Relevant Event Notice: A Cultural Conversation: Aldo Leopold, the Southwest, and the Evolution of a Land Ethic for the Future

From Bioneers:


Time: February 13, 2008 at 8am to February 14, 2008 at 6pm
Location: National Hispanic Cultural Center
City/Town: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Event Website: http://www.aldoleopold.org/...
Event Type: Opening
Organized By: The Aldo Leopold Foundation

As the opening event in the Aldo Leopold Centennial Celebration 2009, this “cultural conversation” is intended to foster creative discussion about the Southwestern roots of Leopold’s land ethic, the roots of an environmental ethic in Hispanic and Native American traditions, and the historic and potential connections among them. The event is open to the public and welcomes participants from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds and perspectives....More

Socially responsible investing reaps rewards in an uncharitable market

Doing well by doing good

Socially responsible investing reaps rewards in an uncharitable market

By Sam Mamudi, MarketWatch

Last Update: 12:03 PM ET Nov 2, 2008

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The market's meltdown has left every category of stock mutual funds in the red this year, but one area that has held up better than most is socially responsible investing.

As of Oct. 30, a total of 15 out of 91 faith-based and secular socially responsible funds that invest in stocks had outperformed the Dow Jones Industrial Average, some by more than 10 percentage points, according to investment researcher Morningstar Inc.

These results are encouraging for socially responsible investors because the odds are stacked against them. By screening stocks according to various ethical and moral standards, socially responsible funds by definition shrink their universe of investing options. In theory that makes it harder to provide market-beating returns.

But this year the reverse is also true: some socially responsible screens have helped their managers outperform the market and mute investors' losses.

Screen plays

"There are definitely some socially responsible screens that have helped in this environment," said David Kathman, analyst at Morningstar. "This type of market, which is punishing risk, is good for a lot of socially responsible funds."

Among the best performers is Parnassus Workplace Fund (PARWX) , which lost 25.3% through Oct. 30 versus a 29.3% decline for the Dow ($INDU) .

The fund was sprung from Fortune magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For," said manager Jerome Dodson. While the portfolio now also invests in companies not on the Fortune list -- and also avoids some that are -- the principle of companies which treat their employees well is still the driving force.

"As time goes on, I've become convinced that investing in a company that's a good place to work will do very well for you over time," Dodson said. "There's a connection. When you get this kind of socially good management, you get overall good management."

The fund's screening process includes gauging corporate governance and good accounting practices -- factors that also reflect better managed companies, Dodson said.

Among his non-Fortune picks are Baldor Electric Co. (BEZ) , a Fort Smith, Ark., based maker of motors and generators. The company has a literacy program for its employees, and 15% of its pretax profits go to its workers. The company's stock held up for most of the year, before falling hard in October.

Wells Fargo (WFC) is another company with a good management record that Dodson recommends.

Ahead of the crisis

TIAA-CREF is explicit about how its social screens have helped returns for its Social Choice Equity Fund (TICRX) , which is down about 33% so far this year. The fund's most recent fact sheet, from Jun. 30, lists poorly performing companies that were blocked by its screen. The list includes General Electric Co. (GE) , JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) , American International Group Inc. (AIG) and Citigroup Inc. (C) .

Amy O'Brien, part of the social and community investing department at TIAA-CREF, said that Social Choice Equity screens financial services companies based on factors that include corporate governance, predatory lending practices, transparency and executive pay.

"The themes that underpin the current crisis are themes that the socially responsible investing community and corporate governance people have been talking about for a number of years," O'Brien said.

Matt Zuck, part of a five-person management team of AHA Socially Responsible Equity Fund (AHSRX) , said that while screens can sift out some bad stocks, the discipline of tighter screening requires a manager to dig deeper. "In so far as it forces you to ask more questions about a company, it's valuable as an analytical tool," he said.

Fundamentals rule

One factor that can't be overlooked is fundamental stock selection. A case in point is Amana Trust Income (AMANX) and sibling Amana Trust Growth (AMAGX) -- two mutual funds that are managed according to Islamic principles. Among those principles is a prohibition on usury -- any activity that is interest-bearing. As such, the Amana funds always avoid the financial sector.

Monem Salam, deputy portfolio manager at Saturna Capital, which manages the Amana funds, said that among the holdings are companies such as Pfizer Inc. (PFE) and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) , that pay steady and reliable dividends. (Exxon is a company that many socially responsible funds will not invest in because of screens that block oil companies.)

Amana Trust Income was down 22.8% this year through Oct. 30, with annualized three- and five-year returns of 3.5% and 10%, respectively. Amana Trust Growth, meanwhile, was down 27.6% so far this year; the fund's three-year annualized return was 0.3% and its five-year average yearly gain was 7.7%.

Parnassus' Dodson noted that he avoided some of the companies on the Fortune list, such as financials, including Goldman Sachs (GS) , and homebuilders because he thought they were overvalued. "We're paying attention to valuations and macroeconomic factors, too," he said.

The AHA fund had dropped financials for purely fundamental reasons, Zuck added. "In 2007, we owned Citigroup and AIG, but left them because we saw the emerging problems in the financial sector," he said.

Whichever mix of screens and stock-picking is used, socially responsible funds have shown that in tough times they're not a soft touch.

"It used to be thought that you had to give up returns to get those [ethical] screens," said TIAA-CREF's O'Brien. "But we see returns that are on a par with well-performing mainstream funds."

Top socially responsible stock funds

Fund Ticker YTD Return
Appleseed (APPLX) - 17.7%
Ave Maria Rising Dividend (AVEDX) - 20.2
Parnassus Equity Income (PRBLX) - 20.7
Parnassus Small-Cap (PARSX) - 21.7
Amana Trust Income (AMANX) - 22.8
Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) - 29.3

Data: Morningstar Inc. (As of 10/30/08)

Barak Obama's Election to U.S. Presidency Ushers in Tangible Globalization and A "We are all One" Mentality

By Kimberly Newton de Klootwyk

He views the world through an interacial lens is the way Beale put it (ABC 5 o'clock News). Beale was one of the pioneers who helped make Alabama's schools racially integrated. Fifty plus years later, the first black president is elected into the highest office in the United States.

Obama's interacial lens is nothing to be glossed over as it is in great part the reason why many U.S. Americans voted for him - whether consciously or not. He is a great leader because he is a natural cultural broker & mediator - his background, his ancestral mix, his upbringing and his education in a multicultural society has helped form his "oneness" mentality and his ability to perceive multiple perspectives simultaneously.

In short, he represents a new era in many ways - a new period in human history that is racially integrated and where global citizenship trumps nationalism. Of course Obama could not speak about global citizenship while running for a national office in a highly nationalistic country - but there is no doubt that his identity goes beyond the U.S. borders - that his presidency ushers in a new level of global and interconnected consciousness. This is exactly what a country like the United States needed, given that it is made up of people of all backgrounds and is considered a leader in the world stage. Globalization has materialized in a tangible way through the new president elect of the United States. At Instituto Conexiones we will be following this presidency closely because of its relevance to the work that we do to advance global consciousness and peaceful co-existence among people of different cultural backgrounds.

Lets see what Barak Obama, one of the world's most influential cultural brokers does with his new power to change the world for the better for all.

Instituto Conexiones Launches a New Level of Cultural Brokerage for Latin American Organizations Needing a Presence in the U.S.

U.S Identity & Virtual Office Plans

Helping Latin American organizations attract and retain U.S. clients, partners or donors.

At Instituto Conexiones we believe that equitable globalization begins with making sure all global players have an equal chance for success. In today’s world, that often times means having a presence in the U.S. and a partner that understand the U.S. culture and the English language. Without this, Spanish speaking businesses and organizations are oftentimes at a disadvantage even though their product or project is of superior quality. This why we offer Cultural Brokerage Services, which includes high-caliber U.S. Identity & Virtual Office Plans. Our goal with this service is to help our Latin American colleagues bridge the cultural gap so they can compete in the global marketplace and access the large wealth of resources concentrated in the U.S.

To learn more - click here

Portugal Points The Way For Renewable Energy Adoption

From: Environmental Leader
By Diana Verde Nieto
Founder and CEO
Clownfish

portugal-points-the-7332.jpgAs the world reels at the high price of fossil fuels, business and governments are increasingly casting about for renewable energy models. Portugal is happy to oblige.

Portugal? Yes Portugal. While most of the world remained mired in the old mindset of the fossil fuel driven economy, Portugal committed to leading Europe’s clean-tech revolution with some of the most ambitious targets and timetables for renewable energy adoption. That decision proved visionary. Portugal’s commitment to renewable energy provides an economic cushion at a time when other countries are feeling the pain of high oil prices.

“We have to reduce our dependence on oil and gas,” said Manuel Pinho, Portugal’s Economic Minister. “What seemed extravagant in 2004 when we decided to go for renewables now seems to have been a very good decision.”

Portugal expects to generate 31% of all its energy from clean sources by 2020. This represents increasing its renewable electricity share from 20% in 2005 to 60% in 2020, compared with Britain’s target of 15% of all energy by 2020. Portugal already exceeds its 2010 renewable energy targets.

While these commitments are exceptional, the most exciting part of Portugal’s drive to be a clean-tech leader comes from its rapid adoption of new renewable technologies. Traditionally, the country derived about 30-40% of its electricity from hydropower. While hydro is not a carbon-intensive energy source, it is not exactly cutting edge technology either. But now Portugal’s renewable energy plans include the world’s largest wind, wave and solar energy facilities, demonstrating that these technologies can be deployed at a massive scale.

Portugal’s plans capitalize on plentiful natural resources: the sunniest spot in Europe, a long coastline and abundant wind. The country intends to take advantage of what nature has given it, and are using its resources to establish Portugal as a global clean-tech leader.

Take wave energy. While experts identified the potential for generating electricity from wave power years ago, the technology to do so remained in its infancy. Portugal is now making a major play to both develop the technology and position itself as the world leader in its application. The world’s first commercial wave farm is set to go online this year. While this facility will provide only a modest amount of electricity to the grid, Portugal has set an ambitious generation target of 550MW by 2020. Backed by significant government incentives, the wave energy sector in Portugal is poised to take off.

The solar sector also benefits from similar support. By the end of this year, the world’s largest photovoltaic solar power farm will be in eastern Portugal. The facility, capable of generating enough power for 30,000 homes, represents a play by the country to become a global leader in solar technology.

The high price of fossil fuel energy presents global economic challenges. Although we’ve recently been given a slight reprieve from the record-high cost of oil, the higher prices have rippled through the global economy, driving up the costs of goods and services. But there is a silver lining: the high price of fossil fuels makes renewable energy look more and more attractive. If countries want to learn how to develop renewable energy on a large scale, Portugal points the way.

Diana Verde Nieto is Founder and CEO of Clownfish www.clownfish.co.uk a communications and brand agency dedicated to making sustainability tangible for business.

McKinsey Survey on the State of Corporate Philanthropy

From: The McKinsey Quarterly
February 2008

Consumers’ growing expectations of companies make corporate philanthropy more important than ever. But many respondents to this survey say their companies aren’t meeting social goals or stakeholder expectations very effectively. Companies that are doing well are taking a more strategic approach.

Corporate philanthropy can be an effective tool for companies that are trying to meet consumers’ rising expectations of the role businesses should play in society, say respondents to a McKinsey global survey.1 The survey also suggests, however, that companies aren’t using that tool as well as they could. Executives doubt that their philanthropy programs fully meet their social goals or stakeholders’ expectations for them.

About a fifth of the respondents say their corporate philanthropy programs are very or extremely effective at meeting social goals and stakeholder expectations. Their companies take a somewhat different approach than others do: their programs are more likely to address social and political trends relevant to the business and to be influenced by community and business needs. Executives at these companies expect their programs to become more global and say that efforts are already more likely to involve collaboration with other companies. Finally, these companies are much likelier than others to say they are achieving any business goals they have set for their philanthropy programs in addition to social goals.

A small group of respondents say their companies are reaching beyond traditional corporate goals for philanthropy programs—such as enhancing the company’s reputation or brand—to pursue more concrete business goals, such as gaining information on potential markets. Their approach to focusing the programs also differs from the approach at other companies.


Read the results here:

* Why give?
* What matters, who matters, and where companies are giving instead
* What effective companies do differently

Notes

1The McKinsey Quarterly conducted the survey in January 2007 and received responses from 721 executives around the world—74 percent of them CEOs or other C-level executives. The data are weighted to reflect the proportional representation of segments in the total population.

Social Responsibility is Now a Business Imperative, says Roberts of WWF

Social Responsibility is Now a Business Imperative, says Roberts of WWF

From Stanford Graduate School of Business News

Environmental Challenges are Profit Opportunities, Says Roberts of World Wildlife Fund

October 2007

STANFORD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS — “Companies still thinking about the environment as a social responsibility rather than a business imperative are living in the dark ages,” said Carter Roberts, President and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Roberts delivered the annual von Gugelberg Memorial Environmental Lecture at the Stanford Graduate School of Business on October 23, describing how a new era of global threats is changing the work of the world’s largest conservation organization, an organization that represents the concerns of its 6 million members in 100 countries.

What started as a mission to save animals — associated with the widely recognized panda bear logo—has morphed, by necessity, into a broader mandate to address the economics, the science, and the politics of conservation around the world, Roberts said.

Increasingly people’s livelihood needs and the consequences on the environment of global warming and resource scarcity have to be considered along with measures for species preservation and biodiversity, he said.

Conservationists used to worry about getting people’s attention and keeping it, said Roberts, “but now the facts are in: Climate change and increased resource scarcity will likely be one of the most disruptive forces in business since the Industrial Revolution.”

Many businesses commit to do the right thing environmentally, and then under pressure to enhance the bottom line they see initial steps fade away unless confronted by regulation. Roberts said, “My vision for saving the planet holds that you not only need to work with communities and governments but also the forces … that are driven largely by business. We will fail if we don’t change the behavior of business and how it touches the places we care about.”

Under Robert’s leadership, the WWF is partnering with Wal-Mart, Google, Coca-Cola, Ikea, and others to work with government institutions and indigenous communities to address environmental challenges and sustainable growth needs. With large corporations controlling 70 percent of the choices consumers make, such partnerships are the source of greatest leverage, Roberts said.

“The world is finally waking up to the fact that our lifestyle (choices) are threatening the very fabric of the planet.” The WWF’s most recent Living Planet Report estimates that current demands on the earth’s resources are outstripping what the planet can sustain, Roberts said.

“Most people don’t know it but deforestation and land degradation contribute about 20 percent of all C02 emissions. Ironically at WWF, we realize if we want to save the Amazon, we need to head to China.”

“If China catches up to U.S. standards of consumption it will require two planets to sustain our livelihood for the long run, and if the rest of the world catches up, it will require eleven,” he adds.

Instead of pointing fingers at countries such as China and India, the better choice is to help them invest in technologies and practices that will reduce their respective footprints. “The developed world is going to have a difficult time telling the developing world that they won’t be allowed to enjoy the same fruits of economic success and higher living standards,” he said.

The United States needs to view its own behavior in the mirror, Roberts said. “Consider a simple cup of latte. If we think about Starbucks’ footprint, we have … the amount of water to grow the sugarcane to make the sugar, process the milk, harvest the coffee, make the cup, the lid, and to produce the wrapper. If a company looks at the actual numbers, the water to produce a latte adds up to 208 liters per cup.”

“Add energy to transport the raw materials, electricity to grind the beans, brew the coffee, power the lights, the WiFi internet connectivity (in every Starbucks), the gasoline burned getting customers and employees to the store, and the message for companies is clear. They cannot just consider their own business operations when it comes to environmental impact. The way any business buys and sells products has repercussions around the world,” Roberts said.

“It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in, the supply chain will include products from all around the world,” Roberts emphasized. “Whether we’re talking about fabric made in China, soybeans grown in the Amazon, palm oil harvested in Indonesia, biofuels created in Africa—companies will have to know how their products and the raw materials they use in their operations are affecting places, people, biodiversity, and the environment.”

These facts underscore the solid business reasons why sustainability is no longer just a nice thing to do, Roberts said. More importantly, conservation is a way of protecting business. “The smartest, most strategically focused companies are calculating climate change and resource risks into their operations. True visionaries know that if their business practices aren’t sustainable long term, their businesses aren’t either.”

—April Neilsen

Sustainable Business Approaches Explored In New Executive Program at Standford University

Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability

2008 Dates: September 14 - 20
Limited spaces available
Please contact Brett Cicerone or apply directly online
Program Tuition: $9,000 USD
*Additional funding for applicants from nonprofit/education/government organizations available on a limited basis.
Location: Stanford Sierra Conference Center

True innovators set the bar. They redefine the terms of competition and dictate the future of industries. The Stanford Center for Social Innovation introduces a pioneering new executive program for leaders in business, government, nonprofit, and political action organizations. Drawing from a multi-disciplinary curriculum designed and taught by professors at Stanford Business School, this five-day program delivers innovative approaches to advancing environmental sustainability across organizations.

Content Overview

Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability, hosted at the Stanford Sierra Conference Center, offers executives a camp-like retreat where they can explore what it means to turn sustainable business practices into competitive advantage. The program is designed to cover a range of issues on the topic of sustainability that are central to those who are leading sustainability initiatives in their roles as leaders in business, government, public agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations.
This program was recently highlighted by the Graduate School of Business.

Key Takeaways

* Frameworks to understand how organizations can strike a balance between business and environmental objectives while managing complex stakeholder relationships
* Strategies to gain competitive advantage through environmentally sustainable practices, including product and process innovation and sustainable supply chain management
* Deeper awareness of best practices across industries in the area of environmentally sustainable business and leadership skills to enable action as an internal change agent

Today, environmental sustainability has become an objective both in our public policies and our business strategies. Consequently, best practice in environmental sustainability needs to be understood by business executives, environmental activists, public administrators, and regulators alike. The goal of our program is to bring together executives from each of these worlds, to expose them to state-of-the-art knowledge on environmental sustainability in business, and to facilitate their learning from one another. The program aims to be a watershed event in each participant's career, accelerating the development of those who will shape tomorrow's sustainable business and public policies.

William P. Barnett
Faculty Director
Programs, dates, fees, and faculty are subject to change.

More info at:

Brett Cicerone
Associate Director, Programs
Office of Executive Education
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Phone: 650.723.0544
Toll Free: 866.542.2205 (US and Canada)
Fax: 650.723.3950
Email: cicerone_brett@gsb.stanford.edu

The Laikipia Predator Project shows how predators like lions and humans can potentially co-exist

From: Nature - The Vanishing Lions

The Laikipia Predator Project

It’s called the Laikipia Plateau. It sits along the equator in central Kenya, in the shadow of snow-capped Mount Kenya. Laikipia’s vast grasslands, riverbanks, and watering holes attract a rich array of wildlife, including some of Kenya’s largest numbers of rhinos, elephants, leopards, and buffalo. Researchers say the area — about 2 million acres — also supports nearly 200 African lions.

Laikipia is also home to people, including Maasai herders, who often come into conflict with lions that have learned to prey on easy-to-catch cows. The end result, too often, is dead cattle and dead lions.

In hopes of protecting both lions and farmers, local communities have embarked on a model experiment in wildlife-friendly land management called the Laikipia Predator Project, sponsored by the Wildlife Conservation Society and an array of other conservation groups. One of its main goals is to help local farmers protect their livestock from lions so they don’t have to kill them.

“Our studies have shown, not surprisingly, that properties that lose fewer livestock to predators tend to kill fewer predators,” write project leaders Laurence Frank and Rosie Woodroffe of the Mpala Research Centre in Kenya. “This suggests that we can conserve predators more successfully if we can prevent them from killing livestock. Better management may not only reduce livestock losses today — it should also prevent young predators from learning to take stock in the first place.”

The science of predator management is in its infancy, the pair says, “and every livestock producer has their own opinions on which practices best protect stock.” So one aim of the project has been to test which approaches work best. So far, the tests show that the best solutions employ basic common sense and are not very expensive, project leaders explain.

For instance, the studies have found that the design and construction of “bomas” — traditional corrals for sleeping livestock — are key to protecting livestock from lions. “The stronger the better,” project officials advise, adding that bomas built from thorny acacia bushes work better than those made from solid posts or stone. The researchers also discovered that the height of boma walls was much less important than their thickness. “Thick walls were especially effective at preventing lion attacks, presumably because they prevented cattle from breaking out,” the researchers concluded.

The studies have also revealed some other tricks. It helps to divide bomas into several “rooms,” for instance, and to place them near human residences. An armed guard nearby, along with a dog or two, also helps, although dogs can sometimes transmit diseases to wildlife. (In the Serengeti, domestic dogs were the source of a virus that killed many lions in the 1990s.)

The Laikipia researchers are now testing the idea that lions are less likely to attack livestock where there is plenty of wild prey nearby. In The Vanishing Lions, for instance, viewers follow scientists with the Wildlife Conservation Society as they track lions that are wearing radio collars. The collars are used to study the cats’ hunting patterns and to try to understand why some prides develop a taste for livestock while others do not.

Ultimately, project officials hope that the “predator-friendly management that we develop as a community in Laikipia will be a model for better conservation in the rest of Africa.” So far, the results are promising, as the Laikipia plateau continues to be one of the few places in Kenya where predator populations are growing, not dwindling.


To order a copy of The Vanishing Lions, visit the NATURE Shop.

Creating currency that is readable by the blind says a lot about equality

commentary by knk -

According to the New York Times, a U.S. "federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that the United States discriminates against the blind because the country’s paper currency is the same size regardless of a bill’s value."

This decision says a lot about the quality of care and amount of attention the U.S. society pays to even the smallest cultural group, as the blind could be termed. It also says more about how this group is using the U.S. judicial system to make sure its rights and voice is heard.

If the U.S. goes through with changing all its currency to make sure the blind are taken into account, we would be witnessing a very good example of a society shifting and molding according to higher values of equitable cultural integration.

Fair Trade Cities Initiatives Prove How Much Power Local Municapilities/Counties Can Have on Social/Sustainability Issues

Communication from Oxfam SF Action Corps-

What: World Fair Trade Day
When: This Saturday, May 10th, from 11 am- 4 pm
Where: Dolores Park in San Francisco
Why: Mayor and Board of Supervisors to Declare San Francisco a Fair Trade City,
live music and performances, community speakers, yummy fairly traded treats,
and more!

This event will feature speakers from the Mayor’s Office, the Board of
Supervisors, the Department of the Environment and the Bay Area Fair Trade
Coalition and highlight the broad community support for fair trade in San
Francisco and the cities achievement of the national guidelines to be
recognized as a Fair Trade City.

Entertainment will be provided by the Bayonics hip hop group, a Senegalese
dance troupe and local DJs. Free samples from Adina World Beat Beverages and
other local Fair Trade Certified retailers and licensees.

We will also join other Fair Trade cities around the country in attempting to
break the Guiness Book World Record for “World’s Largest Coffee Break –
Fair Trade Style” and invite attendees to bring along a Fair Trade coffee
from one of the many neighborhood businesses offering this option to help us
break the record.

More Info at: Bay Area Fair Trade Coalition

The New Philanthropy and Development Aid

Raj M. Desai, Visiting Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Wolfensohn Center for Development
Homi Kharas, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Wolfensohn Center for Development

A Communication from: The Brookings Institution

April 24, 2008 —
Two annual spring gatherings that shape the agenda for foreign aid have just been held. One of these is well known and was widely reported on while the other was largely ignored. Unfortunately, the world has gotten it backwards. The meeting that no one cared about is the one that offers the greatest hope for ending global poverty.

The Joint Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF met on Sunday, April 13 in Washington, D.C. In their communiqué, finance ministers noted that “most sub-Saharan African countries are off-track to meet the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals]… we urge donors, including the World Bank Group, to increase their support for the poorest countries’ own development priorities.” During the meetings, donors such as the US, Japan, and the EU were encouraged to “harmonize” their development activities in poor nations.

A few days earlier in California’s Silicon Valley, as it has for the past seven years, the Global Philanthropy Forum held its own annual gathering. This community of donors and social investors committed to international causes aims to promote a new kind of global philanthropy that often blurs the line between “non-profit” and “for-profit” approaches. True to many of their Silicon Valley roots, this new generation of philanthropists uses new technologies to link donors and recipients together, to provide better access to information (whether about microcredit availability or rainfall forecasts), and to build social networks in poor communities.

Approximately 800 press credentials were issued for the World Bank-IMF “Spring Meetings,” as they are called. A Nexis search yields over 400 news articles reporting on the meetings. Meanwhile, at the Global Philanthropy Forum few, if any, members of the press were on hand; Nexis turns up not a single major news story on the proceedings (although one blogger did report on the forum’s discussions).

This lopsidedness is unfortunate. In fact, the attendees who came to Silicon Valley last week will likely give more aid to world’s poor this year than the institutions that convened the Spring Meetings. In 2006, the IMF and World Bank disbursed about $24 billion in loans and credits, not counting debt relief. In the same year, American foundations, charities, and philanthropies gave almost $34 billion to international causes. The best hope for the world’s poor lies in the ability of private aid givers to transform the current system of foreign aid, and to develop partnerships with the public sector, to advance the common good.

The private sector has grown from a small player in development assistance to a major, dynamic force, but the world has little noticed. Since 1998 international giving by US-based corporate and independent foundations has doubled. Giving from “mega-charities” such as the Gates, Ford, and Hewlett foundations has been rising steadily but small foundations actually contribute twice as much, and their giving is growing even faster.

More importantly, there is reason to believe that private aid is more effective than official development assistance, and that larger portions of private aid reach the poor. The allocation of private aid is less likely to be based on geo-strategic considerations, and more according to the actual needs of recipients. Because it deals directly with NGOs and civil society, private aid can avoid the corruption associated with developing country governments. Smaller portions of private aid are spent on overhead and administrative costs, and on “technical assistance”—money that often funds contractors and consultants in rich countries.

A word of caution: private aid can make a difference, but it is by no means a panacea for all that ails the world’s poor. For all the amounts that have been granted, there has been little evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of private aid, and there are few examples of privately-funded programs being expanded in ways needed to make a dent in global poverty. The history of global charity has also had its share of scandals involving misappropriations of funds and theft. And the universe of foundations, charities, educational organizations, and private and voluntary organizations may be too crowded and too fragmented to make a real difference on a large scale.

But the new reality of aid is one where private aid will become a larger and larger share of total development assistance. Along with the proliferation of non-traditional aid agencies, the spread of private aid from individuals and from large and small foundations will make “harmonization” harder to achieve.

So what can private aid accomplish? In a nutshell, it can transform the effectiveness of global foreign aid by making it more competitive. For decades, poor developing nations have faced a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude from international financial institutions and official donors, and were forced to deal exclusively with a particular official bureaucracy on development projects. Private aid now can change all that by providing an alternative channel for development assistance. But to make this competition work, recipient countries must be free to choose whether aid is channeled through an official government project, or through a more efficient NGO provider. Recipients of aid must also be able to rely on “benchmarks” that compare the effectiveness of private and official aid programs.
A competitive aid system also requires a better understanding of what works and what doesn’t. Neither the “demand” side—what the priority needs of the underserved are—nor the “supply” side—who is doing what and for which communities—have been mapped out at the country level. Without that, it is inevitable that both public and private aid providers will fail to provide systemic change, and will fail to help poor nations develop their own capabilities, both of which are needed for sustained poverty reduction. These are the efforts to which the Development Committee and the Global Philanthropy Forum should dedicate themselves, not to the maintenance of the current inflexible foreign aid system, but to its modernization.

Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in Mexico

A Global Economy and Development and Wolfensohn Center for Development Event
A communication from: Brookings Institution

Event Summary
Despite a decade of macroeconomic stability, Mexico’s growth and productivity performance has been lackluster. A significant factor restricting the Mexican economic growth rate is a social policy that gives workers incentives to seek informal, low-productivity jobs and restricts firms from making strides in growth and investment opportunities.
Event Information
When

Tuesday, May 13, 2008
4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Where

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Directions

Contact: Brookings Office of Communications

E-mail: events@brookings.edu

Phone: 202.797.6105
Register Now

More Related Content »
On May 13, the Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings will host a discussion with Santiago Levy, Brookings nonresident senior fellow and former deputy minister of finance of Mexico. Levy, along with a panel of leading experts, will discuss his new book Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in Mexico (Brookings Institution Press, 2008). In 1997, Levy created Progresa-Oportunidades, an anti-poverty program, focusing on nutrition, health and education. The program has been replicated in over 25 countries and New York City and has helped more than five million families escape from poverty by means of cash transfers. In his book, Levy recommends that these social programs should not be eliminated, but rather improved so that productivity and real wages will increase for all workers and contribute to bringing Mexico’s poor out of poverty.

After the program, speakers will take audience questions. A reception will follow the event.

Participants

Introduction
Lael Brainard
Vice President and Director, Global Economy and Development

Moderator
Johannes F. Linn

Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center for Development

Panelists

Santiago Levy
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development

Jere Behrman
W.R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Economics and Director of the Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania
Nancy Birdsall

President, Center for Global Development
Francisco Ferreira

Lead Economist, Development Research Group, The World Bank

Deloitte Makes its 2008 Report Available and highlights environmental sustainability and globalization as top priorities

From: Deloitte


Deloitte: The Business Issues That Will Matter Most in 2008
Published: 1/14/08
Contact: Francine Fiano
Deloitte Services LP
(203) 708-4254

NEW YORK, January 14, 2008 – The 2008 Presidential election. Energy costs expected to continue their upward climb in 2008. Customers demanding more environmentally friendly products than ever before. Each are challenges and opportunities that will frame 2008, and are three areas that will have dramatic impacts across multiple industry sectors in the coming year, according to a Deloitte report being released today by Deloitte & Touche USA LLP.

“Executives who deeply understand the issues in their industry sector can better position their organizations for competitive advantage in an uncertain marketplace,” said Ed Carey, vice chairman and national managing partner, U.S. Industries, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP. “Our experience tells us that breakthrough ideas in one industry sector are often realized by adapting leading practices from other industry sectors. Our analysis takes a ‘horizontal view’ of leading practices that transcend industry sectors and helps to give executives new insights about issues and trends that are ‘around the corner.’"

The business issues that resonated across multiple industry sectors and could have a dramatic impact this year include:

* Globalization
* Convergence
* Environmental Sustainability
* Rising Energy & Health Care Costs
* Transparency
* Technology Use & Integration
* The 2008 Presidential Election
* Talent Management

The “2008 Industry Outlook: A Look around the Corner” report features the combined insights, analyses and recommendations from Deloitte & Touche USA’s industry sector leaders and more than a dozen subject matter specialists collected during a series of in-depth, one-on-one interviews.

There are outlooks, some with trends and projections, for the following sectors: Aerospace & Defense; Automotive; Banking & Securities; Consumer Products; Energy & Resources; Health Sciences; Insurance; Media & Entertainment; Private Equity, Hedge Funds & Mutual Funds; Process & Industrial Products; Real Estate; Retail; Technology; Telecommunications; Tourism, Hospitality & Leisure; and U.S. Federal & State Government.

As used in this document, “Deloitte” refers to Deloitte & Touche USA LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP and its subsidiaries.

Download a complimentary copy of the report here.

What is a Consortia?

Consortia as it applies to Instituto Conexiones:

An open and informal group of independent organizations and individuals joined by common interests.

A combination or group formed in order to undertake a venture that would be beyond the resources of a single individual/company

Sources: Athabasca University, Pearson Education, IEEE

The Bigger Picture of Rainforest Conservation & Green Investment in Developing Countries

By Kimberly Maria Newton-Klootwyk, 2006

Also published in Dominical Days, Voice of Nosara, & Mariri under the title: "The Bigger Picture ~ Socially Responsible Conservation"

And in TriplePundit under the title "The Hidden Impacts of Conservation and Green Investment Initiatives in Developing Countries"


In Latin America, particularly Costa Rica and Brazil, we are seeing a record-breaking increase in the amount of foreign conservation groups and green investors arriving ready to buy as much land as they can afford in order to "protect the rainforest" and calling on their friends, relatives and business partners to join in – often times at the expense of farming, ranching and indigenous communities that are seen as 'destructive' and contributing to the environmental problems of the region. Foreign-owned private protected areas, organic farms, native tree plantations, eco-communities, summer camps, retreat centers, and other eco-friendly land uses are replacing the clear-cut ranch and pesticide laden farms once owned by the local people. And although there is no denying that the local people are often times mismanaging precious resources and that most of these types of land buyers are hundreds of times better than large scale land development companies or mono-crop plantations that are also coming in by the thousands and openly destroying endangered ecosystems and local communities, eco-minded land buyers are also having an impact, and not always a positive one. And if the goal of 'green' investors and conservationists is to help solve problems such as environmental degradation, cultural extinction, and social injustice, then it is increasingly important for them to see the larger potential impacts of their interventions so they can help advance genuine solutions to these issues, instead of inadvertently contributing to them.

Foreign conservationists and green-minded investors buying land in developing countries for ecosystem protection and to carry out their eco-friendly business visions don't expect to be seen contributing to a problem. Most come to places like Central America with noble ideas and conservation-oriented economic models that are vital for our developing economies. There is also no denying that environmentally and socially responsible land-buyers, conservation groups, investors, etc. are an asset to Central America and similar regions. In many ways, they are the 'saving grace' and the kinds of allies we need to help us face the many challenges we are dealing with. They can help advance sustainable development, enrich society with new ideas, provide green business opportunities for locals, create national green markets, and enhance social and political stability. But what many of these well-intentioned land buyers don't realize is that when land is taken out of the hands of historically marginalized people, such as indigenous or farming communities, even when for the right reasons, social tensions and other types of ecological impact are increased. It takes a local perspective and a wide-angle view of the dynamics involved to understand how this is possible.
I speak from experience. I am a Central American and have spent years studying these issues and conducting applied work in social and ecological justice organizations both in the U.S. and at home. I did not grasp this concept for a long time either. It wasn’t until 2003, when I helped start Costa Rica Conservation Trust (CRCT), a U.S. non-profit dedicated to protecting the rainforests of Costa Rica, my father’s country, that the error of my previous assumptions about how to help my people and endangered ecosystems came into clear focus. Along with this, came the harsh realization that well-educated Central Americans, like me, are often just as disconnected from the reality of our own countryside-dwelling people as the foreigners that are coming in to try to help us are. This is important to note because we are usually the sector that foreign investors and organizations like CRCT speak to or reach out to about their projects and where most of our political leaders come from. Little do these well-intentioned foreigners know that we educated urbanites are often times just as clueless about the true impact their ventures will have on our most marginalized people. Luckily, with my involvement in CRCT and my decision to volunteer as their field researcher, the wool fell from my eyes.

CRCT’s original approach was to buy farms that were for sale bordering an ecologically sensitive Costa Rican reserve on the northern portion of the Path of the Tapir Biological Corridor, home to the highly endangered Baird’s tapir and jaguar. This is a typical conservation strategy employed by hundreds, if not thousands, of conservation groups worldwide and I had supported other similar groups in the past. It seemed like a good idea at the time because we would prevent destructive entities, which are increasingly coming into Costa Rica, from buying these lands by taking them off the market and putting them in the hands of ‘responsible’ owners. We envisioned expanding protected areas, consolidating biological corridors, and establishing eco-campgrounds and educational trails where visiting guests could learn about the rainforest and thus, be inspired to ‘save it’ and donate money to help us put more land under ‘trust.’ After coming up with this plan in meetings and desks far away from the actual site of action, I moved out to the target area and began meeting with the farmers and ranchers of the areas where CRCT intended to buy land. As I attended these meetings and conducted one-on-one interviews with farmers that were selling their land, very important questions quickly emerged that I simply could not ignore. I felt these questions needed to be answered before moving forward, as I was no longer convinced that our efforts would actually save the rainforests or help anyone over the long term.
Why are the farmers selling their land even though they express a desire to not do so? What will happen to the farming families that are displaced by these land purchases? Will they ever be able to buy land again? How will this transfer of land ownership to foreign organizations and individuals affect the social and political stability of this region, especially if locals can no longer afford to buy land in their own country? Will displaced farmers create more environmental problems elsewhere as they migrate to overcrowded, overtaxed urban centers? How many of them will end up in the United States, where they will adopt a consumer-based, disposable lifestyle and become part of the ‘20% of the world’s population that consumes 80% of the world’s resources’? What happens when large amounts of arable land are allowed to convert back to forests? Will the local populations have to start importing corn, wood, beans, and other products that they traditionally grew on their small farms? How is that ecologically sustainable? Is sustainable development economically viable enough to help small farmers keep their farms? Is it enough to move small farmers out of poverty and improve their quality of life so that they no longer need to hunt, log or raise cattle in an unsustainable way? Are local farmers able to manage their own lands sustainably and do they even want to? What will enable them to do so? Is socially responsible conservation even possible, or must we always choose between the animals and humans?
In pursuing the answers to these questions, I joined local committees, met with government entities and local grassroots environmental groups around the country, as well as studying similar cases from around the world. In doing so, I found that there were hidden impacts with our plan that could end up being worse for my people and the environment and that the “collateral” damage might not be worth moving forward with our original plan. I also found that countless local groups are equally or even more concerned about their own fragile ecosystems and are trying to convert to sustainable income strategies but are facing multiple threats and obstacles. Ironically, in addition to the threats from agro-businesses and land developers, their culture and lifestyle was also being threatened by conservation groups and foreigners coming in buying them out because they are seen as too destructive to stay on their farms.
I listened closely to the stories of the local people – stories filled with difficult and ironic decisions, such as ‘whether or not to clear a new area for pasture so they can get a few more heads of cattle on the farm to pay for one of their children to go to college so they can eventually stop relying on unsustainable cattle ranching.’ It was obvious that many were causing environmental damage because they did not have any other way to make a living and the way they did things was what was taught to them by the government and the agro-chemical companies in the past. Some are simply stuck on an agro-chemical treadmill that they don’t know how to get off of. Selling their land seemed like the only alternative to many of them.

In response to this, I began implementing a socially responsible approach to conservation through CRCT that included the local people’s ideas and initiatives as the core – I worked to empower them to try out their eco-friendly income-generating ideas and to make the necessary changes to become the caretakers of their own precious rainforest and thus, hopefully make enough money so they would not have to sell all their land. By providing them with the necessary inspiration, education, resources, and inroads to the burgeoning market of conscious consumers, the farming communities I worked continued to prove that they were more than willing to engage in the greening of their local economy. I have seen them help each other build methane-digesters on their pig farms to stop pollution of their waterways. I have seen them establish and manage recycling centers. I have seen them build up ecotourism cooperatives and create a multitude of related sustainable income strategies to replace destructive practices, including establishing eco-campgrounds, organic farms, botanical trails and other sustainable tourism initiatives. I have seen them denounce the illegal hunting and logging activities of their neighbors and relatives. I have witnessed them develop and carry out environmental education programs with their children, and I have been amazed at how they will travel for miles on foot through the rainy jungle to attend meetings where they collaboratively develop these solutions. Their only motivation is saving their farms, simple lifestyle, and the natural resources they depend on. Every time CRCT and other support groups provided the strategies, assistance, and space for collaborative problem-solving, the locals have proven themselves, especially the youth.
On the flip side, I have witnessed many rural farming families in Central America sell all their land because of pressures from conservation groups, agro-businesses and foreign land developers. Because of economic desperation, in large part due to either climate change, the agrochemical treadmill, or the drop in beef and coffee prices (or a combination of these), most start off thinking of a willing buyer as a ‘gift from heaven.’ But all too often, illiterate farmers that sell their land find out too late, that the amount they received for their farm was, in fact, not much money at all. Most of them have to pay off debts, divide the money among their children (sometimes up to 18!) and move to the city. Low educational levels, unfamiliarity with market-driven urban culture, and a desire for material commodities they never had before also contribute to their money quickly running out. Thus, within a few years, many families end up as nomadic migrants living in the ghettos of Latin American and U.S. cities, where drugs, violence, gangs, and prostitution consume many of their youth. With no land to go back to, a disintegrated family, and few marketable skills, many of the honest ones end up living an impoverished nomadic life as day laborers, landscapers, domestic maids, etc. And desperate ones fall prey to the temptations of the underground economy or turn to crime (i.e. armed robbery). This is not to say that there aren’t wonderful ‘success’ stories, but these are the minority. And all too often, ‘success’ includes loosing their cultural identity and adopting a materialist lifestyle.
Many farming families struggle to keep their farms, and make difficult choices in order save their land. Many of the men (and sometimes the women) go up to the U.S. illegally in search of a living wage, and leave their families behind. Once established abroad, some never return because they are undocumented and the journey is too risky to undertake twice, while other migrants die or are killed during the difficult journey north, leaving many fatherless children strewn across the landscape. Increasingly, the mothers are forced to venture into the city to find work to feed her children, all too often in the prostitution sectors.
I also want to highlight that massive illegal migration also causes social and cultural tensions in the receiving cities and countries, to the point that the U.S. is building a wall on its border with Mexico to try to stop the flow of these kinds of immigrants and private militias there are taking it upon themselves to kill any “wetbacks” they find crossing into their “territory.” In the urban centers like Mexico City, San Salvador, Guatemala City, Los Angeles and Chicago, gangs are increasing and underground economies involving weapons and illegal drugs are growing. In the local cities, which are often not prepared for this massive migration of the farming sector into their city limits, a host of other problems are ensuing, including lack of access to clean drinking water, sanitation systems and housing. These ghetto conditions are causing deaths in children due to unsanitary conditions, and frustration, hopelessness, and increase radicalism among the inhabitants that have no where else to go.
In Central America, history has shown us that when indigenous and marginalized people feel unjustly displaced and hopelessly desperate, there is a higher chance that they will turn to armed resistance, political radicalism, and to eventually demand land reforms. In addition, owning the land one tills is a strongly held cultural value. To the displaced farming community or indigenous group who find themselves unable to own land again in their own country and living in desperate conditions, it makes no difference if the new land owner is a large multinational, an elite family or a well-intentioned green-minded entrepreneur or conservation-oriented non-profit group. To them it is the same old story of displacement and injustice. The Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas is an example of this. The Zapatista rebellion was sparked in large part due to a large scale conservation project that drove off thousands of farmers and ranchers from one of the last remaining pristine jungles in Mexico. In El Salvador, my birth country, we watched in horror as hundreds of acres of forest were burned down by disgruntled ranchers upset about a new protected area that would force them off their lands.
Significant cultural impact is also involved in all this. Many leaders of conservation organizations and green-investors understand the need to live closer to the land and many try to live a simpler lifestyle. In part, this is why many buy rainforest farms in places like Costa Rica or help set up eco-communities. But ironically, the farming and native communities that epitomize these values in their centuries-old way of life are becoming extinct to make way for these vacation farms, eco-lodges, eco-communities, meditation/yoga resorts, and private reserves owned and operated by foreigners wanting to “commune with nature.” Along with this cultural extinction, we are losing knowledge of age-old uses of medicinal plants, agricultural techniques and ways to live closer to specific types of lands.
The social and cultural issues involved are multi-faceted and complex, but rural to urban migration contributes to environmental problems as well. For example, urban households create, on average, two to four times the amount of garbage that rural farming households produce. After leaving the countryside, families that once lived on the same farm are now dispersed throughout numerous urban households. As each household rapidly adopts the consumption-based, disposable lifestyle typical of urban areas, they begin to create much more garbage than they did as one unit living on a farm complex. Also, the amount of resources consumed by urban dwellers is exponentially higher than rural people. This ingestion of resources and creation of waste is increased even more if members of the family end up settling in the United States (a very common scenario).
To add to the irony, it is also common for those farmers and ranchers who were considered an environmental threat while living in the countryside to become migrant laborers for large agro-businesses or factories owned by multi-national corporations that cause much bigger environmental problems worldwide. The huge landless and displaced labor force (willing to do anything to make some money) creates an atmosphere in which large manufacturers and processing plants can pay low wages, deny worker rights, and curtail environmental regulations, providing companies with higher profits that can be used to exploit more natural resources globally or lobby for decreased environmental protections. So as a cheap laborer for a timber company or plastic toy factory, it may be that the individual now has a greater negative impact on the environment than as a “destructive” rancher back on his small rainforest farm.

Furthermore, a significant number of displaced families that cannot afford to buy land again and that opt out of horrid conditions in the cities, end up going deeper into the jungle, where they squat new land, and clear whole new areas of virgin rainforest, bringing a host of new environmental problems into sensitive ecological areas and conflict with the local governments, especially when they cross national borders. Poor migrant families also contribute to the hunting of endangered animals for survival. For example, in Costa Rica the green iguana is increasingly at risk because the poor displaced Nicaraguan farmers, who are coming into the country in search of work, are killing it to feed themselves and their families. I hear the same problems are occurring in Africa with endangered monkeys.
In Central America, there is no denying that we need foreign investment and are in desperate need of allies with win-win mentalities that can bring resources and new ideas that will help us develop our local green economies and protect our endangered ecosystems simultaneously. But as our governments sign off on neo-liberal trade agreements and decrease regulations on foreign investors, the large and often illiterate farming and indigenous sector is left defenseless. Small locally owned businesses are also having a hard time competing, as is happening in the eco-tourism sector in Costa Rica where locals are going out of business because of foreign-owned tourism agencies and eco-lodges that have more capital, contacts and access to technology.
Thus, a more complicated and very ironic ‘bigger picture’ surfaces and it soon becomes obvious that green sector businesses and conservation initiatives, particularly those working in developing regions like Central America, must look at as many angles of their impact as possible before embarking on projects that could have negative repercussions down the line. And although they are certainly not the main cause of a lot of these problems, they can be part of the solution and are in a particularly good position to lead and model the way for the ‘less-conscious’ sectors of society. Conservation minded businesses and non-profit organizations are the cutting edge when it comes to finding and implementing creative solutions for long term sustainability, social responsibility and prosperity for all. They are also the ones more willing to hear this message and make the necessary changes to assure a positive ecological and social footprint in all that they do. The growing number of conscious investors and conservation groups can opt to work with us to accomplish mutual goals, rather than unintentionally ignoring the hidden impacts of their projects. I am reaching out to these types of foreigners and entrepreneurs because it seems like these sectors want for us in the developing world what we want for ourselves - long-term prosperity, economic growth, healthy communities, vibrant ecosystems and peace, which will benefit us all as well as our shared planet. Our differences are often simply a matter of awareness levels and perspective.
To help further research and advocate about these issues, an institute is being created called Instituto Conexiones (Connections Institute). Our aim is to help U.S. entities carrying out non-profit or for-profit projects in Latin America become aware of their hidden impacts, and provide hands-on, cross-cultural liaison and project development services to help them become true allies to the local people and environment of their sphere of influence. We invite you to join us in our efforts and to comment on what is presented in this publication. E-mail us at info-at-connectionsinstitute.net
++++++++++++
Special thanks to editing work of Lorna Li and Tanya Ridino

Photos courtesy of Jon Orlando Photography.

Calling for Socially Responsible Real Estate Companies and Land Developers in Costa Rica & Mexico

If you are a socially conscious individual or organization participating in the exchange of land and houses in Costa Rica or Mexico, we want to hear from you! We are collecting real life case studies of real estate brokers and land development organizations on how they interact with those who are selling the lands.

We have been involved in looking at the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan campesino (farmer) and Native American side of this exchange and have received negative feedback from them regarding the impact land issues are having on their lives and communities.

We feel there is more we can do with regards to this issue. The interest foreigners have on buying land in these areas should be a positive thing for the local economies and villages. The potential for positive opportunitities for collaboration between these sectors is huge.

Who is out there working in an integrated way while facilitating real estate contracts? Please contact us or nominate someone you feel should be showcased as a model case study for inclusion in our publications.

Gracias.

Contact: info@connectionsinstitute.net

1Sky Aims to Unite the Voices Calling on the U.S. Government for Sustainability in their Policy Making

Excerpt From: Gillian Caldwell, Campaign Director of 1Sky - 3.19.08

...I honestly feel that the climate crisis, and the opportunity we have to turn it around, represents the defining challenge of our time.

And I just can't look my kids in the eye unless I am working to tackle that challenge.

This is an incredible time for our movement. As last year's Step It Up and Power Shift events so clearly demonstrated, technology and the internet is connecting us in unprecedented ways. And this country -- from our political leaders to our business leaders to our neighbors -- have never been so clear about the severity of the climate crisis.

Thanks to your leadership, what wasn't possible for the climate movement just two years ago is now possible. With your help, 1Sky can build the networks, the alliances, and the political power that we need to turn our country in the right direction.

• As the current Congressional district visits show, we're coordinating a groundswell of activity. In the next few days, 1Sky volunteers have organized and are completing more than 500 planned visits to local Congressional district offices in every state in the country.

• 1Sky is making heavy investments in field. We're busy locating 1Sky organizers in New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and Alaska with partnering organizations. And we'll be doubling that number in other states around the country in the coming months.

• We've secured dozens of allies amongst state, regional and national greens, as well as organizations from the business, social justice, student and faith communities. After such a successful year of climate action, there's a groundswell of interest in what we can do together.

• We're also preparing to launch a new website next month with the tools and resources needed to support a truly national movement.

We can do this. But the stakes are high. And we can only do it if we all lean into this together in a truly collaborative and creative way.

It's time for us to speak with one voice. We've identified 3 solutions that will transform America from being part of the problem to paving the way towards a clean energy future. The 1Sky solutions are three bold and inter-related policy solutions, driven by science, that match the scale and severity of the crisis. They are three solutions that our next president and next Congress can implement and transform America from being part of the problem to leading the way towards solutions, here and abroad.

That's what 1Sky is all about -- millions of Americans coming together to make our voices add up. To change the politics of what's possible in Washington, DC and deliver what is necessary.

We're growing, and we're still building the team. If you know anyone passionate about tackling global warming, please send them this link and invite them to apply immediately: http://www.1sky.org/about/jobs

I'm so glad to be working with you,

Gillian Caldwell
Campaign Director

Geraldo Rivera Writes About the Growth of Hispanics in America in his new book, "His Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S."

Extract from an interview on the Tavis Smiley Show

On PBS/KQED - 3.13.08

Tavis: With all due respect to Eliot Spitzer, let's now turn our attention and talk about something that really does matter, and that is the issue of immigration and specifically, the Hispanic community. I love, as I said earlier, the title of the book, "His Panic." What is this panic all about where your people are concerned?

Rivera: Well, you have a - I'll tell you, I could really encapsulate the whole theme of the book with one phone call I received from a guy named Sergio in Portland, Oregon last week. He's a guy who was brought here by his family at the age of three; his dad got a green card. Sergio ultimately became a citizen of the United States.

He's living now, as I said, in the Portland area, has two children, both boys, five years old and seven years old. So Sergio called me because the boys went home from school crying that they're being called border-jumpers. They said, "Daddy, what's a border-jumper?"

The problem, Tavis, is yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration, no doubt about it. But when you have programs like Lou Dobbs and some of the others who every night are showing pictures of Mexicans jumping over the wall or wading across the Rio Grande River, it casts a taint over the entire community, citizen and immigrant, legal and illegal, alike.

That story I just related to you is part of a generalized phenomenon now. Groups like the KKK and other hate-mongering groups according to the Southern Poverty Law Center with a report released just this week, these groups have been resurgent. They were almost dead in 2000 and now on the backs of this issue, on the backs of these illegal immigrants, they are resurging, they are - hate crimes against Hispanics are exploding.

You have a very, very stressful situation being created because of the demagogues and the savage right-wing talk radio campaign who are scapegoating mainly Latino immigrants for everything from crime to disease to stealing jobs to bringing terrorism in. Next they're going to blame them for acne and eating our sandwiches.

Tavis: You take this head-on in the book. How would you respond to Lou Dobbs or anyone else on that list that you laid out a moment ago that says that it is illegal, first and foremost it is illegal, and from that point on nothing in your book really matters? Geraldo, it's illegal.

Rivera: Well, I point out - and the second sentence is my forebears were also immigrants and they came here illegally. The fact of the matter is in the 19th century, there were no immigration laws. If you weren't a prostitute or a convict and if you were a White person, you could come into this country. The Chinese were excluded in the 1880s, then we had 50 years of White, European immigration, and then in 1924 the National Origins Act, which dispersed visas to foreigners wanting to come to this country on the basis of race.

Seventy-six percent of the visas went to people from the United Kingdom or Scandinavia, and then the percentage went down as you got closer to the Mediterranean and presumably less White. Italians got 3 percent, Greeks got 1.5 percent of the visas. None for Africa, none for Asia, none for Latin America. So we always had a race-based immigration program, so that belies the whole comment that their forebears came here legally; mine couldn't come here legally.

Well, my dad was Puerto Rican, and that's another story; he's a citizen. But my point is that Latinos really had no avenue other than the temporary guest worker programs, the Bracero programs that developed over the years. Right now, you have in the United States a tremendous explosion of the Latino community. Most of it is because of our families having more babies than other families.

We have a very young population, 25 years old on average as opposed to 40 years old for Anglo Americans. So there's definitely something going on. We were four or five million in 1950, 45 million today, and what I believe - and I base my statements on the emails that I've been receiving - racial, racist, racialist, however you want to couch it, Geraldo, go back from where you came from, you brown turd in the nation's toilet bowl. Take these people back with you.

The tone, Tavis, is - and I've been 40 years in public life and I have never received this kind of vibe before. It's an us against them situation that has been created largely by the demagogues and it's very, very troubling.

Tavis: And yet the flip side of that is, which I'm trying to juxtapose here, that everybody wants to make money off of or take advantage of in one way, exploit in one way or another, the fact that they are here. How do you explain that, that there is this visceral maltreatment of immigrants, and yet there's so many people making money - all kinds of American companies.

Every time you go on a plane these days or anywhere you go you hear an English announcement and you hear a Spanish - we know they're here. We're making money off of them. And yet I'm trying to juxtapose that with the hate that you're talking about.

Rivera: Well, we talked earlier about Spitzer and horny hypocrites. There is rampant hypocrisy in the area of illegal immigration as well. I believe that the people who are flogging this issue on a nightly basis are people who have figured out how to cure their ratings problems on cable news or talk radio. They are doing this because it rates.

And then you have situations like Mitt Romney. You've been at our summer house in Massachusetts. For 25 years, I have a real connection to Massachusetts. I was there when Mitt Romney was governor. The person he became when he decided to run for president is not the Mitt Romney that we knew as people from Massachusetts.

This guy is a person who has been exposed. His own lawn crew in the governor's mansion were illegal immigrants, and yet he was demonizing them in a way - I actually had a conversation if you have a minute I could relate to you with Mitt Romney. I was doing Bill O'Reilly's program, as I do every Friday. I came out in the green room. Governor Romney was there and he's a very charming man in person, he couldn't be nicer.

And I said, "Governor, I'm glad I've run into you because I've got to tell you, the extreme rhetoric in your anti-immigration platform is really distressing a lot of Latinos. We're worried; we're hearing stories now where people with mustaches and brown skin are being carded at traffic stops, cops asking them for proof of their citizenship status. This is very troubling."

And he said, "Oh, no, Geraldo, no, no." He's such a sincere guy. "No, no, I only am interested in illegal immigrants." And I told him, I used the word putrid fog. Your rhetoric and the Minute Men and everything that they're doing is creating a climate that's like a putrid fog that lies over the entire Hispanic community now and Governor, I'm telling you, it's going to cost you in Florida.

And he said, "No, Geraldo, I've got 45 Hispanics on my advisory community in Florida." And I said, "Governor, good luck, it's not going to be enough." So sure enough, he spent a fortune in Florida; he drank café con leche; he said, "Cuba is, Castro no;" he wore the Guayaberra shirt; he did all the formulaic things to get the Cubans on his side and guess what? They voted for John McCain five to one. Because even citizens are extremely concerned by the tone of this debate, and finally, we are going to, I hope, hold these public officials accountable.

Tavis: We're just scratching the surface of a fine new book by veteran journalist Geraldo Rivera. The new book is called "His Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S." Geraldo, always an honor to have you on the program, take care.

Read an exerpt of his book: click here.

Is Corporate America Waking up and Smelling Another Kind of Green??

Corporate America goes green

Thurs. March 13, 2008
By: David Louie

SANTA BARBARA, CA (KGO) -- For years, environmentalists and corporate America have been at odds over sustainability and climate change -- that's changing.

An "eco"-nomics conference in Santa Barbara is taking place where one-time adversaries say they're ready to move forward together.

Wal-mart's president and CEO, H. Lee Scott, says it was tough dealing with environmental critics. Wal-mart's mission was helping Americans stretch their budgets.

"Some were nipping at our toes, some had a full grasp. It was a little bit of both," said Wal-Mart president and CEO Lee Scott.

Now they are working together and attending a Dow Jones "eco"-nomics conference, learning how companies can make money by being green.

"More and more companies understand that the future is going to be individual consumers and governments demanding environmentally sound products and that they see a profit in supplying the demand," said Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp.

Fred Krupp is President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Wal-mart says Krupp and other nonprofit groups have helped the company reduce waste, boost energy efficiency and promote green products in its stores.

Krupp's new book puts the spotlight on a number of companies with innovative technology -- such as Miasole in Santa Clara that makes thin solar film. Start-up's that will reform energy use and solve global warming issues.

"The technologies being developed in the Bay Area are going to end up being a boom that will dwarf the switchover to personal computers or even the Internet boom. This is going to be a much, much bigger thing," said Krupp.

However, even big, established companies are jumping in with profits in mind.

Andrew Liveris is President & CEO of Dow Chemical. His global company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to solve environmental problems.

"We have the science, we have the scientists. I employ 6,500 PhD's. If I can just point them and say, bring me a solution, find me some answers, bring them to the table and see whether there's a business response -- The business of making money in environmental issues," said Dow Chemical Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris.

Hollywood actor and environmental activist Ed Begley, Jr., also spoke at the conference. He thinks it's only a matter of time before government comes to the table.

"When you see many of the financial magazines having a cover story about the emerging green marketplace, I think the time is now. People know that you can have good products that are energy efficient. You can give people a cool beverage and a warm shower, you're just going to do it more efficiently," said actor and environmental activist Ed Begley.

A word often used today was momentum; however momentum can be broken by two potential problems - immigration policy and a potential brain drain. We'll explore those issues as our coverage continues on Friday.

(Copyright ©2008 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

From The Earth Day Network - 02.28.2008

If You Want to Do One Thing on Earth Day: CALL FOR CLIMATE!

Global warming is our most urgent environmental problem: The time for waiting and inadequate solutions is over. On Earth Day, April 22nd, join Earth Day Network in our global Call for Climate by contacting your national leaders and demanding bold, swift and fair action to tackle climate change. And from now until Earth Day, take action and sign Earth Day Network's Sky Petition.

To buy a poster, click here

If you are in the United States, help us generate one million phone calls to Congress on April 22nd. Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representatives. Tell them the current global warming proposals in Congress are inadequate. Tell them you want:

- A moratorium on new coal-burning plants,

- Renewable energy,

- Carbon-neutral buildings,

- Protection for the poor and middle class in the new green economy.

Tell five friends about this campaign - have them enter the Capitol number into their phones now. And make sure they call on Earth Day, April 22nd!

This Earth Day, it's time to change the forecast for global warming.

URGENT CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS!

With Earth Day less than 2 months away, we want to break all the records! We are aiming to register 20,000 events this year, and we can't do it without you! If you have some spare time and a computer with internet connection, and would to help us, register at our Volunteer Center or contact Michele Ditto at ditto@earthday.net. Together we can make this the biggest Earth Day yet!

NEW ON EARTH DAY TV

Don't miss our interview with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Professor Mohan Munasinghe, Vice Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Bracken Hendricks, author of the hit book Apollo's Fire. Discover how students at Thomas Jefferson High School plan their next Environmental Impact Club activities and be inspired by the passion of the thousands of people who came to DC to lobby Congress during Power Shift 2007.

On April 16th, tune in to the broadcast of Chill Out: Campus Solutions to Global Warming, sponsored by Earth Day Network organized by the National Wildlife Federation and ClimateCounts.org student-made videos, inspiring presentations from contest winners, solution-focused discussions, and live Q&As with people who really are changing the world.

Invitation: A Critical Look at NAFTA - 2.28.08

A communication from Global Exchange:

Please attend our March 5 forum in Washington, DC: Linking Agriculture, Development and Migration: A Critical Look at NAFTA Past, Present and Future.

Join experts from the US, Canada, and Mexico as they take a critical look at how NAFTA has impacted the region and what we can do to reverse the trends that displaced farmers and workers in all three countries and sent millions of Mexicans into the migration stream.

In addition to the distinguished panelists, Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Canadian Member of Parliament Peter Julian, and Mexican congressman Victor Quintana will address the forum.

Click here for more information.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
2nd Floor, Root Room
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
(Close to Dupont Circle metro, south exit)

If you plan to attend, please RSVP by sending an email to Maria@boell.org or call 202-462-7512 by Monday, March 3rd. Also, please indicate in your response if you will need a headset for simultaneous English/Spanish translation.

P.S. Click here to see Global Exchange Human Rights Director Ted Lewis and Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies Manuel Perez Rocha on Link TV discuss migration push factors, FTAs in Latin America, and how these issues are and are not being addressed by US presidential candidates.

UN World Food Program warns of coming hunger crisis due to new biofuel demands - 2.26.08

From BBC News:

UN warns over food aid rationing

The WFP's budget requirements are rising by millions of dollars a week

The director of the UN's World Food Programme has said it is considering plans to ration food aid because of rising prices and a shortage of funds.

Josette Sheeran told the BBC that the WFP needed increased contributions from donors to make sure it could meet the needs of those who already rely on it.

She said it also faced growing demands from countries like Afghanistan, where people were now unable to afford food.

Food prices rose 40% last year because of rising demand and other factors.

Earlier this month, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said the rising price of cereals such as wheat and maize had become a "major global concern".

The FAO estimated poor countries would see their cereal import bill rise by more than a third this year. Africa as a whole is expected to see a 49% increase.

The organisation has called for urgent action to provide farmers in poor countries with improved access to seeds and fertiliser to increase crop production.

'Growing needs'

In an interview with the BBC on Monday, Ms Sheeran said the WFP was holding talks with experts to decide whether food aid would need to be stopped or rationed if new donations did not arrive at the agency in the short term.

In some of these developing countries, prices have gone up 80% for staple food Josette Sheeran, WFP executive director

The former US undersecretary of state said she hoped the cuts could be avoided, but warned that the agency's budget requirements were rising by several millions of dollars a week because of the higher food prices.

"If food is twice as expensive, we can bring half as much in for the same price and the same contribution," she said.

"It will take increased contributions to make sure we can meet those already assessed needs."

Ms Sheeran said there was an urgent need for the funding shortage to be addressed because "in many places, we are the only source of food for some people".

"We're also seeing some new growing needs in some places like Afghanistan, where people are being thrown into food insecurity just simply due to the higher food prices."

She said those who had been hardest hit so far were people in developing countries who were living on 50 US cents (£0.25) a day, 80-90% of which was already being spent on food.

Global wheat prices have risen 83% in the past year

"In some of these developing countries, prices have gone up 80% for staple food," she added. "When you see those kinds of increases, they are simply priced out of the food markets."

Even middle-class, urban people in countries such as Indonesia, Yemen and Mexico were increasingly being priced out of the food market or forced to sacrifice education and healthcare, she warned.

Ms Sheeran said Egypt had just widened its food rationing system after two decades and Pakistan had reintroduced ration cards after many years.

China and Russia were meanwhile imposing price controls, while Argentina and Vietnam were enforcing foreign sales taxes or export bans, she said.

The WFP's ability to mitigate the impact of rising food prices has also been hampered by a significant decrease in the past five years of supplies of "in-kind food aid" - food produced abroad and delivered to vulnerable people in emergencies.

In-kind food aid peaked in 2000, when there were large surpluses and low prices for cereals.

The US, the world's largest donor of food aid, has since reduced its surplus and instead chosen to provide funding to international agencies.