JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Russia’s Celebrities Leave the Country Because of the War in Ukraine
Brief #153 – Foreign Policy
By Yelena Korshunov
I see yapping about those who left – Alla, Maxim, Chulpan, Zemfira … It’s Russia that left you. Because Russia is them, not you,” Andrey Makarevich, the legendary Russian singer, said on his personal blog. After February 24th, 2022, when Putin’s army invaded Ukraine with a bloody violent war, a number of top Russia’s celebrities left the country. Their destination is the USA, Israel, Latvia, Germany, and the other places where they feel safe to speak about their disagreement with the war and call for peace.
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
Brief #140 – Environmental Policy
By Stephen Thomas
The administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris is attempting to hold public corporations accountable for their impacts on global warming, ensuring in the process that investors know whether the firms in which they have a financial stake are taking climate change seriously.
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Brief #37 – Social Justice
By Alexandra Ellis
2022 is the year of unprecedented anti-trans-legislation. The question becomes, why? It seems every day conservative media is reporting a new anti-trans bill being introduced in State legislatures. No one is saved from this debate: including parents of LQBTQIA+ youth and multinational corporations like Disney.
Is Internet Isolationism Possible?
Brief #57 – Technology
By JA Angelo
Internet isolation has been the talk of the block recently as Russia continues to invade Ukraine. However, many do not know what internet isolationism means. Isolationism is an international relations term used to describe a country that cuts itself off from the outside world. Therefore, internet isolationism is when a country prevents the use of the Internet to disseminate outside information to its citizens.
Agroforestry: An Ancient Agriculture for a Modern Farm Bill
Brief #139 – Environment
By Jacob Morton
Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural system that not only produces food, but “supports biodiversity, builds soil horizons and water tables, and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere.” In 2023, our current Farm Bill will be up for renewal, meaning Federal legislators will have the opportunity to reevaluate how we choose to financially support our food and agricultural industries and services. As legislators prepare to craft and vote on the next Farm Bill, we must press our representatives to support funding for agroforestry projects and farm system transitions.
How Texas Senate Bill 8 Opened The Door To Vigilante Laws And Why These Laws Pose Such A Danger
Brief #186 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
In 2021 the State of Texas passed an anti – abortion law with a unique enforcement mechanism. Under the law, any private citizen could sue the person who tries to get an abortion, the doctor who performs the procedure or the clinic who provided the abortion procedure to a woman.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #7
Ukrainian forces have retaken the Kyiv region and other surrounding areas over the weekend as Russian troops have begun a withdrawal from certain areas of Ukraine. The ongoing invasion has proven to be much more difficult than it seems Russian military officials had expected. About two-thirds of Russian troops have left the Kyiv region and are already in Belarus or on their way there. Though the withdrawal is seen as victory in holding back Russian forces, they are likely to regroup, resupply, and gather reinforcements which may instead intensify fighting later on in other regions.
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
Brief #148 – Health and Gender Policy
By Inijah Quadri
In 36 states, medicinal marijuana is permitted, and in 14, it is lawful to consume marijuana recreationally. On the subject of legalizing marijuana, this article examines papers published in top economic, public policy, and medical publications, concentrating on the health repercussions of cannabis legalization.
Will the United States Adopt Europe’s Digital Markets Act?
Brief #56 – Technology
By JA Angelo
The European Union continues to lead the way in developing tech policies. In its most recent efforts, the EU passed the Digital Markets Act regulating big tech firms’ efforts to monopolize e-commerce, digital advertising, app stores, and other digital tools we rely on daily to organize our lives. The new law means that Google can no longer send targeted ads without its user’s consent and that Apple would need to offer mobile apps outside of the App Store.
Recent Global Agreement Sets New Rules For Corporate Tax Revenue
Recent Global Agreement Sets New Rules For Corporate Tax Revenue
Economic Policy Brief #128 | By: Jared Sullivan | November 15, 2021
Header photo taken from: Moffa, Sutton, and Donnini
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Council on Foreign Relations
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
A new global agreement, endorsed by the Biden administration, aims to improve the international tax system by redistributing revenue that countries earn from taxing multinational corporations. The proposal was finalized and agreed upon on October 8th by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is scheduled to go into effect in 2023.
This long-awaited multilateral agreement represents over 90% of the world’s GDP and includes 136 countries. The agreement rests on a two pillar approach: (1) a new methodology to determine tax revenue distribution among participating countries; and (2) a minimum 15% corporate income tax rate that all countries must abide by. The Agreement brings the international tax system into the 21st century, but also brings uncertain implications for large companies and developing economies alike.
The first mandate of the proposal is directed towards multinational companies pulling in 20 billion or more in revenue and hitting a 10% or higher profit margin; these companies can expect a 25% tax on any profits above their first 10% of profits. Yet this tax revenue will not be realized in the economy in which the company is headquartered in and primarily operates but rather afforded to the government of the location the company is selling in. Economists have estimated this will redistribute 125 Billion USD globally to where there is a large consumer base for foreign goods due to demands not being met at home, e.g in countries such as Brazil and India.
Policy Analysis
Photo taken from: Visual Capitalist
The goal of this redistribution effort is to channel tax revenue to developing economies that are lacking in industry and manufacturing but are home to an increasing level of consumer demand. The international communities’ level of urgency towards this objective has been increasing because of the rapid globalization of the world economy over the last several decades, many developing countries have been missing out on their own consumers’ tax dollars .
As large corporations have increased their sales and presence in these countries, positive externalities have been appreciated but their presence also results in a competitive disadvantage for many industries in the developing countries.
Big tech names like Facebook, Amazon and Google have effectively been able to shop around for countries with low tax rates. The second part of the agreement will inhibit the effectiveness of this practice by setting an international corporate tax minimum of 15%.
There is still strong disagreement on how the changes will affect the various economies involved. Although there is some consensus on the notion that the US will remain relatively tax revenue neutral as tax money will be brought back onshore by the 15% minimum but will be offset by the tax revenue lost from companies that will be taxed by foreign governments.
Small, developing economies like the Bahamas, Bermuda, and the Cayman islands have come to rely on the international investments that their little to no tax rates have historically attracted. The sharp increase may leave these economies in a dire situation as expressed by the G-24 group of developing countries referring to the agreement as “sub-optimal” and “not sustainable even in the short run.”
The agreement aims to bring international competition back to being based on factors conducive to economic growth such as skilled labor, industrial infrastructure, and technology versus a competition of who can offer the lowest corporate tax rate. An estimated 150 Billion USD will be garnered by the US alone as a result.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
For further reading, refer to statements from the Biden Administration from October and July.
January 6th Capital Riot Investigation Update # 4
January 6th Capital Riot Investigation Update # 4
Social Justice Policy Brief #29 | By: Erika Shannon | November 12, 2021
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more social justice policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WFSB
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The House Select Committee on the January 6 riot has been making a lot of headway into their investigation. They have been issuing subpoenas, looking over documents and tips, questioning people, and trying to work around those who are unwilling to help with their investigation. The Committee is doing their best to piece together the day’s events in the hopes that situations like this can be avoided in the future.
This past week, the House Select Committee issued several subpoenas, bringing their grand total to 35 people subpoenaed. On November 8, six people were subpoenaed because they were close to former President Trump; the Committee would like to know what connections these people had with the rallies that turned into a riot, who they were talking to in Congress and the White House regarding overturning the election, and who actually paid for it all. William Stepien, manager of the Trump 2020 reelection campaign, has been subpoenaed to discuss matters of the campaign. This includes whether or not the campaign urged state and party officials to affect the outcome of the 2020 election by attempting to delay or deny certification of electoral votes.
The five others subpoenaed were also very close to Trump’s inner circle. They include Jason Miller (senior advisor to Trump’s reelection campaign), Angela McCallum (national executive assistant to Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign), and John Eastman, Michael Flynn, and Bernard Kerik. Many of the individuals subpoenaed this past week were gathered at the Willard Hotel in the hours and days prior to the Capitol Riots. All of these individuals potentially played an important role in the events of January 6, and their testimony would help the Committee move forward.
On November 9, the House Select Committee issued subpoenas for several more people, in the hopes their testimony will be of help. Those subpoenaed include Nicholas Luna, who was reportedly in the Oval Office on January 6, 2021 when former President Trump was on the phone with Mike Pence pressuring him not to certify the election results, and Keith Kellogg, who was Pence’s National Security Advisor and reportedly participated in at least one meeting where former President Trump urged Pence to not certify the election. Kellogg was also reportedly in the White House with Trump as he watched the January 6 attack unfold. Stephen Miller, former Senior Advisor to Trump, was subpoenaed for participating in efforts to spread false information about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Others who were subpoenaed include Molly Michael, Benjamin Williamson, Christopher Liddell, John McEntee, Kayleigh McEnany, Cassidy Hutchinson, and Kenneth Klukowski. The Select Committee wants to learn every detail of what was going on in the White House on January 6 and in the days leading up to it. It is imperative they learn what role former President Trump played in efforts to stop the counting of electoral votes. These ten individuals who were subpoenaed are believed to have relevant information and details to aid in the investigation.
As far the former President goes, his efforts to block the Committee from accessing his White House records are failing. Just this past week, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan (in D.C.) rejected an argument by Trump’s lawyers that visitor logs, telephone records, and other White House documents should be hidden from the committee. Chutkan ruled that while the requests of the committee are broad, none of the requests made by the Committee violate its legislative powers. While Trump tried to argue executive privilege, current President Joe Biden had already determined that the Committee could access the requested materials.Judge Chutkan’s ruling is being appealed by Trump and could make its way to the Supreme Court. It is apparent that former President Trump thinks he is above the law and untouchable; a fact that is simply not true.
Photo taken from: Victoria Advocate
Chairman of the Housd Committee, Bennie Thompson, commended Judge Chutkan’s swift ruling in a statement issued on November 9. Thompson touched on the fact that the former President is merely trying to delay and obstruct their investigation in order to hide the truth. There is a strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened, and the House Select Committee is attempting to get those answers on the American people’s behalf. The Committee is eagerly awaiting the requested records from the National Archives so that they continue to piece together exactly what happened leading up to, and on, January 6, 2021.
The House Select Committee has gotten so many tips, documents, and statements that they are grateful for. Now, the hard part is piecing it all together while continuing to obtain new and relevant information. The Committee has already interviewed over 150 people; many of which have come forth voluntarily to share their side of the events that unfolded. There is still work to be done, but there is significant headway being made by the Committee.
This brief is part of an ongoing series on the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources
For more information and news on the House Select Committee investigating January 6, visit their homepage.
Optimistic Economic Outlet Coupled with Caution
Optimistic Economic Outlet Coupled with Caution
Economic Policy Brief #127 | By: Rosalind Gottfried | November 8, 2021
Header photo taken from: The New York Times
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more economic policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: MSN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There are positive indications of economic growth in the fourth quarter of the year and, while economists are optimistic, citizens are less so. The economy grew by .5% in the third quarter, an the fourth quarter is predicted to be strong. The October jobs report was encouraging. New jobs reached 531,000 and after adjustments in the August and September figures, the average for the three months was 442,000. October unemployment was down to 4.6% from 4.8%. Labor force participation was steady at 61.6%, with the group of 25-54 year olds showing a slight increase. Total employed persons increased by 4.2 million below pre-pandemic levels while the unemployment rate is 1% above the February 2020 rate.
Persons working from home decreased to 11.6% from 13.2% in September. There seems to be little to no fallout from the end of the Federal Supplemental Unemployment benefits in early September. This could be a consequence of the increased personal savings resulting from the last stimulus checks and the child tax credit. Wages, perhaps as a result of labor shortages, increased 4.9% between October 2020 and 2021. Increases in wages are concentrated at the lowest end of the salary scale. Wages for hourly workers and nonsupervisory staff increased by 5.8% this year. Thirteen percent of workers have seen no change in their paycheck over the past year and individuals living on fixed incomes, like pensions, have seen no adjustments for inflation.
Evidence that the economy is stagnating, as some feared, is absent. The stock market is strong and the economic recovery does not appear to be as glacial as during the period of the Great Recession. Still there are fears regarding the supply chain, inflation, labor shortages, and potential pandemic surges.
Policy Analysis
While commonly held measures assessing the economy seem to be holding strong, inflation is rising at the fastest rate since 1991.
Prices of goods are rising, as seen in groceries and used cars, while gas has increased by 74% since May of 2020, though the average is still lower than prices of 2011-14. People are afraid of inflation and do not trust that economic policy is solid. Several institutions analyzing economic trends say that although inflation will take into the next year to level out, perhaps significantly into it, the Fed’s inflationary goals will be met once the consumer imbalances level.
A recent Gallup poll showed that 68% of the public believe the economic conditions are worsening. Experts agree, in general, that even with high inflation there are reasons to be optimistic regarding the economy; inflation should be relatively short lived, the stock market is strong, and wages are on the rise.
Photo taken from: Daily Mail
American people, however, are less sanguine regarding inflation and the economic picture, perhaps because they are daily experiencing the high prices of groceries, gasoline and other staples and increases in pay are not keeping up with their expenditures, particularly if childcare and housing are figured into the equation.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Optimistic Economic Outlet Coupled with Caution
The Jobs Numbers Take the ‘Stag’ Out of the Stagflation Scare
Americans Are Flush With Cash and Jobs. They Also Think the Economy Is Awful
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Environmental Policy Brief #126 | By: Todd J. Broadman | November 10, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Conversation
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Greentech Media
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Today, 67,000 wind turbines are spinning kilowatts of energy throughout the country. That is the wind behind President Biden’s back in his recent wind energy initiative; that, and his pledge is to cut the nation’s fossil fuel emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The cost to make and deploy wind energy has gone down over 50 percent since 2008. The administration wants to seize the moment; the plan is to install 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind turbines in U.S. waters by 2030.
Dubbed “wind farms,” the Dept. of the Interior has already begun the process ofidentifying locations in federal seas that are optimal for wind energyin the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon. By 2025, these locations are slated to be leased to developers. This phased roll-out comes on the heels of the first major commercial offshore wind farm that has received approval by the Biden administration – off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.
Overall, wind represents less than 10 percent of the country’s total power generation with most of it coming from states in the central plains. The wind rich states of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and the Dakotas are aggressively expanding their wind capacity. In Texas, wind provides more than 30 percent of total electricity.
For perspective, wind provides nearly 50 percent of energy in Denmark, Ireland and Germany. While the US installed a record 17GW of wind capacity in 2021, Europe, home to a majority of the world’s offshore wind, had nearly twice that capacity installed in 2020. The UK alone is planning on 40GW. China has even more ambitious plans for wind energy: they are looking at 73GW by the end of this year.
There are incentives in the recent spending bill for utility companies. The package includes a $150 billion program that would pay electric utilities to increase the amount of electricity they purchase from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar, with penalties for those that do not make the transition. The investment will also be used to modernize the grid and improve its capacity for both solar and onshore and offshore wind energy sources.
Policy Analysis
Environmentalists are weighing-in as the administration anticipated. “In order for Americans living in coastal areas to see the benefits of offshore wind, we must ensure that it’s done with care for the surrounding ecosystem by coexisting with fisheries and marine life – and that’s exactly what this investment will do,″ said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Environmental and cost challenges are far greater on the west coast. Pacific waters are much deeper and get deep closer to shore compared to the US’ Atlantic coastline. That makes it more difficult to affix turbines to the seafloor. There is a new technology in the form of floating wind farms.
Environmental hurdles will include potential harm to endangered species, conflicts with military activity, damage to underwater archaeological sites, or harm to local industries such as tourism. As they have in response to other offshore wind farms, commercial fishing groups and coastal landowners will likely try to stop the projects. In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration are a major part of the economy, fossil fuel companies could fight the development of wind energy as a threat to not only their local operations but their entire business model.
Though wind turbine prices are dropping across the board (now hovering around $750 per kilowatt of energy they generate), taller wind turbines require larger volumes of raw materials, both for their larger size and for the extra material required to provide structural reinforcement to keep them standing. Countries in Northern Europe, for example, where land for wind farms is more expensive, stand to gain more from bigger turbines than the US does, he notes. The global trend is towards installing fewer and bigger turbines.
The world’s largest offshore wind turbine is in China. It is 800 feet tall and the blades are the size of 10 football fields. These goliaths are likely the future of wind energy. In the U.S., the average rotor diameter in 2020 was about 125 meters (410 feet)—longer than a football field. Wind speeds are greater at higher altitudes and turbines will be taller to capture this increase.
Photo taken from: Offshore Wind – Offshore Chinese Turbine
And size comes with a carbon footprint: a two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that requires 300 tons of iron ore and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. From construction to demolition though, the energy payback on a turbine can be less than a year. Payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 17 months for offshore installations. Each has a life cycle of less than 30 years. It takes energy to dismantle and recycle them.
As mentioned, the U.S. government issued the final federal approval for the (Martha’s Vineyard) Vineyard Wind project, a utility-scale wind farm that has been over a decade in the planning. The wind farm’s developers plan to install 62 giant turbines in the Atlantic Ocean with enough capacity to power 400,000 homes with clean energy. In June, the Biden administration announced a competitive lease sale for the New York Bight, an area between New York and New Jersey, that could generate 7GW of energy, enough to power more than 2.6 million homes. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will be responsible for auctioning the additional, new offshore lease sales, by 2025.
There is good reason why offshore wind turbines are the centerpiece of the transition from carbon to clean energy sources. Wind makes a big contribution towards reducing the 30 percent dependence on carbon sources for electricity generation. The country’s large population centers are along the east and west coasts and will be fed directly from offshore wind installations.
The downsides of uneven wind generation on shore are mitigated by far more consistent winds offshore. The industry will also be a significant employer – some 600,000 jobs are forecasted by 2050.
Currently, the carbon fiber blades cannot be recycled and have a lifespan of two decades.
Though ambitious, wind energy will likely not provide more than 20% of total U.S. electricity demand. The investment is strategically sound and a selective one with limited capacity.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://www.utilitydive.com/ provides in-depth journalism and insight into the most impactful news and trends shaping the utility industry
https://www.power-grid.com/ provides information and thought-leadership about the electricity delivery industry.
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/ is the only global media brand dedicated to the wind power industry.
https://theconversation.com/us is a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good.
Trapped by Bureaucrats: The Gray Wolf’s Struggle For Survival
Trapped by Bureaucrats: The Gray Wolf’s Struggle For Survival
Environment Policy Brief #135 | By: Tim Loftus | November 2, 2021
Header photo taken from: WildEarth Guardians
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: WildEarth Guardians
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
After a century of slaughter that brought an iconic species of the North American landscape to the brink of extinction, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was among the first species to gain protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1974. The ESA had just been signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon the year before and prohibited the “taking” of a listed species without explicit permission. “Taking” meant killing, harassing, or damaging habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of the species. The designation applied to all remaining wolf populations, small as they had become, in the lower-48 states.
After 20 relatively quiet years that allowed wolves the freedom to live as they once did, and guided by a growing body of scientific evidence, perhaps the most famous wolf reintroduction effort got underway in 1995 when 14 wolves from Canada were captured and released in Yellowstone National Park. An additional 11 wolves were released the following year. Yellowstone had been without this keystone species and apex predator since the 1920’s and at that time, nobody anticipated the negative impact that the extermination of wolves would have on the larger ecosystem. Wolves had always been a part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and their return had profound effects, known as a trophic cascade, on restoring the ecological health and integrity of the diverse area contained within the park.
Wolf populations began to rebuild in Yellowstone and elsewhere and in 2003, their status was reclassified as “threatened.” Under the ESA, a threatened species has less protection than one classified as “endangered.” The next several years witnessed considerable back-and-forth between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), charged with upholding protections for ESA-listed species, and the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Litigation commenced over the status of wolves in these three Rocky Mountain states and their state management plans for wolf survival once listing status moved from endangered to threatened.
Northern Rocky Mountain wolves were officially delisted in March 2008, but once again, the matter was far from being settled as ESA-protections were reinstated later that summer. Early in 2009, the new Obama Administration affirmed the FWS decision to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana, and a handful of other states. With the exception of Wyoming, where wolves would remain under federal protection, states with wolf populations were to take responsibility for their management.
After the legal killing of hundreds of wolves in Idaho and Montana, ESA protections were restored in August of 2010, but an “end-around” strategy of removing protections legislatively was fashioned to an unrelated appropriations bill that was signed into law a year later. It is believed that Senator John Tester (D-MT), up for reelection in 2012, was responsible for this part of the bill that required the Interior Secretary to reissue the 2009 rule to remove ESA protections for all northern Rocky Mountain wolves except those living in Wyoming.
The fraught relationship between the ESA and wolves continued. While ESA protections were reinstated for Wyoming and three Great Lakes states, lack of protections continued in Idaho and Montana where the former sanctioned unprecedented, if not illegal, helicopter intrusions into the largest-forested wilderness area in the lower-48 states to kill wolves. The activity of Idaho and Montana state officials was not only in contrast to American public opinion, but in direct conflict with the best available science.
Following a replay of the “litigation ping-pong” that best characterizes northern gray wolf legal status and management purview since 2008, the Trump Administration made final a delisting rule in October 2020 for all gray wolves in the lower-48 states with one exception: Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) isolated in an area of reintroduction that straddles the central Arizona and New Mexico state line.
This year, the Republican-controlled state legislatures of both Idaho and Montana have passed laws, viewed as extreme by many, that will widen the scope of wolf killing in terms of both means and length of the killing season. In response to two petitions calling for gray wolves to be (re)listed under the ESA as either threatened or endangered, the FWS announced on September 15 that in light of the substantial and credible information presented, “a listing action may be warranted and will initiate a comprehensive status review of the gray wolf in the western U.S.” The FWS will determine next year if a listing is warranted following a 12-month analysis and updated finding of gray wolf status.
Policy Analysis
The American public would be forgiven if many are confused about the status of gray wolves vis-à-vis the ESA and state management roles. As sentient, social, and family-oriented creatures, wolves must simply cope with the lethal response that they may encounter as an accident of where they happen to live. And the nature of that response has become more varied, high-tech, and favorable for efficient extermination.
Some elected officials, including many of those in Idaho and Montana, have long been influenced by hunting/trapping and ranching industry lobbyists whose views are strictly anthropocentric, allergic to science, and promoted in isolation from an understanding of ecosystem health and integrity. This time-honored antipathy towards wolves has now culminated in new state legislation that in Montana, for example, now legalizes the use of neck snares, night hunting, and trap baiting to go along with foot traps that had previously been the only legal means for capturing and killing wolves. Individuals can now each kill as many as ten wolves, up from five. In a state with approximately 1,200 wolves and almost 140,000 elk, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, the new regulations allow the killing of 450 wolves, more than a third of the estimated population, before fish and wildlife commissioners are reengaged for a review.
The regulations in Montana stemming from HB 224, HB 225, and SB 314 were signed into law this past April by Governor Greg Gianforte (R-MT) who earlier in the year violated state hunting rules for trapping a wolf without taking a required education certification class. As reported by Montana Public Radio, he received a warning. In response to the new wolf-killing regulations codified by Governor Gianforte, seven former members of the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commissioners took the highly unusual step of publicly speaking out against the new rules.
In late September, Mountain Journal published a guest essay titled, “Montana Wolf Policies Are Destroying State’s Reputation As Beacon For Wildlife Management: Seven Respected Former Wildlife Commissioners, All Hunters, Condemn Montana Governor and Lawmakers for Their Callous, Unscientific Promotion of Wolf Slaughter.” The essay is a remarkable repudiation of the laws passed by the Montana Legislature and subsequent rules adopted by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. These official actions were taken despite significant public opposition and a dearth of scientific support.
Photo taken from: projectcoyote.org
In Idaho, Governor Brad Little (R-ID) signed SB 1211 that permits the killing of up to 90 percent of Idaho’s wolves. More about extermination than wildlife stewardship, the new regulations were effective July 1 and allow use of an assortment of lethal gadgetry, wolf-pursuit vehicles, and practices that will also endanger pets and nontarget species.
Idaho’s wolf population is thought to have grown to 1,500 members since reintroduction in 1995 and represents about a quarter of the wolves living in the northern Rockies region. This largest-nondomestic member of the dog family now faces formidable obstacles to survive in a state where cattle and sheep far outnumber humans.
New laws and wolf management plans in both Idaho and Montana will minimize their gray wolf populations to ensure that wolves will remain functionally extinct. These decisions were made for two states that ironically rank among the lowest seven in the lower-48 states in terms of population density (residents/square mile) and despite the presence of an abundance of prime-historic-wolf habitat. Furthermore, there are proven-nonlethal means for deterring wolf depredation, but these methods are overlooked by bureaucrats who now masquerade as wolf biologists and wildlife managers.
Beyond the new state laws and rules for wolf extermination, there’s the matter of violence that racks this nation where hardly a day goes by without some new shooting and senseless killing of one human being by another. What kind of a message is being sent to young people about ethical and responsible adult behavior when the violence that we confront daily spills over to doing the same to our native wildlife?
Killing wolves sends a confusing and contradictory message to children about hunting and its proper role in society. In an increasingly fractured society in need of a recommitment to peaceful coexistence and respect for life, state plans for killing wolves only serve to sabotage this need.
Wolf management policies in Idaho and Montana have nothing to do with either hunting or sport. Rather, their policies are inhumane, set on wolf removal, and reflective of a mentality that prevailed over a hundred years ago. Only a relisting of wolves as an endangered species appears to offer a path to coexistence and wolf reestablishment. Furthermore, relisting will lead to more comprehensive natural resource management for the provision of ecosystem services that benefit everyone and thus, have value.
Engagement Resources
American Wolf Foundation. Mission and Vision — American Wolf Foundation (accessed October 28, 2021)
Blakeslee, Nate. 2017. American Wolf: A True Story of Survival and Obsession in the West. New York, NY: Broadway Books. 303 p.
Earthjustice. 2021. Timeline: The Fight for Northern Rocky Gray Wolves. Timeline: Wolves in Danger | Earthjustice (accessed October 27, 2021)
Endangered Species Coalition. Gray Wolf – Endangered Species Coalition (accessed October 28, 2021)
Idaho Conservation League. Idaho Conservation League (accessed November 1, 2021)
Idaho Fish and Game. Idaho Fish and Game | Idaho Fish and Game (accessed October 28, 2021)
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Home Page | Montana FWP (mt.gov) (accessed October 28, 2021)
Mountain Journal. 2021. “Montana Wolf Policies are Destroying State’s Reputation as Beacon for Wildlife Management” by Gary J. Wolfe, Dan Vermillion, Tim Aldrich, Shane Colton, Steve Doherty, Matt Tourtlotte, and Logan Brower. Montana Wolf Policies Are Destroying State’s Reputation As Beacon For Wildlife Management (mountainjournal.org) (accessed October 27, 2021)
Montana Public Radio. 2021. “Montana Adopts ‘Aggressive’ Wolf Hunting Regulations” by Nick Mott. Montana Adopts ‘Aggressive’ Wolf Hunting Regulations | Montana Public Radio (mtpr.org) (accessed October 27, 2021)
Pacific Wolf Coalition. About Us – Pacific Wolf Coalition (pacificwolves.org) (accessed October 28, 2021)
Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute. Gray wolf | Smithsonian’s National Zoo (si.edu) (accessed October 28, 2021)
Speak for Wolves. Speak for Wolves | An annual grassroots wildlife advocacy conference (accessed October 28, 2021)
The National Wildlife Federation. Gray Wolf. Gray Wolf | National Wildlife Federation (nwf.org) (accessed October 28, 2021)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Press Release: Service to Initiate Status Review of Gray Wolf in Western U.S. News Releases – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (fws.gov) (accessed October 27, 2021)
What Motivates Covid Conspiracy Believers?
What Motivates Covid Conspiracy Believers?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #140 | By: S Bhimji | November 2, 2021
Header photo taken from: AP News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: BBC Science Focus Magazine
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As of Sept 2021, there are still close to 70 million adult Americans who have not been vaccinated against Covid. Despite all types of incentives, these folks have refused to get the shot. President Biden had signaled that he would have liked most of the country to be vaccinated by July 2021 but as of now, there are millions who adamantly refuse to be vaccinated.
About 51% of these individuals have religious and personal reasons for not getting the shot and the rest have all types of superstitious beliefs. Some believe that the government is trying to control the population with the vaccine, others believe that Bill Gates has something sinister to do with the vaccine and yet there are others who believe that the vaccine will turn them into zombies.
Many businesses have mandated that their workers be vaccinated in order to remain employed; in addition, unvaccinated individuals now are prevented from entering many public places and cannot travel by air with certain airlines. As the delta variant spreads rapidly there is concern that the epidemic may not end soon.
But what is happening to these unvaccinated individuals in terms of their health, employment, and quality of life?
Policy Analysis
A recent study from the Netherlands surveyed 5,745 participants during the months of April and Dec 2020. The focus of the study was to primarily determine what was happening to the superstitious individuals who refuse to be vaccinated.
This study just published reveals that individuals who believe in Covid 19 conspiracies are less likely to undergo testing for Covid 19 but when tested are more likely to be positive for the virus.
Further, these individuals were more likely to lose their jobs, more likely to break coronavirus rules to hide the fact that they are not vaccinated, and face social isolation in both personal and professional life. The end result was a loss of income, below-par overall well-being, and a poor quality of life.
The study authors wrote, “one basic property of conspiracy theories is that they are consequential, even if a conspiracy theory is extremely implausible according to logic or scientific evidence, if it seems real to a perceiver, it has a genuine impact on attitudes, emotions, and behavior.”
The conclusion of the study was that the type of ‘conspiracy belief’ helps the individuals cope with the challenges they are facing and in the end it also has significant repercussions for public and private health, as well as overall social and financial well-being.
Photo taken from: Tulane News
Geoffrey Dancy, an expert in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are common during times of stress because they help explain events that are beyond logical explanation or control. Further, he notes that conspiracy theorists find great comfort in blaming something else or someone else for a mega issue like a pandemic. For example, these individuals may suspect that the government has engineered a vaccine that will control the population or that the pharmaceutical companies will produce a vaccine that makes them vulnerable to other diseases.
One thing is for sure, conspiracy theorists are fanatical about their delusional beliefs- a feature that is common in psychosis and other mental health problems.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
Understanding delusions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3016695/#:~:text=A%20delusion%20is%20a%20belief,or%20her%20level%20of%20intelligence.
Geoff Dancy:
https://liberalarts.tulane.edu/departments/political-science/people/geoff-dancy
The science of superstition – and why people believe in the unbelievable. https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-superstition-and-why-people-believe-in-the-unbelievable-97043
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Environmental Policy Brief #136 | By: Todd J. Broadman | November 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: New York Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Inspire Clean Energy
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Today, 67,000 wind turbines are spinning kilowatts of energy throughout the country. That is the wind behind President Biden’s back in his recent wind energy initiative; that, and his pledge is to cut the nation’s fossil fuel emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The cost to make and deploy wind energy has gone down over 50 percent since 2008. The administration wants to seize the moment; the plan is to install 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind turbines in U.S. waters by 2030.
Dubbed “wind farms,” the Dept. of the Interior has already begun the process of identifying locations in federal seas that are optimal for wind energy in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon. By 2025, these locations are slated to be leased to developers. This phased roll-out comes on the heels of the first major commercial offshore wind farm that has received approval by the Biden administration – off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.
Overall, wind represents less than 10 percent of the country’s total power generation with most of it coming from states in the central plains. The wind rich states of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma in the Dakotas are aggressively expanding their wind capacity. In Texas, wind provides more than 30 percent of total electricity.
For perspective, wind provides nearly 50 percent of energy in Denmark, Ireland and Germany. While the US installed a record 17GW of wind capacity in 2021, Europe, home to a majority of the world’s offshore wind, had nearly twice that capacity installed in 2020. The UK alone is planning on 40GW. China has even more ambitious plans for wind energy: they are looking at 73GW by the end of this year.
There are incentives in the recent spending bill for utility companies. The package includes a $150 billion program that would pay electric utilities to increase the amount of electricity they purchase from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar, with penalties for those that do not make the transition. The investment will also be used to modernize the grid and improve its capacity for both solar and onshore and offshore wind energy sources.
Policy Analysis
Environmentalists are weighing in as the administration anticipated. “In order for Americans living in coastal areas to see the benefits of offshore wind, we must ensure that it’s done with care for the surrounding ecosystem by coexisting with fisheries and marine life – and that’s exactly what this investment will do,″ said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Environmental and cost challenges are far greater on the west coast. Pacific waters are much deeper and get deep closer to shore compared to the US’ Atlantic coastline. That makes it more difficult to affix turbines to the seafloor. There is a new technology in the form of floating wind farms.
Environmental hurdles will include potential harm to endangered species, conflicts with military activity, damage to underwater archaeological sites, or harm to local industries such as tourism. As they have in response to other offshore wind farms, commercial fishing groups and coastal landowners will likely try to stop the projects. In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration are a major part of the economy, fossil fuel companies could fight the development of wind energy as a threat to not only their local operations but their entire business model.
Though wind turbine prices are dropping across the board (now hovering around $750 per kilowatt of energy they generate), taller wind turbines require larger volumes of raw materials, both for their larger size and for the extra material required to provide structural reinforcement to keep them standing. Countries in Northern Europe, for example, where land for wind farms is more expensive, stand to gain more from bigger turbines than the US does, he notes. The global trend is towards installing fewer and bigger turbines.
Though wind turbine prices are dropping across the board (now hovering around $750 per kilowatt of energy they generate), taller wind turbines require larger volumes of raw materials, both for their larger size and for the extra material required to provide structural reinforcement to keep them standing. Countries in Northern Europe, for example, where land for wind farms is more expensive, stand to gain more from bigger turbines than the US does, he notes. The global trend is towards installing fewer and bigger turbines.
Photo taken from: Power Technology
The world’s largest offshore wind turbine is in China. It is 800 feet tall and the blades are the size of 10 football fields. These goliaths are likely the future of wind energy. In the U.S., the average rotor diameter in 2020 was about 125 meters (410 feet)—longer than a football field. Wind speeds are greater at higher altitudes and turbines will be taller to capture this increase.
And size comes with a carbon footprint: a two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that requires 300 tons of iron ore and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. From construction to demolition though, the energy payback on a turbine can be less than a year. Payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 17 months for offshore installations. Each has a life cycle of less than 30 years. It takes energy to dismantle and recycle them.
As mentioned, the U.S. government issued the final federal approval for the (Martha’s Vineyard) Vineyard Wind project, a utility-scale wind farm that has been over a decade in the planning. The wind farm’s developers plan to install 62 giant turbines in the Atlantic Ocean with enough capacity to power 400,000 homes with clean energy. In June, the Biden administration announced a competitive lease sale for the New York Bight, an area between New York and New Jersey, that could generate 7GW of energy, enough to power more than 2.6 million homes. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will be responsible for auctioning the additional, new offshore lease sales, by 2025.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://www.utilitydive.com/ – provides in-depth journalism and insight into the most impactful news and trends shaping the utility industry
https://www.power-grid.com/ – provides information and thought-leadership about the electricity delivery industry.
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/ – is the only global media brand dedicated to the wind power industry.
https://theconversation.com/us – is a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good.
Semaglutide: Is it The Panacea for Weight Loss?
Semaglutide: Is it The Panacea for Weight Loss?
Health & Gender Policy Brief #139 | By: S. Bhimji | November 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: Every day Health
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Medpage Today
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There are over 70 million Americans who are considered obese and 99 million more who are said to be overweight. Today obesity has replaced smoking as public health enemy number one. Obesity has repercussions beyond just excess weight- it negatively affects almost every organ in the body and shortens the lifespan.
Studies show that even achieving a minimum of 5% of initial weight loss in obese individuals can result in a marked lowering of the risk factors for heart disease as well as preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes.
Over the years, many drugs have been developed to reduce body weight but most have proven to have dangerous side effects and the weight loss is not significant even after 1 year. The other option is for obese individuals to undergo surgery. Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce significant weight loss and improve risk factors for heart disease.
Unfortunately, not only do many individuals not meet the criteria for surgery, the surgery is prohibitively expensive and can lead to life-threatening complications, which are not rare. Most important, regaining weight after surgery within the first year is very common. Only about a third of individuals who undergo surgery can prevent weight gain. And for patients without healthcare insurance, the cost of weight loss surgery can run as high as $35K.
Now a new drug has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of obesity- called Semaglutide. Many think it is perhaps the best and safest drug on the market- but does it work?
Policy Analysis
Semaglutide was developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but it was observed that many obese diabetics also lost a significant amount of weight while lowering their blood sugars. This led to a clinical trial involving over 1,960 obese adults. At a dose of 2.4 mg administered weekly by injection, participants lost a significant amount of weight compared to those treated with a placebo and lifestyle changes.
The weight loss began within the first 4 weeks of starting treatment and by the end of week 68, there was an average of 33.7-pound weight loss in the majority of obese individuals. Besides weight loss, Semaglutide also lowered blood pressure, reduced waist circumference, decreased blood glucose and cholesterol levels- all risk factors for heart disease.
Overall the study revealed that more than 50% of participants lost 15% of their initial body weight and at least a third lost 20% body weight- which is far superior to previous weight-loss drugs. The most common adverse effects in the trial were related to the gastrointestinal system which included nausea, vomiting, bloating, and diarrhea.
To date it appears to be the most effective drug treatment for weight loss when it is combined with lifestyle changes; There is an oral form of the drug now available for weight loss today- sold under the trade name Rybelsus.
Photo taken from: Medpage Today
Despite the hype, it should be noted that animal studies have shown the oral agent to cause pancreatitis and thyroid tumors in rodents. No such findings have been observed in humans but it may be too early.
Another clinical trial is set to assess the oral formula and also look more closely at potential adverse effects that can occur in the long term.
For obese consumers, the bad news is that this agent is not covered by insurance and the cost per month ranges from $800-$1300, depending on which pharmacy you buy it from and if you have a discount coupon. Without a government subsidy, it is unlikely that many obese individuals (who are also poor/unemployed) will be able to afford the cost of this drug.
To lose weight, you need to take the drug for about a year and hence a year’s supply would cost about $12K-$15K, which is still far cheaper than surgery AND SAFER.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.
Obesity
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
Prescription Medications to Treat Overweight & Obesity
Weight-loss (Bariatric) Surgery
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/bariatric-surgery
Climate Change Poses A National Security Threat Says 2 New U.S. Government Reports
Climate Change Poses A National Security Threat Says 2 New U.S. Government Reports
Environmental Policy Brief #134 | By: Katelyn Lewis | November 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: NRDC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Medium
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In dual reports, the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Intelligence Council reached the same conclusion: Climate change poses an exacerbating, adverse effect on national security.
“To keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change,” the DoD Climate Risk Analysis (DCRA) report said.
Both evidence-based reports were released on Oct. 21 in response to Executive Order 14008.
The DCRA report outlines key security implications of climate change both nationally and internationally; its role in climate policy and responsibilities; and considerations and prioritizations for the Department’s actions.
“The unprecedented scale of wildfires, floods, droughts, typhoons, and other extreme weather events of recent months and years have damaged our installations and bases, constrained force readiness and operations, and contributed to instability around the world,” the report said. “Climate change touches most of what this Department does, and this threat will continue to have worsening implications for U.S. national security.”
For example, the Report outlines how more drought and flooding events will lead to reduced water supply and an inundation of critical assets, leading to a competition for scarce natural resources as well as a heavier demand for defense support, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response. These climate hazards will also reduce agricultural production and damage infrastructure, prompting “heightened social and political tensions [and] increased likelihood of migration, conflict, and/or competitors using instability to expand influence.”
Meanwhile, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) focuses on climate change’s geopolitical implications abroad. It finds that the risks to U.S. national security interests will increase through 2040 as countries around the world respond to “the intensifying physical effects of climate change” as well as the political and financial upheavals they are likely to spawn.
The NIE report breaks down the risks and changes in levels of risk into three categories – geopolitical tensions over climate responses, climate exacerbated geopolitical flashpoints, and climate effects impacting country-level instability.
It concludes that unified international action to reach the Paris Agreement’s greenhouse gas emissions goals globally may be nearly impossible to achieve as “most countries will face difficult economic choices and probably will count on technological breakthroughs to rapidly reduce their net emissions later.”
Meanwhile, developing and vulnerable countries trying to cope with climate change may look to the U.S. for help, increasing demands on “diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and military resources,” according to the report.
“The United States and others […] are in a relatively better position than other countries to deal with the major costs and dislocation of forecasted change, in part because they have greater resources to adapt, but will nonetheless require difficult adjustments,” the report says. “Climate impacts such as excessive heat, flooding, and extreme storms will prove increasingly costly, require some military shifts, and increase demands for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.”
Policy Analysis
The mirroring reports were released just 10 days before world leaders gather to meet for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland, which begins on Oct. 31.
On the same day the Defense and Intelligence reports were issued, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released its “Strategic Framework for Addressing Climate Change.” The guide outlines the department’s efforts “to safeguard the homeland from the immediate impacts of climate change, while pursuing long-term solutions that support resilient, prosperous communities and safeguard critical national security interests.”
All three documents, as well as a fact sheet released by the White House, establish the threat climate change poses for the U.S. on multiple fronts as well as what actions the Biden Administration’s leadership hopes to focus on going forward.
They offer good insight into U.S. President Joe Biden’s focus for the conference, and show his administration’s efforts to analyze the current climate situation as well as what strategic steps top officials advise to move the U.S. forward to mitigate its adverse consequences.
Ahead of COP26, Biden also released a $1.75 trillion social and climate change spending framework on Thursday, Oct. 28. A big portion of that spending, at about $555 billion, is allocated to “make it easier to buy electric vehicles, install solar panels, retrofit buildings and manufacture wind turbines and other clean-energy equipment in the United States,” The Washington Post reports.
Photo taken from: CNN
“The legislation, coupled with executive actions, could help Biden halve U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in less than nine years compared with 2005 levels,” the Post reports. “Documents from the White House and analyses by independent experts suggest the legislation will reduce U.S. annual carbon dioxide emissions by about a gigaton, nearly a sixth of its current annual emissions.”
While Biden’s social and climate change spending framework would make a major investment toward producing clean energy and combating climate change, its release just three days before COP26 begins – and uncertain passage through Congress – slightly weakens the pressure he may be able to apply on other countries to ramp up their actions against greenhouse emissions.
Without established laws or federal spending toward climate action already in place, Biden heads into COP26 as a leader of one of the richest, developed countries with only ideas, not solidified actions, on how the U.S. will address climate change and cut its greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to mitigate global warming trends.
The Intelligence report reaches a similar, dismal conclusion. In particular, it outlines how perceptions of insufficient contributions to reduce greenhouse emissions, countries’ inability to meet net-zero pledges, and resistance to transition away from fossil fuels, among others, will increase and intensify geopolitical tensions.
“Countries are arguing about who should act sooner and competing to control the growing clean energy transition,” it says. “Global momentum is growing for more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but current policies and pledges are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.
Reuters – “Factbox – What are the climate change provisions in the U.S. budget bill framework?” (Oct 28, 2021) – https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-spending-climate/factbox-what-are-the-climate-change-provisions-in-the-u-s-budget-bill-framework-idUSKBN2HI2VS
The Washington Post – “White House, intelligence agencies, Pentagon issue reports warning that climate change threatens global security” (Oct. 21, 2021)
The Washington Post – “New Budget Deal Marks the Biggest Climate Investment in U.S. History” (Oct. 28, 2021) – https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/28/climate-biden-build-back-better/
The White House – “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet-prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/
Virginia Mercury – “What’s in – and out – of Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending and climate bill” (Oct. 28, 2021) – https://www.virginiamercury.com/2021/10/28/biden-pitches-new-1-75-trillion-spending-blueprint-to-dems-that-drops-paid-family-leave/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4daef262-6da7-44af-bb89-d03f65ecb956
Writer’s Sources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.
National Intelligence Council – “National Intelligence Estimate: Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security Through 2040” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/NIE_Climate_Change_and_National_Security.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy – “Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF
U.S. Department of Homeland Security – “DHS Strategic Framework For Addressing Climate Change” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs_strategic_framework_10.20.21_final_508.pdf
Surveillance Technology: A Useful Tool or a Threat to Our Security
Surveillance Technology: A Useful Tool or a Threat to Our Security
Technology Policy Brief #65 | By: Stephan Lherissen | October 26, 2021
Header photo taken from: Freedom House
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: The Boston Globe
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Cities around the nation are adopting legislation that puts limits on the use of surveillance technology by their respective police forces. These cities are at the forefront of policy that could be adopted nationally by the federal government. These laws are being considered by some and established by others in response to growing criticism that these technologies do not respect the rights and privacy of citizens.
The cities of New York City, San Francisco, and Cambridge Massachusetts and many others have passed legislation giving their cities authority over police surveillance programs. They mean to create transparency around police usage of these technologies.The technologies can include facial recognition technology, license plate reader data, “Stingray” cell phone locaters and backscatter “X-Ray vans.”
The focus of some of these laws and ordinances has been to create guards against facial recognition technology if not outright ban it. It has been proven that the technology is inaccurate and biased, especially when used against communities of color.
Policy Analysis
Establishment of these laws throughout the country was spurred in part by the fear that these technologies go against the rights of citizens and stampede over civil rights protections. Both federal and state protections were considered. The stories about the laws enacted in different cities are similar. In every city lawmakers are interested in protecting their populace. To do that they need effective legislation that gives them the power to demand transparency and accountability from the police.
The function of facial recognition technology is to identify a suspect when their face is matched up with a face in a database. Sometimes those databases can be unknown to the public. License plate readers are devices that can scan the license plates of a car that passes by. Stingray cell phone locators are cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. X-Ray vans use x-ray radiation to look through the walls of buildings or the side of trucks.
On July 15, 2020 the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act was signed into law in New York City. The law requires the New York City Police Department to reveal to the public the scope of its surveillance activities and the equipment that is used for such activities. The bill explains the process by which the department will share their surveillance efforts to the public.
In 2019, before New York City passed its surveillance legislation, San Francisco enacted an ordinance that banned the use of facial recognition technology in the city. In addition to the ban on facial recognition technology the ordinance called for transparency when it came to the actions and efforts of police departments in their use of surveillance tech.
Photo taken from: The Intercept
In 2018 Cambridge, Massachusetts went further than the other cities with the terms of its ordinance. In the Cambridge ordinance the community was put in charge of police surveillance actions. The ordinance requires police to seek City Counsel permission before buying, acquiring, or using new surveillance technologies In Cambridge the city was trying to find a balance between the privacy of its citizens and the need to keep citizens safe.
The action of creating laws to limit the use of surveillance technology has also been taken up by the federal government. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are open about their policies when it comes to the use of certain surveillance technology. Despite this the federal government seeks further openness when it comes to public information.
The Senate is also targeting the use of a particular facial recognition tool called Clearview AI as well as prohibiting the purchase of location data and personal data without a warrant by the U.S. government. A new Congressional bill called The First Amendment is not for sale would also outlaw the use of technology generated data that was obtained duplicitously.
Because of abuses of power by law enforcement, people around the country are asserting their own powers as citizens that have civil and personal rights when it comes to how their data is used and how they are tracked by law enforcement. Police departments in certain cities are now required to reveal their actions and techniques when it comes to surveillance of their fellow citizens.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/21/data-surveillance-bill/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/21/data-surveillance-bill/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1265
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-face-it-this-is-risky-tech-20180814-story.html#
