JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update # 8
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
On May 8, 2022, it was reported by the governor of the Luhansk region in Ukraine that a Russian missile killed 60 people sheltering inside a school. The Luhansk region has seen fierce combat as Russian troops and separatist fighters seek to surround government forces in their eastward offensive.
Justice Department Announces Environmental Justice Strategy
Brief #142 – Environmental Policy
By Stephen Thomas
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced in Washington May 5, 2022, a multifaceted program in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency to protect and improve the environment and address climate change.
The effort is consistent with an executive order that President Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued Jan. 27, 2021.
Leasing Federal Land to Big Oil is a Slippery Political Tightrope
Brief #141 – Environment
By Todd J. Broadman
The Interior Department will put up for auction 144,000 acres of federal land to oil and gas companies. The Department says that this lease sale is actually scaled back by 80 percent of the original acreage slated for potential drilling. 90 percent of the land to be leased is located in Wyoming. In tandem with the sale, royalties paid to the federal government on any revenue that result from new drilling will go up from 12.5 percent to 18.75 percent.
Biden Administration Promotes New Changes in Student Loan Policies
Brief #52 – Education
By Lynn Waldsmith
Being debt-free will soon be a dream come true for tens of thousands of borrowers, now that the Dept. of Education has announced it is taking steps to overhaul the federal student loan system. In addition, millions of borrowers will move one step closer to reaching that same dream.
Too many choices, complicated terms, misinformation from servicers – these are just some of the problems that have plagued federal student loan borrowers for years.
Gov. De Santis’ Right Wing War Continues With Signing of “Voter Fraud Office” Bill
Brief #187 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
On April 25, 2022 Governor Ron De Santis of Florida signed Senate Bill 524 which, among a number of things, creates a new Office of Election Crimes and Security as a new unit in Florida’s Department of State. The new office will be charged with overseeing elections but more specifically will review fraud allegations and conduct preliminary investigations into those allegations.
DeSantisLand
Brief #34 – Elections and Politics
By Abran C
Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been making headlines once again for a series of controversial bills that have been signed into law in the sunshine state. Policies ranging from House Bill 1557 or as opponents call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, the “Stop Woke Act”, and a new Florida election police force, demonstrate that DeSantis has sped up his increasingly authoritarian style of governing.
Animal Thrives on Facebook
Brief #58 – Technology
By JA Angelo
With the discovery of the internet, the illegal sale of wildlife became even more popular around the world. Some of the more popular animals and animal parts poachers sold included elephant ivory, tiger cubs, rhino horns, and pangolin scales.
The Effects of The War in Ukraine on Russian Athletes
Brief #124 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
The larger question regarding the banning of Russian and Belarussian athletes is, should it apply to athletes who openly oppose the war and/or Vladimir Putin? An interesting example is Andrey Rublev. He wrote “No War Please” on a TV camera lens after advancing to the final match of the Dubai Championship. Is this sort of outward expression of anti-war sentiment something to be considered when banning athletes from sports based on the actions of their governmental leaders?
The New Composition of the Supreme Court
Brief #33 – Elections and Politics
By Inijah Quadri
The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices. The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was appointed by President Biden on February 25, 2022. This brief discusses how the composition of the Supreme Court has changed over time, and what the implications of its new makeup are for the future of our democracy.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 5
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 5
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #31 | By: Erika Shannon | December 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Human Events
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There have been many changes on our nation’s home front since the January 6th insurrection in the U.S. Capitol; and some of these changes are being made to ensure that events like that will never occur again, on either side. Chairperson Bennie Thompson and his US House Select Committee panel have been investigating the events that transpired on January 6th with one mission in mind: preserve the democratic process. There have been endless subpoenas, documents submitted, and interviews, so what is still to come in this lengthy process?
Of course, there are the matters of getting people to cooperate who have been unwilling to do so. This includes people like former president Donald Trump and his closest cohorts, such as Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows. Earlier this month, Bannon was hit with a federal indictment and charged with two counts of contempt of Congress. This came after he refused to provide testimony or documents to the January 6th Select Committee. His defiance is seen as extreme due to the fact that he was not willing to even appear before investigators under subpoena, even if to assert other alleged privileges. It is seen as a move that may prompt others to follow suit and do their best to derail the investigation.
Policy Analysis
While Bannon’s contempt is seen as a problematic example of non-compliance, other allies of Trump have decided to come forward to seemingly avoid the problems that Bannon is now facing. Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff at the time of the January 6th insurrection, is now cooperating with the House Select Committee. For now, communications have been through his attorney but he will soon appear for an initial deposition in front of them. Meadows is currently the highest profile member of the former President’s inner circle who is known to be actually cooperating with the investigation. Though he still may attempt to withhold certain information, his cooperation is a good sign for the committee’s efforts.
Meadows may not be following in Steve Bannon’s contemptuous footsteps, but other Trump allies may do so. Jeffrey Clark, head of the Environment and Natural Resources division of the Justice Department under Trump, allegedly attempted to use federal resources to delay the certification of the 2020 election results. He has attempted to claim that the information being sought by the Committee is protected by executive privilege, much like the former president believes himself. Recently he has agreed to testify but threatens to invoke the 5th amendment on questions that might incriminate him. Still, even if Clark invokes the 5th, Committee members will be able to gain insights into areas of possible criminality from the questions which Clark refuses to answer.
While progress is being made, the Committee is still issuing subpoenas to try and get as much information as possible. In late November, the panel sent out another five subpoenas. Groups subpoenaed include Proud Boys International, L.L.C. and the Oath Keepers. Henry “Enrique Tarrio, former chairman of the Proud Boys, was also subpoenaed by the Committee. Elmer Stuart Rhodes, a member of Oath Keepers, was subpoenaed due to his alleged suggestions that the Oath Keepers should engage in violence to secure their preferred election outcome.
Photo taken from: USA Today
The group 1st Amendment Praetorian and its chairman, Robert Patrick Lewis, were also subpoenaed, as Lewis was listed as a speaker on the permit for the January 5th rally on Freedom Plaza. Lewis suggested violence was imminent and the Committee would like to know how far his involvement goes.
While the Committee is trying to figure out how to get certain parties to comply with their investigation, they are receiving a good amount of information from former president Trump’s allies. Some of this information has the potential to get Trump in trouble; this is likely why the former president refuses to cooperate with the House Select Committee to this day.. Trump finds the panel’s work to be a joke, not realizing the severity of the investigation, and will eventually have to face them or possibly be indicted.
This brief is part of an ongoing series in the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- To read the committee’s latest subpoenas or press releases, visit the January 6th Committee webpage.
Pandemic Barriers Inhibit Return to Low-Wage Jobs and Have Caused Massive Decrease in Migrant Labor Needed to Sustain US Economy
Pandemic Barriers Inhibit Return to Low-Wage Jobs
Immigration Policy Brief #131 | By: Kathryn Baron | November 30, 2021
Header photo taken from: Brookings Institution
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more immigration policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The US needs roughly 10 million people to work low-wage and high-skilled workers to comfortably sustain the economy. Only 8.4 million Americans are actively seeking work in this stage of the pandemic; workers are resigning in record numbers and the number of Americans returning to low-wage industries are persistently low. On average, the US accepts roughly 1 million immigrants and 75% of those immigrants actively contribute to the American labor force. In 2020, the US only admit 263,000 immigrants.
The industries facing the most severe labor shortages include construction, transportation and warehousing, and accommodation and hospitality. Immigrants make up at least 20% of the workforces in each of the aforementioned industries. The US Labor Department’s monthly report noted the American labor force dropped by 5.5 million below pre-pandemic levels within the past year.
Policy Analysis
The OECD most recently estimated the number of migrant workers arriving at wealthy nations has fallen by almost 4%, the largest plunge since 2003. Currently, the only existing visa programs in the US designed to welcome low-wage workers is the H-2 program, which is usually capped at 66,000 per annum (excluding agricultural workers). The Department of Homeland Security can increase the cap up to 64,000 additional visas without Congress’s intervention. The Biden Administration opted to add an additional 22,000 visas earlier this year, and could potentially add more moving forward.
Photo taken from: Cato Institute
The lack of migrant workers is drastically affecting the US economy and has potential to alter trade relations as a result of reduced GDP, lower levels of remittances, and concerning levels of unemployment.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low-income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties of the Constitution and US laws guaranteed to all its citizens.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
Schools Are Failing to Teach Climate Change
Schools Are Failing to Teach Climate Change
Education Policy Brief #61 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | December 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: the BBC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Independent
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Global warming is, above all else, a looming crisis for children.
With extreme weather events such as heat waves and wildfires expected to rise in frequency, intensity and duration under global warming, it should come as no surprise that younger generations will face many more such events over their lifetimes compared to their parents and grandparents. In fact, a new survey published in Science magazine predicts children born in 2020 could face seven times more climate disasters than those born in 1960.
Yet, what should come as a surprise is how so many American kids fail to understand the gravity of the issue. While Gen Z and Millennials are notably leading the fight against climate change, about a quarter of American kids surveyed in 2020 rejected the idea that global warming was some kind of emergency, more than in any other country surveyed in Western Europe or North America. In Miseducation: How Climate Change is Taught in America, a new book by investigative journalist Katie Worth, she discovered many U.S. kids don’t believe in human-caused global warming because they are not being taught about climate change in school, while others are not being taught accurately.
America has no national curriculum, leaving states to decide their own academic standards. Thus, an education in modern climate science is required in some parts of the country and nonexistent in others. Political divides across red and blue states are a major factor in fostering inequities in children’s science education. The Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education graded each state’s academic standards based on how well they taught climate change. No blue state got less than a B plus, and there were a few red states that got B pluses or even As, but the majority of red states did considerably worse.
Worth reviewed scores of textbooks, built a 50-state database and visited more than a dozen communities to talk to kids about what they’ve learned about the climate crisis. She found that from kindergarten to high school, students are either not being taught anything about climate change, or are still being taught that the climate “has always changed”, or reading textbooks that present global warming as a “debate.”
“It’s safe to say that across the country, intrepid teachers rigorously educate their students about climate science,” she writes in Miseducation. “It’s also safe to say that commonly, a teacher down the hall is miseducating them about it.”
Policy Analysis
There are numerous reasons behind the miseducation of U.S. students concerning global warming. First, many teachers, particularly those who are climate deniers themselves, are unable or unwilling to teach the science of climate change. The United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report concludes that countries must stop adding fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to stop the planet from getting hotter. But teaching or discussing that reality seems risky for many science teachers, who feel that they need to avoid politics in the classroom.
Other teachers lack the resources or knowledge to impart climate science. According to a 2016 study from the National Center for Science Education, fewer than half of all teachers listened to at least one lecture on climate change during their schooling, and most have never pursued continuing education on the topic after college.
But teachers don’t deserve all the blame. According to Worth, the fossil fuel industry is largely responsible for sowing seeds of doubt. And it’s little wonder so many children fail to take climate change seriously when their parents consider it to be a hoax.
“There’s been a multibillion-dollar campaign to make the American public doubt climate change,” she said, “and some of it has been specifically targeted at children.”
In her book, Worth describes how the industry has zeroed in on children for decades with fossil fuel–friendly educational materials, including an ExxonMobil comic book that taught kids about fossil fuel supply and demand in the 1970s to fossil fuel–funded educational programs in use today in at least 18 states that use friendly cartoon characters like “Oliver Oilpatch” and “Petro Pete.” These programs emphasize the free market, equating energy with freedom and promoting the idea that energy regulation will hurt the economy.
Photo taken from: NRDC
Worth found that many school districts still teach that global warming is a scientific debate when it is not. A 2016 survey led by Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University found that one-third of American science educators teach students that “many scientists believe” global warming is natural, but a survey published two years ago by the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society concluded 100 percent consensus was reached among research scientists on human-caused global warming, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles.
John Cook, a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The problem with ‘teach the controversy’ when it comes to human-caused global warming . . . is that there is no controversy—not a scientific one, at least. Teaching that scientists have major disagreements where they do not is simply to spread misinformation.”
In 2020, the National Education Association (NEA) issued a statement saying that it “recognizes the scientific consensus that global climate change is largely caused by human activity, resulting in significant, measurable damage to the earth and its inhabitants.” The same statement went on to challenge educators by noting, “Educators have the opportunity to embed elements of climate change into their lessons to ensure these students have the knowledge they need to address the issue in the capacity they see fit.”
Photo taken from: The Climate Center
Misinformation equals miseducation. And a mess of myriad viewpoints. Worth found teachers who disagree over whether to teach climate change, students who want to learn about the subject but are not taught, students who are taught about climate change but reject what they learn, and parents who are both proponents and opponents of teaching it.
With some parents targeting the teaching of critical race theory, works of literature they consider inappropriate, or mask mandates, Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and climate, worries that climate science may be next.
“I cannot imagine a parent or organization objecting to school lessons about photosynthesis, the water cycle, or temperature,” he wrote in an article that he recently wrote for Forbes. “Yet, these same concepts are fundamental to climate science and would likely be challenged by someone if framed from the perspective of global warming.”
Despite the climate crisis itself and the bleak circumstances surrounding the way it is currently being presented to young people, those who are tasked with educating the younger generation are trying to focus on engaging students to focus on solutions.
The National Science Teaching Association says that climate science lessons should include discussing how to address the problem, namely by analyzing different strategies to reduce carbon emissions as well as ways to build resilience to the effects of climate change. Putting a focus on taking action is considered the right approach in terms of students’ mental health. In a 2016 National Center for Science Education survey of middle and high school science teachers who teach climate change, 88 percent said they talked about personal responsibility, like turning off lights or walking to school.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Miseducation: How Climate Change is Taught in America:
https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/miseducation/
Climategrades.org:
The National Science Teaching Association’s position statement on The Teaching of Climate Science:
https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/teaching-climate-science
National Center for Science Education Survey — Mixed Messages: How Climate Change is taught in America’s Public Schools:
https://ncse.ngo/files/MixedMessages.pdf
NEA 2020 statement on climate change:
Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators from the NEA:
Pew Research Center findings on Americans’ attitudes about climate change:
UNDP-Oxford Peoples Climate VoteResults:
Takeaways from the COP26 Climate Summit
Takeaways from the COP26 Climate Summit
Environment Policy Brief #128 | By: Jacob Morton | November 30, 2021
Header photo taken from: Toast
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
At the UN’s COP26 (Conference of the Parties) Climate Summit earlier this month, representatives from 197 nations gathered in Glasgow, Scotland with the goal of collectively accelerating global efforts towards achieving the climate goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement was signed back in 2015, but most countries have thus far failed to live up to their climate action promises. The focus of the conference centered around three major pillars of climate change action: Adaptation, Finance, and Mitigation.
Adaptation focuses on the needs of countries and the solutions necessary for the world to cope with the humanitarian and economic impacts of climate change. From rising sea levels to more intense flooding and prolonged droughts, these issues held particular emphasis and claimed the most attention at the Summit. A working group was formed to define a collective goal for global adaptation, which would identify the needs and potential solutions for addressing the impacts of climate change that are already being felt by many countries.
Finance focuses on the financial investments necessary to fuel the global climate response effort. From adapting to the impacts of climate change, to mitigating its severity by limiting global warming to a 1.5-degrees Celsius increase, all countries will have to invest significant resources into this effort and wealthier countries will have to foot most of the bill. The majority of Parties present at the Summit agreed to at least double finance for adaptation, and the pledge of developed countries to provide $100 billion annually to developing countries was reaffirmed.
An original pledge of $100 billion was made back in 2009, with an equivalent annually occurring pledge to begin in 2020 but has never been met. The closest attempt was in 2019, when developed countries collectively provided $80 billion of climate-related funding to developing countries. That funding, however, came in the form of loans rather than grants, providing little real relief to the countries suffering the most from a problem largely created by the developed world. Similar to the goal-setting strategy for Adaptation, members of the Summit kicked off a “process to define the new global goal on finance.”
Mitigation focuses on preventing climate change (or the degree of its impact) as much as is still possible. Though climate change is already happening, and its impacts are already being felt, the goal of mitigation is to reduce its severity by ensuring we reduce global CO2 emissions enough to prevent the average global temperature from rising more than 1.5 ℃. To the Summit’s credit, the world’s top emitters, including China, the US, and India among others, agreed to continue working to accelerate their reduction of emissions to levels in accordance with the Paris Agreement, and a worldwide consensus to transition away from fossil fuels was reached (though India would only agree to “phase down” coal production, not “phase out”). However, agreement to reduce global emissions by 45% by 2030 (required to limit warming to 1.5℃ by 2100) was not reached, leaving many unsatisfied with the summit and critical that the wealthiest, most polluting countries are not acting fast enough.
Though an emissions reduction timeline that lives up to the Paris Agreement’s expectations was not agreed upon, the Summit did achieve the significant and long overdue goal of finalizing the “Paris Rulebook,” an agreed upon set of “rules and guidelines detailing how the Paris Agreement will operate in practice.” Several components of the rulebook have remained in debate for the past six years, including how to govern carbon markets (Article 6 of the rulebook). Article 6 was the last component still being debated and has implications for how countries are rewarded for meeting and overachieving Paris Agreement goals, such as emissions reductions or forest expansion, as well as how private industry is rewarded and incentivized through the sale of carbon credits. How countries measure and record their progress was also agreed upon, providing a new framework for full transparency.
Having reached these agreements in Glasgow, will now give greater “certainty and predictability to both market and non-market approaches in support of mitigation as well as adaptation.” Countries will be better able to create and commit to climate action plans because they now know what they can gain from their actions. Likewise, private industry can now consider the potential returns of including climate action in their market decisions, incentivizing the private sector to play a larger role in the global climate effort.
Photo taken from: Mark Carney (via Twitter)
The Summit made noteworthy gains in other areas as well:
- The United States announced its adoption of substantial new measures to cut methane emissions from US oil and gas production. The US Methane Emissions Reduction Plan claims to redouble government efforts to “dramatically reduce US methane emissions” (at least 30% by 2030), create union-friendly jobs, and “promote U.S. innovation and manufacturing of critical new technologies.” Over 100 countries present at the Summit agreed to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
- Membership in the coalition, “Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ)” grew to “over 450 firms representing $130 trillion in private capital.” Private asset owners have become increasingly important drivers of change via their investment power (voting with their dollar) through climate-focused initiatives, such as the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, an international group of institutional investors committed to transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
- More than 30 financial institutions announced a commitment to address deforestation, by using the influence of their collective investment power to eliminate deforestation by the beef, soy, palm oil, and pulp and paper industries. Additionally, a coalition of countries, including Brazil and Russia agreed to halt deforestation by 2030.
- Leading insurance companies acknowledged climate change as the “ultimate systemic risk,” calling for an orderly transition to a global low-carbon economy. The Association of British Insurers argued that if the transition is disorderly, “the value of many of these assets in which insurers invest will fall with little warning.”
Collectively, these achievements reflect what could be considered the most impactful result of the COP26 Summit: that the private sector now has a strong and established seat at the table.
Policy Analysis
Following the conclusion of the COP26 Summit, the UN expressed enthusiasm for what was accomplished, proposing that world leaders “[departed] Glasgow with clarity on the work that needs to be done, more robust and effective instruments to achieve it, and a heightened commitment to promote climate action —and to do so more quickly— in every area.” Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, congratulated all Parties on finalizing the “Paris Rulebook,” saying, “This is an excellent achievement! It means that the Paris Agreement can now function fully for the benefit of all, now and in the future.”
Despite the select victories, many observers from the outside, as well as those directly involved agree that much more must be done to stave off the worst of the looming climate disaster. Alok Sharma, UK President of the COP26 says, “We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.” More critical voices took a harsher stance during the summit, many calling out the hypocrisy of the Parties involved. Ani Dasgupta, President of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement, “It is inexcusable that developed countries failed to meet their commitment to deliver $100 billion annually starting in 2020 even as they provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels each year.”
According to an analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA), if all countries follow through on their current commitments, we would be on track to maintain an average global temperature increase of 1.8 ℃ by the end of the century.
Photo taken from: Phys.org
(Paris Rule Book – click or tap to enlarge)
However, skeptics, including the American investment management firm PIMCO, are quick to note that the IEA’s analysis “is based on countries fully implementing their announced commitments and pledges, which is highly unlikely,” and some climate scientists are predicting temperature increases between 2 – 4℃. Based on what countries are currently doing on the ground, the world is headed toward 2.7℃ of warming by 2100, according to NPR.
Though the results of COP26 feel to many like a Deja vu of empty promises, the Summit, at the very least, provided a much-needed update to the global climate action plan, and established a precedent for all countries to update their individual plans every 5 years, following a more immediate request for updated plans by 2022. Though that agreement (and most others made at the Summit) is not legally binding, some climate experts say, “it at least keeps political pressure on major emitters in the near-term.”
Additionally, the creation of a universal and transparent data tracking system to monitor each country’s progress will provide greater transparency and accountability. The finalizing of the “Paris Rulebook” will provide greater clarity and incentive for both the public and private sectors to invest in climate action. And perhaps the most promising takeaway from the Summit, is the increased engagement overall by the private sector, something that is vital to achieving the goals and timeline set forth in the Paris Agreement.
Engagement Resources
- World Resources Institute (wri.org): WRI is a global nonprofit organization that works with leaders in government, business and civil society to research, design, and carry out practical solutions that simultaneously improve people’s lives and ensure nature can thrive.
- Climate Crisis Advisory Group (ccag.earth): The Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) is an independent group of scientists which advises on climate change and biodiversity, headed by Sir David King. The group is funded by the Centre for Climate Repair. Its goal is to “provide the global public with regular analysis about efforts to tackle the global heating and biodiversity crises.”
- UNFCCC Secretariat (UNFCCC): The UNFCCC secretariat (UN Climate Change) is the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change. UNFCCC stands for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention has near universal membership (197 Parties) and is the parent treaty of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Writer’s Sources
Birol, F. (2021, November 4). Cop26 climate pledges could help limit global warming to 1.8 °C, but implementing them will be the key. IEA. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.iea.org/commentaries/cop26-climate-pledges-could-help-limit-global-warming-to-1-8-c-but-implementing-them-will-be-the-key
Cogswell, N., & Dagnet, Y. (2019, June 13). Why does the Paris Climate Agreement need a rulebook? 7 questions and answers. World Resources Institute. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.wri.org/insights/why-does-paris-climate-agreement-need-rulebook-7-questions-and-answers
Mather, S. A., & Power, G. (2021, October 1). Climate and COP26: Takeaways from two delegates. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/viewpoints/climate-and-cop26-takeaways-from-two-delegates/
Sommer, L. (2021, November 13). Here’s what world leaders agreed to – and what they didn’t – at the U.N. climate summit. NPR. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1055542738/cop26-climate-summit-final-decision
UNFCCC Press Office. (2021, November 13). COP26 Reaches Consensus on Key Actions to Address Climate Change. Unfccc.int. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/news/cop26-reaches-consensus-on-key-actions-to-address-climate-change
The United States Government. (2021, November 2). Fact sheet: President Biden tackles methane emissions, Spurs innovations, and supports sustainable agriculture to build a clean energy economy and create jobs. The White House. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/fact-sheet-president-biden-tackles-methane-emissions-spurs-innovations-and-supports-sustainable-agriculture-to-build-a-clean-energy-economy-and-create-jobs/
How Facebook Breeds Civil Conflict and Hatred Around the World
How Facebook Breeds Civil Conflict and Hatred Around the World
Technology Policy Brief #66 | By: Stephan Lherisson | November 28, 2021
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: USA Today
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Frances Haugen, a former Facebook employee, leaked Facebook internal documents to the press, federal regulators, and Congress. The content of those documents showed how the social media platform uses potentially damaging algorithms to drive up use by its users while disregarding the negative effects of those algorithms including polarizing attitudes and divisiveness. Such attitudes have been proven to contribute to violence in places like Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and India.
According to Haugen, Facebook’s algorithms produce information on your news feed that are driven by clicks. The more clicks a post gets the more likely it is to show up on your news feed. The issue is that content that gets angry responses from users is more likely to get clicks and because Facebook algorithms are programmed to promote content that has been clicked on. In countries that suffer from division by ethnicity for example, negative yet clickable content against one ethnic group can become wide spread and can influence further divisiveness and even lead to acts of violence.
For example, the Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group that can mostly be found in Rakhine State, Myanmar. There have been tensions between the Rohingya and the majority Buddhist population in the country. In August of 2017, due to attacks by Myanmar’s military hundred of thousands of Rohingya escaped to neighboring Bangladesh.
Buddhists burned down Rohingya villages. They carried out murders and rapes. Their actions were described as genocidal by a report from UN investigators.
There was hate speech against the Rohingya that posted on Facebook, and Facebook commissioned an investigation into the matter. After the results of this commission were revealed Facebook admitted that its posts were used to incite violence against the Rohingya people. “Without dismissing the gravity of Facebook’s actions around the world, in Myanmar Facebook has acted like the internet for the entire country. It has been how the people have accessed the internet and how the people get information about things like COVID. At the moment Facebook has also condemned the military coup in the country and has been banned by the military as a result.”
In Ethiopia Facebook’s platform encouraged violence against ethnic minority populations in the midst of a civil war. The war was being carried out by Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the former rulers of the country that were deposed by a public movement. Facebok was used to spread hate speech against Tigrayans .
In 2018 Sri Lanka saw riots that resulted from anti-Muslim attitudes. These riots followed hate speech against Muslims and rumors spread on the Facebook platform. The events caused the Sri Lankan government to block access to Facebook. In this case a probe commissioned by the social media platform revealed Facebook content may have lead to violence against Muslims.
In northeastern Indian state of Assam Assam there is an Assamese speaking majority group that is Hindu and a Bangali speaking minority Muslim group. There are Facebook posts in which Bengali Muslims are called parasites, rats and rapists. These posts have been viewed 5.4 million times.
George Floyd was a black man that was killed by a police officer who held his knee against Floyd’s neck as Floyd suffocated. Hours after Floyd’s death there was a spike of offensive posts on Facebook. Facebook was having trouble with hate speech closer to home.
Policy Analysis
Facebook increases profit by getting users to stay online on the site for as long as possible and anger-inducing posts help with that goal. According to Haugen producers of this negative content are incentivized to continue to produce this clickable content. Haugen also warned about the results of Facebook’s policies fanning the flames of hatred in foreign countries.
Part of the issue is the fact that Facebook does not police its content in foreign countries the way it does in the United States. However, even though Facebook said it was successful in detecting and erasing hate speech in the US , Facebook’s employees , such as Haugen, have warned that the platform was only removing a small percentage of the hate speech found in posts from the United States.
The social media company says it is attempting to reduce the number of hate filled posts that can be found on the site using artificial intelligence (AI).
Photo taken from: Time Magazine
One problem is that AI systems have a difficult time evaluating a person’s intent. In addition, Facebook is not programmed to understand the languages of the local people in the foreign countries it finds its way into. This lack of language can make it difficult for the website to distinguish what is being said in the context of said country.
Lawmakers in the US and Europe are crafting legislation to mitigate the harmful effects of platforms like Facebook.
For example the Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require internet platforms to offer an algorithm free version of their services. The proposed Digital Services Act in the E.U. would stop the misuse of algorithms to spread disinformation.
Writer’s Sources
Facebook can’t resolve conflicts in Myanmar and Sri Lanka on its own
Engagement Resources
https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-whistleblower-hearing-haugen-misinformation-anger.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/25/business/ethiopia-violence-facebook-papers-cmd-intl/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/03/africa/ethiopia-tigray-explainer-2-intl/index.html
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-deceptive-math-when-it-comes-to-hate-speech/
https://time.com/5739688/facebook-hate-speech-languages/
https://iapp.org/news/a/proposed-filter-bubble-transparency-act-targets-algorithms/
The Other Epidemic That No One Talks About: Drug Overdose
The Other Epidemic That No One Talks About: Drug Overdose
Health & Gender Policy Brief #142 | By: S Bhimji | November 24, 2021
Header photo taken from: Council on Foreign Relations
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WBRC
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Opioids are a class of pain relieving drugs that include both illegal drugs like heroin and synthetic legal ones like codeine, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl and many others. The problem with opioids is that not are they addictive but they can quickly suppress respiration and lead to death.
For the past 2 years, the nation has been besieged by the Covid pandemic which has killed nearly 750,000 Americans to date. During the same period, at least 100,000 individuals have died from drug overdoses in the US, an increase of nearly 28% from the previous year. Prior to 2016, the majority of drug overdose deaths were from heroin but today the deaths are often associated with fentanyl, which is increasingly mixed with other illicit opioid drugs without the user’s knowledge. Today, fentanyl is involved in more than 65%-70% of overdose deaths.
Almost every state has reported a spike in drug overdose deaths during the Covid pandemic.
The current drug overdose epidemic is a major public health crisis with 254 Americans dying every single day. The number of Americans dying from drug overdose has surpassed those from motor vehicle accidents, firearms, and even the common flu. The epidemic has repercussions beyond the death of the individual- it is tearing and destroying the very fabric of the family unit.
Data reveal that the biggest increase in overdose fatalities has occurred in Vermont, followed by West Virginia and Kentucky. Only three states reported a decline in drug overdose deaths – New Jersey, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. When race is taken into account, opiates are the most common cause of death in Caucasians African Americans, and Native Americans.
In 2017, President Trump did declare the opioid crisis a national emergency but in subsequent years, all attention has been given to the Covid pandemic.
Policy Analysis
What has caused this acute increase in opioid-related deaths remains a mystery- experts believe that the most likely reason is linked to the Covid pandemic which has exposed underlying issues in society that have not gotten the attention. There is no doubt that the pandemic caused a significant amount of social isolation and outreach to those in need was difficult.
It appears that a significant number of people had limited or no access/support to services that lowered harm and prevented drug overdose. Research reveals that the majority of individuals affected by the drug overdose already had mental health issues and financial hardship, and this may have led to the accelerated use of opiates.
But all is not gloom and doom.
Like the Covid pandemic, there has been some progress made in the fight against opioid drug overdose. Since local governments in many states are tied up with other matters, several organizations have taken up the fight against opiate drug overdose. In 2018, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Pew Charitable Trust, and Vital Strategies joined forces with Johns Hopkins University and the CDC to address the current opioid crisis.
Beside donating million of dollars, Bloomberg Philanthropies has gifted $300 million to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to help advance knowledge in critical challenges facing American communities such as addiction and overdose; violence, risks to adolescent health, and obesity.
When it comes to the fight against drug overdose, the goal is to offer evidence-based interventions while working with law enforcement at the same time.
Besides developing communication strategies to improve access to treatments and reducing ADDICTION stigma, the money has been used to provide free naloxone supplies to affected communities.
Photo taken from: Forbes
In several states, this approach has led to a wider distribution and use of naloxone, which is used to rescue individuals who have overdosed. In addition, both Michigan and Pennsylvania have enacted preventive services such as syringe exchange programs. Early results show that in these states overdoses from opioids have started to fall.
This has promoted Bloomberg Philanthropies to make more donations and the same approach will be used in other states facing high drug overdose-related deaths. But experts say that the fight against opiate addiction has to be multipronged-meaning the source and smuggling of the illicit drugs have to be addressed and access to naloxone should be made easier and more affordable.
The other problem according to Harm reduction agencies is that previously the naloxone kits only cost $2.50 but today the price has gone up 15 to 30 fold. Currently, Pfizer, Kaleo and Teva are the major manufacturers of naloxone kits and none of them have considered lowering the price. The expensive naloxone kits are an indication of wide dysfunction with Big Pharma, who consider profits to be more important than patient lives.
Nevertheless, experts suggest that besides naloxone, fentanyl consumption should be supervised so that users can be monitored-but beyond this, drug use disorders are a symptom of much larger economic and social problems in society and without addressing them, the fight against drug abuse will continue to be futile.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Fentanyl Drug Facts: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl
Understanding naloxone:
Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts:
Yemen : A Complex Situation For American Policy Makers
Yemen: A Complex Situation For American Policy Makers
Foreign Policy Brief #136 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | November 23, 2021
Header photo taken from: Al Mayadeen
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Middle East Institute
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Yemen has been in a state of political turmoil since 2011 with the ending of the reign of President Saleh and the transition of power to his associate, now President Hadi. The conflict is still an on-going situation. According to a 2016 report from the United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees, the conflict in Yemen has displaced more than 3 million people – presumably more since that report came out.
The US Embassy estimated that approximately 55% of Yemen’s population adheres to a form of Sunni Islam, and the remaining 45% adheres to Zaidism (sect of Shia Islam), as documented in the Yemen 2019 International Religious Freedom Report.
The two major sides of the war are the Houthis and a governmental coalition to support President Hadi. The Houthis are of the Zayidi sect of Shia Islam; they are a religious minority in the country. The Houthis are backed militarily by Iran, the major Shia power in the region (and world); at one point they were politically backed by Former President Saleh until he was killed in 2017 after switching sides in the conflict.
The government coalition is backed politically by President Hadi, who is struggling to hold any sort of power after being exiled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 after the Houthis took control of Sanaa, the capital city. The coalition forces are supported by regional Sunni countries, particularly Saudi Arabia which has launched air campaigns over Yemen. They also are receiving aid from the Americans, the French, and the British governments.
Policy Analysis
For American policymakers, the conflict in Yemen is going to be particularly challenging on many levels. The conflict intertwines regional tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran; religious tensions between Shia and Sunnis; and the mixing in of terrorist organizations with no allegiances to either side but taking advantage of the wide-scale chaos and instability.
President Biden has made it clear that he feels the war needs to come to an end. Biden recently announced three major points that outline his policy agenda towards Yemen: ending support of offensive acts in the conflict by Saudi Arabia, promoting peace talks and initiatives, and sending US Special Envoy Tim Lenderking to the region to work towards solutions to the conflict.
The United States has been allied with Saudi Arabia for a long time and has helped Saudi Arabia prop up the government coalition of President Hadi, though he has been living and working out of Saudi Arabia rather than Yemen. Saudi Arabia is the largest power in the region, and is also a stronghold of Sunni Islam; which makes it a rival of Iran, the other predominant power in the region, which is majority Shia. President Biden did announce earlier this year that the administration will stop supporting “offensive operations” by Saudi Arabia into Yemen; however, this does not rule out continuing our support to Saudi Arabia’s defense of their own territory and borders.
Photo taken from: Lowy Institute
The United States has promoted the idea of finding a peaceful political solution through the United Nations rather than continuing to support “offensive” military actions. The United Nations has, within the last week, tried to re-engage peace efforts in response to coalition airstrikes on Hodeidah after coalition forces left the city.
Yemen has experienced the failure of the public institutions throughout the conflict. These institutions will need to be put back in place before life can return to ‘normal’. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit Yemen’s already fragile health care network. According to a Human Rights Watch report from June 1st, 2021, the Houthi rebels have actively been spreading misinformation regarding the health implications of COVID-19; according to Reuters, Yemen only has about 1% of their population fully vaccinated. On top of the pandemic, Yemen has historically struggled with poverty, which has only been exacerbated by the conflict All of these issues, along with the violence from the war, have led to a massive humanitarian and human displacement crisis.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
US Embassy in Yemen (https://ye.usembassy.gov/)
Human Rights Watch, Yemen (https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/yemen#)
Can the U.S. Fulfill Its COP 26 Climate Promises?
Can the U.S. Fulfill Its COP 26 Climate Promises?
Environmental Policy Brief #127 | By: Katelyn Lewis | November 23, 2021
Header photo taken from: Platform on Disaster Displacement
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Wall Street Journal
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Climate experts say the gathering of leaders from around the world in Glasgow, Scotland, for a two-week climate meeting led to imperfect, yet possible, updates to the Paris Agreement to slow global warming. The success of COP 26 depends on whether countries, including the United States, hold up their end of the bargain.
“That would look like enacting legislation, and getting the investments in place … that will put the U.S. on a trajectory to meet its (nationally determined contributions),” Nat Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said during a post-COP26 panel discussion.
The Conference of the Parties, or COP26, was a summit held in Glasgow, Scotland, between Oct. 31 and Nov. 12. World leaders, members of civil society, and nonprofit organizations from 196 countries and the European Union came together to discuss their countries’ national and foreign commitments, alliances, promises, and action plans to combat climate change and keep the earth’s temperature from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
A panel of five leading climate experts, including Keohane, gathered on a video conference call on Thursday, Nov. 17, to discuss their takeaways from the conference and the actions the U.S. will need to take to meet its targets by COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022.
“[In Glasgow,] there was an ambition ratchet, but there was also an implementation ratchet in there, and that was very clearly geo-political because China was talking about implementation [while] America was talking about ambition,” Nick Mabey, E3G’s co-founding director and CEO, said.
Notably, the U.S. joined the Global Forest Finance Pledge, mobilizing $12 billion to combat deforestation; co-launched with the European Union the Global Methane Pledge, an initiative to reduce global methane emissions with more than $300 million in financial support; and, through the President’s Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE), work with Congress to commit $3 billion in adaptation finance annually by FY2024 to help vulnerable, developing countries on the frontlines of climate change’s impacts.
Helen Mountford, president of climate economics for the World Resources Institute, said the methane and forest loss and deforestation pledges showed “some of the real dynamism” of how groups of actors – countries, the private sector, the finance sector, and civil society – can work together to step up and “ actually make the changes we need on the ground” in the next year.
Policy Analysis
For example, more than 100 countries signed on to the Global Methane Pledge “to basically slash emissions of methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, by 30% by 2030,” Mountford said during the discussion.
“[Methane]’s been left out of a lot of the discussions in the past and a lot of the country pledges, so they came together and said, ‘Okay, this is something we can tackle, we know what the sources are, we know what we can do. Let’s do it together,’” Mountford said. “But then we also start to see some of the finance coming through from the philanthropic sector from others looking at how to actually deliver this on the ground.”
U.S. leaders also announced a national commitment to develop a Sustainable Ocean Plan in the next five years that will use and manage ocean waters under its jurisdiction to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide jobs and food security, improve climate resilience, and sustain biological diversity,” according to the U.S. Department of State.
While a step in the right direction, the commitments outlined in the climate agreement from COP26 don’t quite prevent the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the Washington Post reports, with the Earth on track to surpass that threshold, leading to “escalating weather crises and irreversible damage to the natural world.”
And though the U.S. President Joe Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act – including $500 billion to combat climate change, primarily through renewable energy credits – passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, it faces an uncertain future in the U.S. Senate.
“The big unknown is whether one senator or two senators will block the legislation from moving forward,” John Podesta, founder of and chair of the board of directors for the Center for American Progress, said during the online discussion. Podesta said he predicted a “slightly better than a 50-50 chance” of its success in the Senate.
Photo taken from: CNBC
“I think if Biden doesn’t have that, then the credibility of the United States – that we’re aligned with keeping 1.5 alive- the credibility will be busted,” Podesta said.
“The U.S. must pass the Build Back Better Act,” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said during the panel discussion.
“It would be historic in terms of scale, but … even if that gets passed, and you have really strong rules, and you have strong state and local action, it is a narrow path to a 50 to 52%” reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 proposed by the Biden administration, Bapna said.
John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, expressed insights in-line with the panelists post-conference when he said:”COP 26 conference was inspiring and pioneering in terms of countries’ commitments to addressing the climate crisis, but now’s the time to put muscle behind the pledges made.”
“COP26 already helped summon more ambition to face this emergency than the world has ever seen,” Kerry said in a statement. “Still, a gap remains between the ambition the world demonstrated and the actions we need to solve this challenge. We always knew that Glasgow would be a new beginning, not a finish line.”
“It will be up to us to keep the attention and urgency laser focused so that we continue to implement solutions and act with the urgency we need,” Kerry said.
Engagement Resources
Represented Organizations:
Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G) – https://www.e3g.org
Center for American Progress (CAP) – https://americanprogress.org/
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – https://www.nrdc.org/
World Resources Institute (WRI) – https://www.wri.org/
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) – https://www.c2es.org/
More Engagement Resources:
CNBC – House Passes $1.75 Trillion Biden Plan That Funds Universal Pre-K, Medicare Expansion and Renewable Energy Credits (Nov. 19, 2021) – https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/biden-build-back-better-bill-house-passes-social-safety-net-and-climate-plan.html
The Washington Post – World Leaders Reach Climate Agreement at U.N. Summit Following Two Weeks of Negotiation (Nov. 13, 2021) – https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/13/cop26-glasgow-climate-deal/
U.S. Department of State – Joining the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (Nov. 2, 2021) – https://www.state.gov/joining-the-high-level-panel-for-a-sustainable-ocean-economy/
The White House – President Biden Announces the Build Back Better Framework (Oct. 28, 2021) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/28/president-biden-announces-the-build-back-better-framework/
Dos and Don’ts of Importing Medications from Canada
Dos and Don’ts of Importing Medications from Canada
Health & Gender Policy Brief #141 | By: S. Bhimji | November 21, 2021
Header photo taken from: Healthline
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs here
Photo taken from: Kaiser Health News
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There is no question that prescription medications are expensive in the US and each year the prices keep on going up. Some Americans visit Mexico to buy their prescription medications but the problem is that the quality of Mexican products is often not guaranteed.
For the past decade, many Americans have been discreetly importing their medications from Canada; using a third party like Canada Med Services that is based in Sarasota, Fl, or purchasing directly from online Canadian companies like The Canadian Pharmacy or Canada Drugs online. In several states, the FDA has allowed companies that help import prescription medications for personal use to continue operating.
But the question remains, ‘is drug importation legal?’
Policy Analysis
The first thing to be aware of is that wholesale importation of medications from Canada or anywhere else is forbidden by law. However, when it comes to personal use, US laws are not clear and it all depends on where you live and how the customs officers act. In most cases, customs officers let medications for personal use enter the US as long as they are not potent pain pills, prescription sleeping pills, or other drugs deemed to be harmful to the user. Plus, the drug must be approved for use in the US.
Any drug that the FDA cannot ensure its safety or effectiveness cannot be imported. In some cases, the customs officer will ask the user if he or she has a healthcare provider’s prescription or a letter detailing the medical condition and the reason for treatment.
Overall, there are very few cases where prescription drugs for personal use have been seized by customs. However, the quantity cannot exceed more than 3 months supply.
But while all this sounds great, there are a few caveats. First, not all Canadian drugs are cheaper than US products, and secondly, there have been many reported cases of fake and counterfeit drugs being sold by non-verified Canadian websites. Over the past 2 decades, the US government has shut down at least a dozen Canadian online sites that were selling medications considered to be fake.
Photo taken from: WBUR
Third, in most cases, you will need to pay cash or wire the money; Canadian companies do not accept American insurance; fourth if you buy medications from Canada they may not be covered by your American health insurance- so all expenses are out of pocket.
Why American prescription medications are more expensive than almost all other nations is mainly due to lack of regulation and extreme lobbying by Big Pharma. The price is usually set by the manufacturers without any input from the government or other national body. There is no official negotiating agency set by the government that can determine fair pricing.
Because the entire Pharmaceutical industry in the USA is solely focused on huge profits, more Americans are now turning to the importation of their medications from Canada. For Americans who are struggling with the high cost of prescription medications, they have two choices- elect leaders who vow to do something about drug pricing or get your medications from Canada.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Therapeutic Drug Use
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drug-use-therapeutic.htm
Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2181?s=1&r=3
10 FAQs on Prescription Drug Importation
Labor, Inflation, and Supply Chain Problems Suggest a Slowing Economy
Labor, Inflation, and Supply Chain Problems Suggest a Slowing Economy
Economic Policy Brief #129 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | November 16, 2021
Header photo taken from: Fox Business
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The economic recovery has slowed in the third quarter and the unprecedented circumstances make it unclear what the indicators ultimately will mean for future growth. It is estimated that worker shortages are costing the economy sixty billion dollars in sales every month. Increased wages are failing to attract a crucial influx in returning workers. There are millions of pre-pandemic workers who have not returned to work. Workers are reluctant to return to work likely due to health concerns; childcare issues; and reconsideration of life priorities.
The severance of federal supplemental employment benefits did not result in a rush back to work. Worker shortages are attributed to people reconsidering priorities; early retirements; decreased immigrant workers; and workers opting to develop their own work with more flexible schedules and better potential for elevated incomes. Women have been especially less likely to return to work and there is fear that the decrease in women’s labor force participation, which drove the productivity of the post-World War 2 era, will have a lasting negative impact on the economic growth of the post pandemic era. The rate of women participating in the workforce had already leveled, prior to the pandemic, and the fear is that it will not recover; there are too many issues impeding women’s workforce participation, most notably the childcare pressures which affect women generally more than men.
Another factor affecting the economy is inflation which is higher now than at anytime in the past thirty years. Gas is averaging a national gain of $1.25 from a year ago and consumer spending in the third quarter grew only by 1.6%. Hope prevails that the fourth quarter, with the holidays, will improve spending to 3.3%. There is evidence that overall consumer confidence is increasing and credit card use is up. Federal spending is down but local and state expenditures are up, likely due to the re-opening of schools.
Disruption of the supply chain is another trend which is impacting the economic recovery. Some people who lost jobs during the pandemic have been turning to entrepreneurship to get through the pandemic and find that they are happier and will try to sustain their efforts. Small businesses, and independent businesses may be pushed out by the power of larger corporations to negotiate production, the importing, transporting and pricing of goods.
Policy Analysis
Clearly the economy and society are in transition in uncharted territory. How long it will take supply and demand to even out as goods can be obtained more predictably is anyone’s guess. The impact and ultimate resolution of the worker shortage is also difficult to foretell. There was guarded optimism relating to inflation but that seems to be lessening as prices rise to new heights. Some economists say that the recovery has slowed but still expect good times to return by the second half of 2022.
Childcare remains a basic issue in society which is not being sufficiently met and its impact on children and productivity can be far reaching. The paid family leave, which has been dropped and reinstated and dropped again in Biden’s Build Back Better program is a basic right in most high- and moderate-income countries.
Service staffing remains a problem in that even if wages increase the lack of flexibility and benefits characteristic of these kinds of jobs make them unappealing.
Photo taken from: Eater
Issues of scheduling also are often reported as contributing to poor working conditions. Restaurants where servers and kitchen staff are full time, and not dependent on tips, are doing better at maintaining staff and may foretell what the future needs to build upon. If the recovery is to be strong and imminent it would appear that structural change affecting labor will need to be made.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
If the labor shortage continues, the US economy won’t be able to recover
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/perspectives/labor-shortage-us-economy/index.html
Labor shortage, supply constraints and inflation hold back economy trying to emerge from pandemic
Finding Workers Is Harder Than Ever. The Economic Impact Could Be Significant
The Economic Rebound Is Still Waiting for Workers