Southwest, which includes Kettleman City, is not only echoing that priority, but has spoken out about the town specifically. According the EPA: Blumenfeld highlighted the Central California community of Kettleman City, which has suffered distressing incidents of birth defects and infant deaths. Blumenfeld confirmed EPA's commitment to working with state, federal and local partners to assess all of the environmental stressors affecting this rural community. "These families are looking for answers, and collectively as public agencies it is our responsibility to help come up with those answers," said Blumenfeld. "We are engaging with those agencies and community members in order to understand and address public health and environmental issues in Kettleman City." Blumenfeld announced he will take progressive strides forward and place special emphasis on EPA's environmental efforts in historically underserved and vulnerable communities. He also vigorously addressed the inequitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens throughout the region. The presidential appointee promised to renew environmental efforts in the Pacific Southwest. The Obama administration deserves credit for taking this issue to heart; but it must do more than pay lip service to Kettleman City residents. It could take years or decades to turn things around, if in fact the waste facility is found to be the cause of the public health issues plaguing residents.

	Sustainability and You: What Have You Done for the Earth Lately? Sustainable Development \| Kendra Pierre-Louis \| Monday 8th February 2010 It's easy to talk about what's wrong with the planet. For example: Global climate change is warming the environment rapidly irreparably shifting weather patterns, rain patterns, and bringing many species and ecosystems to the brink of collapse. The Pacific Ocean is home to an man-made island of floating plastic and debris twice the size of the US state of Texas. The rate of biodiversity loss is increasing rather than decreasing with each passing year. So what? Or rather, what are you going to do about it? It's very easy to mope, and whine and complain about the problems with the world. It is very easy to point fingers at those who should be doing something, but aren't. But at the end of the day expending all of our energy complaining a problem without lifting a finger to fix the problem does little to bring about solutions, although it does help to assuage guilt and give us inflated feelings of superiority. Theodore Roosevelt said, "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better." I worry that those (myself included) who care passionately about the earth, about people, about society, have become more adept at pointing out the problems, at nitpicking solutions than using this knowledge to pull ourselves up to go about the business of fixing things. So ask yourself, "what have you done for the earth lately?", "what else can you do?" and then get set to doing it, no matter how improbable or impossible. "Impossible," after all Napoleon wrote, "is word found only in the dictionary of fools." I'd love to hear what actions you've taken in the comments.

	Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden on Climate Change Climate Change \| Juan Carlo Pascua \| Monday 8th February 2010 In the past two weeks two of the most influential people alive shared their views on climate change, President Barack Obama and Al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. President Obama was televised live during his State of the Union Speech, whereas Osama Bin Laden broadcasted via unauthenticated audiotape revealed by the Al-Jazeera news network. Although their agendas are entirely opposite, their passion for climate change provide a similar call to action. Bin Laden on climate change: Osama Bin Laden's audio tape introduces him saying: "This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions - whether intentionally or unintentionally - and about the action we must take." Bin Laden addresses climate change in contrast to some US senators' skepticism: "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact." He blames "all the industrious states" for climate change and "yet the majority of those states have signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to curb the emission of harmful gases." Singling out US inaction on Kyoto, Bin Laden laments: "George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs" (Al-Jazeera, 2010). Obama on climate change: Representing a new era, Obama's State of the Union speech emphasized green jobs and their purpose for climate change: "But to create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives... That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development...It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean-coal technologies....And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America... I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change... But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation." World's apart: geographically, philosophically, and politically and yet still concerned over their shared world. One is a world leader representing freedom, and the other is the leader of the most infamous terrorist group ever known. Both commentaries galvanize the world to action despite overwhelming inertia. Obama makes the plea for renewable energy, even nuclear and fossil fuels. Bin Laden plays a blame game with climate change that may be a ploy to gather recruits against the developed West. Obama and Bin Laden -when these two talk the world listens- the message: act on climate change.

	Fresh Food For All: Re-Storing Food Deserts Sustainable Food \| Ellen Sabina \| Monday 8th February 2010 My grandparents like to share stories about what things were like when they were growing up. According to them, everything was different then than it is today: the kinds of games they played, what school was like, what they ate. And I'm inclined to agree. Certainly the small, bustling coal-mining town they grew up in sounds very different in comparison to today's typical American town. One thing that stands out as alarmingly absent in today's town center is the good old grocery store. Long gone are the days when Main St. was lined with the shop windows of butchers, markets, and other traditional food stores. In so many towns and cities, the grocery store is far from the town center, and far from residential areas, relegated to the strip malls on the outskirts of town. As the traditional downtown grocery stores have disappeared, many Americans find themselves left in the dust, stuck in a "food desert." Food deserts can be found in rural and urban areas alike, and showed up in the 1960s with the development of suburbia. As wealthier people moved from the cities to the suburbs, the supermarkets followed, leaving low-income city-dwellers without accessible, healthy and affordable food. An area is labeled a food desert when the nearest quality grocery store is 10 or more miles away. In urban areas, food deserts are often characterized by a lack of reliable transportation to suburban supermarkets in conjunction with an abundance of low-quality food, like fast food restaurants and neighborhood stores with little variety. In rural areas, food deserts look a little different, but have the same affect. While those who live in rural areas are more likely to own or have access to a car compared to low-income urbanites, many live far away from the nearest grocery store. In rural areas it is not uncommon to travel 25 miles to the nearest store. Those who are not able to make the drive regularly rely on convenience store food, which rarely includes fresh produce or other quality foods. The consequence of food deserts is poor nutrition and high rates of obesity and obesity-related disease. And since food deserts are disproportionately found in low-income areas, many experts argue that there is a direct correlation between the poor health of many low- income communities and food desert status. This correlation makes sense, and also works to debunk the common myth that people in low-income neighborhoods don't want to eat healthy foods. The reality is, that many simply don't have other options and can't access fruits and vegetables. But change is afoot! Community gardens and farmers markets located in former food deserts provide the freshest produce directly to the communities that lack them. Initiatives like New York City's Healthy Bodega program infuses corner stores once stocked solely with unhealthy foods with much needed produce. More stores with healthy fresh foods need to be established in food deserts, rural and urban. Regardless of where you live, access to fresh, healthy food should be considered a basic need, not something reserved for those who can afford it.

	The Cost of Climate Change - Who Pays this Financial Risk? Who Decides? Sustainable Finance \| Michael Hassett \| Monday 8th February 2010 Trillions and Trillions. That's not the ghost of Carl Sagan adjusting for inflation, it's what the world will likely pay to deal with climate change, even if we find the global political will to limit greenhouse gas emissions soon. How do we address this financial risk, who will pay? Everyone, directly or indirectly, in amounts small and large. You will pay the cost of climate change with your taxes and probably with your gasoline and power purchases, and that's just the start. Sometimes, when the cost is high enough, the unlucky sucker left holding the climate change tab will even sue. Three cases now in the U.S. Courts are raising some interesting legal issues that will have huge (wait, this is not the NY Times, I can say ginormous) financial and policy ramifications. Can anyone even bring a climate change suit? Can they win? If so, will the resulting impact be a worthwhile deterrent to greenhouse gas emissions, a nightmarish free-for-all that should have been handled by EPA regulation and/or new legislation, or all of the above? (Note to new readers, "all of the above" is usually a safe pick if you are wagering with friends on the answer to any of my rhetorical questions.) In one case, eight states, New York City and several environmental NGOs are suing utilities, seeking an injunction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a second case, Gulf Coast property owners are suing coal and power companies for money damages, claiming greenhouse gasses increased the intensity of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting property damage. In the the third, an Alaskan village has lost the ice barriers that normally protect it from erosion. The village sued two dozen fuel and utility companies for damages. All three cases were originally dismissed, as the District Courts ruled the claims would require resolution of a non-justiciable political question and determined plaintiffs were unable to establish standing as they could not allege harm fairly traceable to the defendants. Courts of Appeals have already reversed as to the nuisance claims in two of the cases, which are now proceeding. The Alaskan village is still seeking to reverse the original dismissal of its claims. Even if plaintiffs can bring these cases, it doesn't mean they can win. At trial defendants will, at the very least, have serious arguments as to whether they caused climate change, whether climate change caused plaintiffs damages and whether any state law remedy, including the common law of nuisance, should be preempted by the Federal regulatory jurisdiction over greenhouse gasses. Even if defendants lose, they may revisit the standing and political question issues with the Supreme Court. Despite the hurdles, you might see more climate change litigation. Big damages and deep pocket defendants tend to draw a crowd of lawyers. The first tobacco cases were long shots, but the plaintiffs bar didn't go away - despite facing significant causation and preemption issues and years of loss after loss. The entry of the states attorneys general into the tobacco fray was a significant factor in breaching big tobacco's ramparts, and the states are already involved in climate change litigation. Despite the parallels, it's too early to label climate change as the next tobacco, asbestos or phen-phen (no, the heart jeopardizing diet drug phen-phen did not really spawn a tsunami of litigation, but don't you just love the way it sounds - phen-phen). Right now any climate change case looks like a tough, expensive war against some very big companies who will fight to the death. The states and the NGOs are already on the field of battle, but the regular plaintiffs bar might need to see some more signs that victory is possible before they bet thousands of hours of their own time on a case they need to win to get paid. The Supreme Court confirmed the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act in 2007. The EPA is actually drafting regulations, and active, comprehensive regulation would strengthen the preemption arguments of the defendants. The real big dog is Congress, which could can definitively preempt any and all climate change claims with clearly worded legislation. Will Congress act? (Hint to new readers, normally you want to bet on "no", but this might be an exception). One thing litigation can do is compensate victims, and some climate change victims will be needy and sympathetic. Litigation is also an expensive and risky way to set policy and allocate financial risk on a stable, sustainable basis. The litigation process itself absorbs massive resources that might better be spent on preventing emissions, remediating the impact of climate change and compensating victims. Wouldn't judgments in law suits make green house gas emissions more expensive and eventually lead to reduced emissions? Maybe, but what if every company that has any connection with fossil fuels goes the way of the asbestos companies? Congress could actually set up a process to identify major climate change expenses, a fund to pay them and a set of taxes and fees levied on greenhouse gas emitters to pay for the fund. I know, right now this is crazy talk. Congress could barely swallow a watered down cap and trade bill and that was before the Tea Party captured a Senate seat in Massachusetts. It may take several high profile catastrophes -an Alaskan village slides into the sea as the residents are helicoptered to safety, high water pours over a levee producing a new mini-Katrina in New Orleans - but climate change will someday be the kind of event that prompts Congressional action. If Congress doesn't want piecemeal litigation to rule the day (which means Congress will have to overcome the magnetic pull of the powerful trial lawyers lobby, better make it two Alaskan villages sliding into the sea) then Congress will need to come up with a plan that includes funds for remediation and victim compensation.

	China's Antarctic Intentions, part 1 Sustainable Development \| Andrea Brennen \| Sunday 7th February 2010 One problem with international law is that it can be difficult to enforce. In my last couple of posts [Case Study #1: Antarctica and The Mining Ban in Antarctica] I've been discussing international regulations concerning Antarctic development and resource extraction. The aim of these posts was to set the stage for the editorial you're about to read, concerning a Chinese official's recent comments about his government's interest in the potential of Antarctic mineral resources. Basically, it goes like this: over the last few decades, a bunch of representatives from various national governments got together and agreed that Antarctica is a Global Commons [i.e. a global public space belonging to no one and everyone], that its natural environment should be protected, and that any activity pertaining to mining would be prohibited for a minimum of 50 years [2041]. Cool, sounds good. However, this raises the following question: suppose one government [or corporation, or individual, for that matter] decided to go ahead and exploit Antarctica's natural resources anyway - possibly to the detriment of the continent's natural eco-system, not to mention the rare precedence for international environmental legislation. Who, exactly, would have the power to stop them? At a recent meeting between Chinese dignitaries and Australian diplomats that took place at Australia's Antarctic Casey Base, Mr Qu Tanzhou, director of the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration, made a public statement about China's interest in the potential of Antarctic resources and Chinese intentions to investigate how these resources might be used. China's Minister for Land and Resources Mr Xu Shaoshi, who was also in attendance, further underscored his government's interest in the continent's vast store of mineral riches. Legally, I suppose there are repercussions for violating an international treaty - a proverbial slap on the wrist or a bad public relations campaign or economic sanctions, if the stakes were high enough [which, let's face it, they're not in the case of Antarctica.] But really, if China wants to mine Antarctica - even though it violates the standing international agreement - there's not that much anyone can do about it. In fact, there's a good chance no one would even know about it. I mean, Antarctica's a big place with a pretty darn low population density. Admittedly, this isn't the first example of a national government placing its own self-interest ahead of the Antarctic Treaty System. When the US began construction of the "Ice Highway" - from The Amundsen-Scott facility at the South Pole to the headquarters of American Antarctic activity at McMurdo Station - they incurred considerable criticism from other Consultative Party representatives who were concerned about the negative environmental impact of the project. The Ice Highway can be read as evidence of a disconnect between de jure Antarctic regulations and de facto proceedings - the 1991 Environmental Protocol works really well; that is, until it doesn't. Yet somehow I still think there's a big difference - in scale, but also of attitude - between the US building a highway and China declaring its intentions to mine in Antarctica. When the US Antarctic Program [and Raytheon's Polar Division] began construction of the Ice Highway, members of the US delegation to Antarctica made it apparent that they knew they were pissing off other governments. There was a strong effort made to appease the press and the public, paying lip service to the environmental question by extolling the project's benefits to global science initiatives [it would ease transportation, cooperation, and the collection of ice core samples, etc.]. I don't mean to let the US off the hook here; it still went against the recommendations of the other Consultative nations, in essence violating the international agreement, but it seems to me the Chinese government's attitude is markedly different; they're not even pretending to acknowledge the rhetorical game of global environmental politics.

	G7 Lives - Emerging Markets Beware Sustainable Finance \| Michael Hassett \| Sunday 7th February 2010 Finance ministers and central bank heads from the G7 ( for those of you who had already mentally tossed the G7 on the scrap heap of history, that would be Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US - the pantheon of the developed, emerging markets need not apply) concluded two days of meetings in Iqaluit. a remote village in the Canadian arctic. (Is there any other kind of village in the Canadian arctic?) After considering budget deficit crises in Greece, Spain and Portugal and related stress on the euro, the attendees covered a varied agenda then revealed consensus on several items. The G7 will: Support debt relief for Haiti; Continue economic stimulus programs to combat unemployment and the threat of double dip recession, despite deficit concerns; Support efforts to impose new rescue cost recovery levies on banks through the International Monetary Fund, thus reducing the ability of a bank to avoid any new tax by shifting borderless elements of its business to non-participating jurisdictions; and Continue to exist - that's right, for those of you who had doubts after Pittsburgh, who thought the more inclusive and representative G20 (including emerging market nations Brazil, China and India - actually that key word should be emerged markets) was all that really mattered, the G7 isn't going anywhere just yet, although its focus may shift to more informal discussion. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherety noted the role of the G7 economies in causing the most recent global recession and the role of the G7 in leading recovery plans in explaing the decision to stay in business. French minister Christine Lagarde added, " We were all unanimous". (OK, I chuckled too, but she's speaking off the cuff in a foreign language, let's stick to substance.) So, the G7 ministers and bankers still think the group has a purpose, but what aren't they telling us? Maybe they would miss the perks. The meetings in Canada did include a dog sled ride. Not all that important? Maybe its the fact that the G7 nations have significant common interests that are not shared, at least not to the same degree, with the entire G20. Haitian debt relief might be a no-brainer, but will China, India or Brazil really support an IMF levy on all banks even when banks in China, India and Brazil didn't have anything to do with mortgaged backed securities or a global real estate bubble. Especially with the announced shift to a more informal approach that emphasizes discussion over communiques, don't be surpised if the G7 meetings devolve into strategy sessions - opportunities to plan a common approach on issues where the G7 doesn't fully agree with the rest of the G20 and particularly the emerging market nations, issues like greenhouse gas emissions, currency values controlled to support exports,etc. For all we know, the G7 ministers are walking into the next G20 meeting with a plan to cram some Greek bonds down a reluctant China's throat.

	A Generation Gap: What Does Generation-Just Know about Climate Change Compared to Generation-X or Y? Climate Change \| Juan Carlo Pascua \| Sunday 7th February 2010 In General, Generations X and Y contrast with Generation Just on climate change knowledge and concern. Generation X was born between the years 1961-1981 and Generation Y between the years 1981-1995. Generation Just is (a new term that we will coin here at Justmeans) referring to the generation born after 1995 and will be responsible for climate change. So what does Generation-Just know about climate change compared to Generation-X or Y? Does it matter? To begin, let's be clear: there is nothing that Generation Just (Gen-Just) knows about climate change that Gen-X or Gen-Y couldn't learn, and vice versa. The difference in knowledge isn't comparable to say technology, where people believe that since younger generations are brought up with new technology, they in general must be more natural and educated at using it. Or that due to different- *usually harsher- conditions in the past, senior generations learned different lessons and values than the youth of today. Knowledge on climate change is just emerging and is starting to develop with youth culture; we're immersing them more through their usual sources: TV, internet, & classes. Working adults may not have time for much outside of work and home. The knowledge gap is simply due to a cultural gap. Instead of asking what does Gen-X & Y know about climate change compared to what Gen-Just knows, it would be more useful to go over how culture defines a generation and how culture acts as a viewing lens to decide on current events like climate change. This discussion moves away from asking: who knows more about climate change, and toward: why does each generation have their own particular view on climate change? Even more important to understand is how each generational viewpoint affect their response (or lack thereof). Important in understanding culture is to understand its values. Generations X & Y are most concerned about their jobs because their employment is the lifeline for themselves and their families. Generation Just on the other hand doesn't have that responsibility, their values are just being developed and right now one value being defined is environmental protection from climate change. Gen-X and Y value their jobs more than they value the planet and climate change; it's not a problem if one's job has nothing to do with climate change (subsequently carbon taxes, or carbon cap and trade schemes). The schism between Gen-X & Y vs. Gen-Just climate knowledge arrives when climate change legislation would effect jobs and even take jobs away. Go on any LinkedIn discussion (like on the Justmeans group) and inevitably there's a rant that climate legislation would "take away freedom of the people to live a life they choose; a blatant transformation of our very way of life." Paraphrased, but grammar improved. Threaten the people from their jobs and way of life and you threaten them with hunger- the result is irrational disdain from climate change actions and acknowledgment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next

Quick Updates

Let us know what you think about Forest Carbon Offsetting in our 2010 survey
If you are an organisation already engaged in or thinking about engaging in green issues please have your say

Agency Emissions to be Revealed for the First Time
Agency emissions, executive order, carbon footprint, sustainability

Obama's Executive Order - Energy Constraints
A significant decision by Pres. Obama calls for each federal agency to embark on a concerted program of sustainability

U.S. Water Managers Gather at Global Conference To Brace for Climate Change
World water leaders come together to exchange ideas and propel action against climate change.

Major Nevada Pipeline Project in Limbo Major Nevada Pipeline Project in Limbo
Plans for a major freshwater pipeline for the Las Vegas Valley hit a legal roadblock.

Michigan Takes Asian Carp Fight Back To the Supreme Court
Michigan’s Attorney General Mike Cox has filed a new Supreme Court motion

Super Bowl Parties...forget calorie counting, enjoy the game, family, friends
What is healthier than laughing, cheering for your favorite team and eating together with friends and family.

How much do I really matter in a democracy?
Yes, we have voices. Yes, we have votes. But with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Ocean Acidification: A Hidden Risk of Global Warming
Ocean today absorbs nearly a third of the carbon dioxide we produce, probably mitigating the impact of climate change

Employee volunteering on the rise at Novo Nordisk
Employee volunteering on the rise at Novo Nordisk

	Obama setting some standards for US sustainability Sustainable Development \| Sara Wolcott \| Monday 8th February 2010 OOOOOOhhhh, did you notice it? Big news, but a lot of newsie types are not covering it. It was on the Justmeans board. That's where I found out about it. Obama is setting a new bar for the fed gov't. He issues an Executive Order - on energy constraints. It calls for each federal agency to embark on a concerted program of sustainability over the next decade. This is big.He might have received a lot of flack for not being more supportive for climate change but this is giving him greater credibility - and making a significant contribution to reducing the carbon emissions of the country's largest polluter, the federal government. For the first time, agencies will have to figure out what their carbon foot print is, report it, and make plans to reduce it. I bet many, many companies are going to start to line up to help the big beast of the Fed think about what it is doing to the planet and put it on paper (and eventually, online). I'm also looking forward to what some branches of the US government come up with - what is the US military, for example, going to do to reduce their carbon footprint and aim towards sustainable development? Will the military lead the way in sun-powered fighter jets? I'm amused at the thought. Somehow, I doubt that this look at 'sustainability' is going to include a 'triple bottom line approach' and that either the military or the secret service arms of the US Fed are going to have to think about their human rights violations. Still, its a great start. The impacts aren't just going to be in the US - this will impact sustainable development the world over. It will force thousands of civil servants to start thinking about their carbon foot print - and many of those civil servants will be in various international capacities. It might impact other federal governments. Afterall, one of the best ways to influence change is to be that change - and that work more often than not starts at home. Sustainable development is very often a home-grown process.

	M-health collaborations for global health Health \| Ano Lobb \| Monday 8th February 2010 You've probably heard the term "E-health," used in this forum and elsewhere to refer to things such as electronic health records, but a possibly more interesting advancement from a public health standpoint is the burgeoning area of M-health. M-health is the use of mobile hand-held devices, especially text and web-enabled cell phones, for the delivery of health information and messaging. Some 3.3 billion people, one of every two people on the planet, owns at least one cell phone. In the rural and developing world, cell phones are the fastest growing means of communication. Market penetration in the developed world is around 90 percent, and in the developing world about one-third of that, and growing. Even among the poor, the cell pone is becoming ubiquitous. M-health collaborations are occurring in numerous countries, addressing a multitude of health conditions. Often they provide reminders about healthy activities, sources for disease-specific information. While high quality assessments of their effectiveness are still forthcoming, there is reason to be hopeful based on the limited data on outcomes and process that are available. For example, Project Masiluleke in South Africa sends out 1 million text messages a day encouraging people to be tested for HIV, and providing a phone number to call for more information. In the first five months of the program, the number of calls to the South African National AIDS Helpline quadrupled. The collaborations that are emerging around this technology development are also fascinating, with the potential to build technological and economic capacity as well as healthier populations. Coded in Country, for example, is a project that encourages local programmers to develop software solutions for local projects. "The closer the developers of solutions are to where the problems are, the more effective the solutions become and the more transferable they become to similar environments." Writes Walter Curioso, MPH, who studies m-health as part of his PhD research. "In many cases, local development is leading to more rapid trial and error with a goal of faster and greater success." Coded in Country was initiated by DataDyne, a non-profit sustainable information technology company, who now collaborate with non-profit D-Tree International, and the health care technology company Dimagi. Of course informatics giants such as Google are also involved, often bringing their substantial expertise and resources to the assistance of those local developers who understand their specific social, cultural and health contexts the best. Cell phones are also being explored as a means of tracking patient wellbeing or compliance with treatments, and for disaster preparedness-warning a population of an impending tsunami, for example. Hand-held devices of the "PDA" variety also hold promise for practicing health professionals that may not have access to large medical libraries, specialist consultancies, or other networks to provide informational assistance.

	EPA Investigates One Town's Public Health Mystery Health \| Sara Libby \| Monday 8th February 2010 The term "public health scare" is usually trotted out to refer to disease outbreaks like the recent pandemic of H1N1, or to food-related issues like when E. coli is found in mass-produced foods like spinach or peanut butter. But one small town in California is seeing a public health scare manifest itself in a much different, perhaps scarier way: a spate of birth defects. The small town of about 1,500 residents has had at least six children born between 2007 and 2008 with facial deformities, and other birth defects, including brain damage. About half of those children have died. Recently, the federal Environmental Protection Agency waded into the issue, touring the town and hoping to determine what is causing the problems - and taking a look in particular at a nearby landfill that is one of the largest toxic waste dumping sites west of the Mississippi. Officials were urged to act on the public health crisis after California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and other health agencies called on the government to investigate. The incident has re-introduced the concept of environmental justice, and how race and income factor into public health. Kettleman City is an overwhelmingly Hispanic community, and that fact has many activists wondering whether a mostly white city would ever have to deal with the health threats posed by the waste facility. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has made promoting environmental justice one of her key priorities. Now, the appointee to head the organization's efforts in the Pacific Southwest, which includes Kettleman City, is not only echoing that priority, but has spoken out about the town specifically. According the EPA: Blumenfeld highlighted the Central California community of Kettleman City, which has suffered distressing incidents of birth defects and infant deaths. Blumenfeld confirmed EPA's commitment to working with state, federal and local partners to assess all of the environmental stressors affecting this rural community. "These families are looking for answers, and collectively as public agencies it is our responsibility to help come up with those answers," said Blumenfeld. "We are engaging with those agencies and community members in order to understand and address public health and environmental issues in Kettleman City." Blumenfeld announced he will take progressive strides forward and place special emphasis on EPA's environmental efforts in historically underserved and vulnerable communities. He also vigorously addressed the inequitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens throughout the region. The presidential appointee promised to renew environmental efforts in the Pacific Southwest. The Obama administration deserves credit for taking this issue to heart; but it must do more than pay lip service to Kettleman City residents. It could take years or decades to turn things around, if in fact the waste facility is found to be the cause of the public health issues plaguing residents.

	Sustainability and You: What Have You Done for the Earth Lately? Sustainable Development \| Kendra Pierre-Louis \| Monday 8th February 2010 It's easy to talk about what's wrong with the planet. For example: Global climate change is warming the environment rapidly irreparably shifting weather patterns, rain patterns, and bringing many species and ecosystems to the brink of collapse. The Pacific Ocean is home to an man-made island of floating plastic and debris twice the size of the US state of Texas. The rate of biodiversity loss is increasing rather than decreasing with each passing year. So what? Or rather, what are you going to do about it? It's very easy to mope, and whine and complain about the problems with the world. It is very easy to point fingers at those who should be doing something, but aren't. But at the end of the day expending all of our energy complaining a problem without lifting a finger to fix the problem does little to bring about solutions, although it does help to assuage guilt and give us inflated feelings of superiority. Theodore Roosevelt said, "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better." I worry that those (myself included) who care passionately about the earth, about people, about society, have become more adept at pointing out the problems, at nitpicking solutions than using this knowledge to pull ourselves up to go about the business of fixing things. So ask yourself, "what have you done for the earth lately?", "what else can you do?" and then get set to doing it, no matter how improbable or impossible. "Impossible," after all Napoleon wrote, "is word found only in the dictionary of fools." I'd love to hear what actions you've taken in the comments.

	Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden on Climate Change Climate Change \| Juan Carlo Pascua \| Monday 8th February 2010 In the past two weeks two of the most influential people alive shared their views on climate change, President Barack Obama and Al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. President Obama was televised live during his State of the Union Speech, whereas Osama Bin Laden broadcasted via unauthenticated audiotape revealed by the Al-Jazeera news network. Although their agendas are entirely opposite, their passion for climate change provide a similar call to action. Bin Laden on climate change: Osama Bin Laden's audio tape introduces him saying: "This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions - whether intentionally or unintentionally - and about the action we must take." Bin Laden addresses climate change in contrast to some US senators' skepticism: "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact." He blames "all the industrious states" for climate change and "yet the majority of those states have signed the Kyoto Protocol and agreed to curb the emission of harmful gases." Singling out US inaction on Kyoto, Bin Laden laments: "George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs" (Al-Jazeera, 2010). Obama on climate change: Representing a new era, Obama's State of the Union speech emphasized green jobs and their purpose for climate change: "But to create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives... That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development...It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean-coal technologies....And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America... I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change... But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation." World's apart: geographically, philosophically, and politically and yet still concerned over their shared world. One is a world leader representing freedom, and the other is the leader of the most infamous terrorist group ever known. Both commentaries galvanize the world to action despite overwhelming inertia. Obama makes the plea for renewable energy, even nuclear and fossil fuels. Bin Laden plays a blame game with climate change that may be a ploy to gather recruits against the developed West. Obama and Bin Laden -when these two talk the world listens- the message: act on climate change.

	Fresh Food For All: Re-Storing Food Deserts Sustainable Food \| Ellen Sabina \| Monday 8th February 2010 My grandparents like to share stories about what things were like when they were growing up. According to them, everything was different then than it is today: the kinds of games they played, what school was like, what they ate. And I'm inclined to agree. Certainly the small, bustling coal-mining town they grew up in sounds very different in comparison to today's typical American town. One thing that stands out as alarmingly absent in today's town center is the good old grocery store. Long gone are the days when Main St. was lined with the shop windows of butchers, markets, and other traditional food stores. In so many towns and cities, the grocery store is far from the town center, and far from residential areas, relegated to the strip malls on the outskirts of town. As the traditional downtown grocery stores have disappeared, many Americans find themselves left in the dust, stuck in a "food desert." Food deserts can be found in rural and urban areas alike, and showed up in the 1960s with the development of suburbia. As wealthier people moved from the cities to the suburbs, the supermarkets followed, leaving low-income city-dwellers without accessible, healthy and affordable food. An area is labeled a food desert when the nearest quality grocery store is 10 or more miles away. In urban areas, food deserts are often characterized by a lack of reliable transportation to suburban supermarkets in conjunction with an abundance of low-quality food, like fast food restaurants and neighborhood stores with little variety. In rural areas, food deserts look a little different, but have the same affect. While those who live in rural areas are more likely to own or have access to a car compared to low-income urbanites, many live far away from the nearest grocery store. In rural areas it is not uncommon to travel 25 miles to the nearest store. Those who are not able to make the drive regularly rely on convenience store food, which rarely includes fresh produce or other quality foods. The consequence of food deserts is poor nutrition and high rates of obesity and obesity-related disease. And since food deserts are disproportionately found in low-income areas, many experts argue that there is a direct correlation between the poor health of many low- income communities and food desert status. This correlation makes sense, and also works to debunk the common myth that people in low-income neighborhoods don't want to eat healthy foods. The reality is, that many simply don't have other options and can't access fruits and vegetables. But change is afoot! Community gardens and farmers markets located in former food deserts provide the freshest produce directly to the communities that lack them. Initiatives like New York City's Healthy Bodega program infuses corner stores once stocked solely with unhealthy foods with much needed produce. More stores with healthy fresh foods need to be established in food deserts, rural and urban. Regardless of where you live, access to fresh, healthy food should be considered a basic need, not something reserved for those who can afford it.

	The Cost of Climate Change - Who Pays this Financial Risk? Who Decides? Sustainable Finance \| Michael Hassett \| Monday 8th February 2010 Trillions and Trillions. That's not the ghost of Carl Sagan adjusting for inflation, it's what the world will likely pay to deal with climate change, even if we find the global political will to limit greenhouse gas emissions soon. How do we address this financial risk, who will pay? Everyone, directly or indirectly, in amounts small and large. You will pay the cost of climate change with your taxes and probably with your gasoline and power purchases, and that's just the start. Sometimes, when the cost is high enough, the unlucky sucker left holding the climate change tab will even sue. Three cases now in the U.S. Courts are raising some interesting legal issues that will have huge (wait, this is not the NY Times, I can say ginormous) financial and policy ramifications. Can anyone even bring a climate change suit? Can they win? If so, will the resulting impact be a worthwhile deterrent to greenhouse gas emissions, a nightmarish free-for-all that should have been handled by EPA regulation and/or new legislation, or all of the above? (Note to new readers, "all of the above" is usually a safe pick if you are wagering with friends on the answer to any of my rhetorical questions.) In one case, eight states, New York City and several environmental NGOs are suing utilities, seeking an injunction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In a second case, Gulf Coast property owners are suing coal and power companies for money damages, claiming greenhouse gasses increased the intensity of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting property damage. In the the third, an Alaskan village has lost the ice barriers that normally protect it from erosion. The village sued two dozen fuel and utility companies for damages. All three cases were originally dismissed, as the District Courts ruled the claims would require resolution of a non-justiciable political question and determined plaintiffs were unable to establish standing as they could not allege harm fairly traceable to the defendants. Courts of Appeals have already reversed as to the nuisance claims in two of the cases, which are now proceeding. The Alaskan village is still seeking to reverse the original dismissal of its claims. Even if plaintiffs can bring these cases, it doesn't mean they can win. At trial defendants will, at the very least, have serious arguments as to whether they caused climate change, whether climate change caused plaintiffs damages and whether any state law remedy, including the common law of nuisance, should be preempted by the Federal regulatory jurisdiction over greenhouse gasses. Even if defendants lose, they may revisit the standing and political question issues with the Supreme Court. Despite the hurdles, you might see more climate change litigation. Big damages and deep pocket defendants tend to draw a crowd of lawyers. The first tobacco cases were long shots, but the plaintiffs bar didn't go away - despite facing significant causation and preemption issues and years of loss after loss. The entry of the states attorneys general into the tobacco fray was a significant factor in breaching big tobacco's ramparts, and the states are already involved in climate change litigation. Despite the parallels, it's too early to label climate change as the next tobacco, asbestos or phen-phen (no, the heart jeopardizing diet drug phen-phen did not really spawn a tsunami of litigation, but don't you just love the way it sounds - phen-phen). Right now any climate change case looks like a tough, expensive war against some very big companies who will fight to the death. The states and the NGOs are already on the field of battle, but the regular plaintiffs bar might need to see some more signs that victory is possible before they bet thousands of hours of their own time on a case they need to win to get paid. The Supreme Court confirmed the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act in 2007. The EPA is actually drafting regulations, and active, comprehensive regulation would strengthen the preemption arguments of the defendants. The real big dog is Congress, which could can definitively preempt any and all climate change claims with clearly worded legislation. Will Congress act? (Hint to new readers, normally you want to bet on "no", but this might be an exception). One thing litigation can do is compensate victims, and some climate change victims will be needy and sympathetic. Litigation is also an expensive and risky way to set policy and allocate financial risk on a stable, sustainable basis. The litigation process itself absorbs massive resources that might better be spent on preventing emissions, remediating the impact of climate change and compensating victims. Wouldn't judgments in law suits make green house gas emissions more expensive and eventually lead to reduced emissions? Maybe, but what if every company that has any connection with fossil fuels goes the way of the asbestos companies? Congress could actually set up a process to identify major climate change expenses, a fund to pay them and a set of taxes and fees levied on greenhouse gas emitters to pay for the fund. I know, right now this is crazy talk. Congress could barely swallow a watered down cap and trade bill and that was before the Tea Party captured a Senate seat in Massachusetts. It may take several high profile catastrophes -an Alaskan village slides into the sea as the residents are helicoptered to safety, high water pours over a levee producing a new mini-Katrina in New Orleans - but climate change will someday be the kind of event that prompts Congressional action. If Congress doesn't want piecemeal litigation to rule the day (which means Congress will have to overcome the magnetic pull of the powerful trial lawyers lobby, better make it two Alaskan villages sliding into the sea) then Congress will need to come up with a plan that includes funds for remediation and victim compensation.

	China's Antarctic Intentions, part 1 Sustainable Development \| Andrea Brennen \| Sunday 7th February 2010 One problem with international law is that it can be difficult to enforce. In my last couple of posts [Case Study #1: Antarctica and The Mining Ban in Antarctica] I've been discussing international regulations concerning Antarctic development and resource extraction. The aim of these posts was to set the stage for the editorial you're about to read, concerning a Chinese official's recent comments about his government's interest in the potential of Antarctic mineral resources. Basically, it goes like this: over the last few decades, a bunch of representatives from various national governments got together and agreed that Antarctica is a Global Commons [i.e. a global public space belonging to no one and everyone], that its natural environment should be protected, and that any activity pertaining to mining would be prohibited for a minimum of 50 years [2041]. Cool, sounds good. However, this raises the following question: suppose one government [or corporation, or individual, for that matter] decided to go ahead and exploit Antarctica's natural resources anyway - possibly to the detriment of the continent's natural eco-system, not to mention the rare precedence for international environmental legislation. Who, exactly, would have the power to stop them? At a recent meeting between Chinese dignitaries and Australian diplomats that took place at Australia's Antarctic Casey Base, Mr Qu Tanzhou, director of the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration, made a public statement about China's interest in the potential of Antarctic resources and Chinese intentions to investigate how these resources might be used. China's Minister for Land and Resources Mr Xu Shaoshi, who was also in attendance, further underscored his government's interest in the continent's vast store of mineral riches. Legally, I suppose there are repercussions for violating an international treaty - a proverbial slap on the wrist or a bad public relations campaign or economic sanctions, if the stakes were high enough [which, let's face it, they're not in the case of Antarctica.] But really, if China wants to mine Antarctica - even though it violates the standing international agreement - there's not that much anyone can do about it. In fact, there's a good chance no one would even know about it. I mean, Antarctica's a big place with a pretty darn low population density. Admittedly, this isn't the first example of a national government placing its own self-interest ahead of the Antarctic Treaty System. When the US began construction of the "Ice Highway" - from The Amundsen-Scott facility at the South Pole to the headquarters of American Antarctic activity at McMurdo Station - they incurred considerable criticism from other Consultative Party representatives who were concerned about the negative environmental impact of the project. The Ice Highway can be read as evidence of a disconnect between de jure Antarctic regulations and de facto proceedings - the 1991 Environmental Protocol works really well; that is, until it doesn't. Yet somehow I still think there's a big difference - in scale, but also of attitude - between the US building a highway and China declaring its intentions to mine in Antarctica. When the US Antarctic Program [and Raytheon's Polar Division] began construction of the Ice Highway, members of the US delegation to Antarctica made it apparent that they knew they were pissing off other governments. There was a strong effort made to appease the press and the public, paying lip service to the environmental question by extolling the project's benefits to global science initiatives [it would ease transportation, cooperation, and the collection of ice core samples, etc.]. I don't mean to let the US off the hook here; it still went against the recommendations of the other Consultative nations, in essence violating the international agreement, but it seems to me the Chinese government's attitude is markedly different; they're not even pretending to acknowledge the rhetorical game of global environmental politics.

	G7 Lives - Emerging Markets Beware Sustainable Finance \| Michael Hassett \| Sunday 7th February 2010 Finance ministers and central bank heads from the G7 ( for those of you who had already mentally tossed the G7 on the scrap heap of history, that would be Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US - the pantheon of the developed, emerging markets need not apply) concluded two days of meetings in Iqaluit. a remote village in the Canadian arctic. (Is there any other kind of village in the Canadian arctic?) After considering budget deficit crises in Greece, Spain and Portugal and related stress on the euro, the attendees covered a varied agenda then revealed consensus on several items. The G7 will: Support debt relief for Haiti; Continue economic stimulus programs to combat unemployment and the threat of double dip recession, despite deficit concerns; Support efforts to impose new rescue cost recovery levies on banks through the International Monetary Fund, thus reducing the ability of a bank to avoid any new tax by shifting borderless elements of its business to non-participating jurisdictions; and Continue to exist - that's right, for those of you who had doubts after Pittsburgh, who thought the more inclusive and representative G20 (including emerging market nations Brazil, China and India - actually that key word should be emerged markets) was all that really mattered, the G7 isn't going anywhere just yet, although its focus may shift to more informal discussion. Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherety noted the role of the G7 economies in causing the most recent global recession and the role of the G7 in leading recovery plans in explaing the decision to stay in business. French minister Christine Lagarde added, " We were all unanimous". (OK, I chuckled too, but she's speaking off the cuff in a foreign language, let's stick to substance.) So, the G7 ministers and bankers still think the group has a purpose, but what aren't they telling us? Maybe they would miss the perks. The meetings in Canada did include a dog sled ride. Not all that important? Maybe its the fact that the G7 nations have significant common interests that are not shared, at least not to the same degree, with the entire G20. Haitian debt relief might be a no-brainer, but will China, India or Brazil really support an IMF levy on all banks even when banks in China, India and Brazil didn't have anything to do with mortgaged backed securities or a global real estate bubble. Especially with the announced shift to a more informal approach that emphasizes discussion over communiques, don't be surpised if the G7 meetings devolve into strategy sessions - opportunities to plan a common approach on issues where the G7 doesn't fully agree with the rest of the G20 and particularly the emerging market nations, issues like greenhouse gas emissions, currency values controlled to support exports,etc. For all we know, the G7 ministers are walking into the next G20 meeting with a plan to cram some Greek bonds down a reluctant China's throat.

	A Generation Gap: What Does Generation-Just Know about Climate Change Compared to Generation-X or Y? Climate Change \| Juan Carlo Pascua \| Sunday 7th February 2010 In General, Generations X and Y contrast with Generation Just on climate change knowledge and concern. Generation X was born between the years 1961-1981 and Generation Y between the years 1981-1995. Generation Just is (a new term that we will coin here at Justmeans) referring to the generation born after 1995 and will be responsible for climate change. So what does Generation-Just know about climate change compared to Generation-X or Y? Does it matter? To begin, let's be clear: there is nothing that Generation Just (Gen-Just) knows about climate change that Gen-X or Gen-Y couldn't learn, and vice versa. The difference in knowledge isn't comparable to say technology, where people believe that since younger generations are brought up with new technology, they in general must be more natural and educated at using it. Or that due to different- *usually harsher- conditions in the past, senior generations learned different lessons and values than the youth of today. Knowledge on climate change is just emerging and is starting to develop with youth culture; we're immersing them more through their usual sources: TV, internet, & classes. Working adults may not have time for much outside of work and home. The knowledge gap is simply due to a cultural gap. Instead of asking what does Gen-X & Y know about climate change compared to what Gen-Just knows, it would be more useful to go over how culture defines a generation and how culture acts as a viewing lens to decide on current events like climate change. This discussion moves away from asking: who knows more about climate change, and toward: why does each generation have their own particular view on climate change? Even more important to understand is how each generational viewpoint affect their response (or lack thereof). Important in understanding culture is to understand its values. Generations X & Y are most concerned about their jobs because their employment is the lifeline for themselves and their families. Generation Just on the other hand doesn't have that responsibility, their values are just being developed and right now one value being defined is environmental protection from climate change. Gen-X and Y value their jobs more than they value the planet and climate change; it's not a problem if one's job has nothing to do with climate change (subsequently carbon taxes, or carbon cap and trade schemes). The schism between Gen-X & Y vs. Gen-Just climate knowledge arrives when climate change legislation would effect jobs and even take jobs away. Go on any LinkedIn discussion (like on the Justmeans group) and inevitably there's a rant that climate legislation would "take away freedom of the people to live a life they choose; a blatant transformation of our very way of life." Paraphrased, but grammar improved. Threaten the people from their jobs and way of life and you threaten them with hunger- the result is irrational disdain from climate change actions and acknowledgment.